| Home | News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia |
| The Cyber Boxing Zone Message Board |
The last time I entered into a conversation with you, in which we did not agree on the subject (Roy Jones), it turned into a pointless P*ssing match.
I have made a commitment to Gor (and the board) here, that I will not go down these roads agian.
I respectfully disagree with your viewpoints as they pertain to this subject.
Thank You.
Hawk
Hawk: If you and I had taken that approach sometime ago we would have missed out on some interesting exchanges, most recently on Jeffries v. Louis.
My experience is that Barry is a good guy. It takes two people to get in a pissing contest. If you think its going to far, you can always back off.
Besides, its a good question.
I appreciate the advice.
And I have always enjoyed our "sparring" in the past.
But My experience from the "Are there any Roy Jones fans out there" thread, suggests to me that it would not be prudent to go down this road with Mr. Deskins.
So I will leave it at that.
But agian, thanks Ray.
Hawk
Suit yourself. I've always enjoyed my exchanges of messages with Barry.
A couple of observations: there are a refreshing number of lighter weight fighters on the list.
On Chang: he's one of those fighters who's bare record - impressive though though the numbers are - probably has people asking 'well, who did he beat?'; I suspect that sometimes the defeats he suffered at the end of his career, after the comeback, probably also allow people to question him. I think, however, he was one of those fighters who was totally dominant against his opposition (in the way say Roy Jones was at LH) and a fighter who for a variety of reasons allowed outside influences to erode his skills; the comeback was ill advised but some still think he beat the talented Chitalada again. I think he is a 'great' fighter - whether one of the five best on that list, well I'd need to think a bit about that.
On Hamed: there are plenty on that list and already in the HoF who are inferior to Naseem but I also think Barry's breakdown of his career overlooks the fact that in some of his victories - say Medina, Ingle, McCullough, Sanchez - he made heavier weather of the victory than might be expected and while I respect the achievements of say Robinson or Ingle as fighters they were in reality at best Euro level fighters rather than world class; while Bungu, Vazquez, Johnson and Kelley were IMO on the way down when Hamed got to them. I think he still beats them in their prime but it weakens his claim slightly.
>>>The last time I entered into a conversation with you, in which we did not agree on the subject (Roy Jones), it turned into a pointless P*ssing match.<<<
Really...pehaps you were pissing...I was making a very strong case for Roy Jones!
Sorry that you were not up for the debate, but it just sounds like you do not have a strong argument to back your claim and that you may very well have no idea what you are talking about! If you are not going to debate an issue then you should really just keep quite about it...especially if you are going to criticize someone else's claim without explaining your own...sad really!
I asked you, in a very respectful way, why you feel that Laciar and Chang are more worthy than Hamed and you pretty much insult me and have nothing to back your claim! Talk about an issue getting into a pissing contest...gee...I wonder how that could ever happen with you!!!
Last edited by BDeskins; 10-08-2007 at 06:29 PM.
I agree with Paulie's points on Chang and Hamed.
I suspect many would give Chang more credit and he would have greater visibility had he spent more time at the proper flyweight limit.
Ray, Need I say anything else?
Just to clarify here and not that I feel the need to explain myself to anyone, but....MY comments re Hamed were in response to Starlingstomps comment on Hamed. Tedsares post about Danny Lopez got me interested in seeking out the current membership and after posting that, I was writing MY post that dealt with who I would induct into the HOF and I also echoed Stomps comments on Hamed.
Mr. Deskins, I didn't even read your post, and didn't realize you even wrote one until you addressed me.
As I have already said, I have no real interest in conversing with you, as it has been made very clear where it will go.
That said, the OVERALL subject matter (The IBHOF) here DOES interest me and I will continue to post on this thread with my thought and comments about it. Thank You very much.
And now as I segue into what I actually wanted to post here........
Stomp, Paulie, or Deep, Any of you know how long Chang has appeared on the IBHOF's ballot?
Are fighters ever dropped after so many years? Is it anything like other HOF's in whihc if they fall below a certain %, they are dropped from future consideration or if they miss induction after so many years they are dropped?
I'm thinking that this might be the year Chang gets in, becuase other than Holmes, I don't think there is a shoe in. I don't want to say it's a weak class. But based on how the voters seem to vote historically, this year seems like a very good opportunity for him to get in.
Any one have any further details on the voting process or the ballot creation process here on the IBHOF?
It does strike me curious how the list is created in the first place. And how a Davey Moore isn't on the ballot, or if he has ever been or if he has, how did he get dropped.
Any insight on this I think would be greatly appreciated by all.
Thanks.
Hawk
I respect your opinion on Wells but I dont agree that being a long reigning regional champion should gain admittance into the hall of fame. I think George Chuvalo was a better fighter than Wells and I would hate to see Chuvalo in the hall. A great guy, but not deserving of the hall even if he was canadian champ forever. Id hate to see the longest running NABF heavyweight champ to get in. I guess my point is that if you arent even world class its a pretty hard argument that you should be enshrined in the INTERNATIONAL hall of fame or the WORLD hall of fame. I think that pretty much sums up Well's problem. The Brits loved him, he was a good club level fighter with his own niche in that part of the world but pretty much everytime he stepped up he fell WAY short of the mark to the point where he was almost a punchline while still very much in his prime.
so if you ever had 100 percent charge of the HOF, who would you boot and who would you keep out of the people are ready in??Originally Posted by hawk5ins
Braddock a go??
looking over the list of previous inductees as well as the guys nominated this year i feel danny lopez, rodolfo gonzalez and davey moore are truly glaring ommisions. problem is this hall has already lost credibility with many people.
i am as sick of them overlooking west coasters as our brothers from the orient and europe are of some of their fighters being passed over. we all do have gaps in what we saw but for me to see barry mcguigan in the hall and not danny lopez just slays me...to the point that they can shove their hall.
greg
For anyone who is remotely interested, here are the rules for admission to the Baseball Hall of Fame:
http://web.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/rules.jsp
I always liked the way the Baseball Hall of Fame did it, with two catagories: Regular election and the veterans committee. There is probably a way to do it in boxing too. Regular election is reserved for guys who were truly great; election by the veterans committee for those who didn't make it in the regular election but still were outstanding enough to be recognized.
I'd scrap it and start all over again.
I have said in the past that even fighters like a Matthew Saad Muhammad probably don't belon, becuase the HOF should be about the elite and not the Hall of the very good.
I'd like to amend that somewhat.
Saad probably does belong. But he's not a first ballott Hall of Famer. I'm thinking he'd probably make it in on like a 6th or 7th try.
I'm a Huge Norton fan, but IMO he doesn't belong. I'm not a big Johansson fan or a McGuigan fan and IMO they certainly don't belong.
I'd make it TOUGH to get in to the Hall. Not impossible, but difficult. It shouldn't be about letting in popular fighters. It should be about inducting DESERVING fighters.
Set up clearly defined criteria in whihc nominees have to meet.
Have an established board that would vote on this and Make in INTERNATIONAL as well. I'm thinking somewhere around 50 to 75 writers and historians would do the trick and like Other sports, have there be a set % that is required to be met. I'm clearly in favor of a 5 year wait.
IMO, the Womens Golf Hall Of Fame, has some of the best entrance standards of ANY Hall of Fame. You are required to have won a specific number of sanctioned tournaments that is set at a lofty, yet acheivable goal and or a specific number of Majors won.
The design of this is set so that ONLY the very best get in.
If it were my Hall, that's what I would want.
Now obviously there are differeing opinions on who would qualify as a very good or very great and who would gain entrance and who would not. The greater number of voters would help even this out.
My personal list of who should be in (fighters only), is under 50 fighters right now based on who would be eligible.
If you have 50 to 75 voters, obviously the numbers would increase. There may be 10-15 fighters that I might not feel should be in that 20 or so others feel strongly about that are deserving.
I ultimately just want the bar set higher than it currently is. And I think a wider variety of voters, would also open the doors to those that we have seen shut out for so long.
I don't think that is so wrong.
Hawk
I believe you are either in or out. Getting in on the 6th try or whatever speaks to me of filling a slot that must be included that 6th time because that slot is not occupied by normally a more deserving person.
It may take multiple times for worthy guys because of course there will be disagreements over worthy candidates.
But to me, there is no man who is a kinda entrant.. or one that must wait a certain amount of time.
If it takes 6 years to assess the situation enough that a guy who was thought not deserving for 5 tries has been reassessed TO be thought to belong... then I am confused as to the knowledge of those voting. Surely there are cases where a man most think ought to be in there is kept out, thus the process Hawk speaks of.
So as to not personally offend anyone who really ought not to be offended, I don't assume the voters are ignorant of course. So of course, the only thing to me that changes over those 6 tries is the as yet underserving guy being compared to guys who have gotten in over that 6 year span... thus arriving at a hall that was a lot like the one that needed to be scrapped: borderline men being included in a hall of fame no one likes.
That the ideaof aBill Conlin NOT voting for Nolan Ryan in his first year of eligibility is not your cup of tea?
Either he belongson thefirst ballot or not at all?
I can see that. It kind of goes along with my stringent thinking as it is.
If it is a "weak" year and say you allow 7 to 8 fighters in a year, I think this could even out over time without purpsoefully leaving off becuase you don't think he's waited long enough. And at the same time, if there are a variety of voters and there are no clear "gimmees" and you need to meet a certain %, there will not be a clear consensus as to "ok, he's waited long enough, let's let him in now."
I'm not sure about havign fighters getting dropped from a ballott and then moved to a veterans ballott though. I'm up in the air on that.
Hawk
I second that. Yuri was a fantastic dominant Fly and Nunn was on his day, considered the best in the business. Both were great champs at the time. Legitimate champs who had successful careers. My man Barry also deserves a place. Hamed I would NOT include as I thought he fought bums during his reign. He finally met a bit of class and he lost decisively. Barerra IMO loses at feather to Barry, Fenech, Nelson, Sanchez, Pedroza etc etc. He wouldn't be strong enough to beat those guys....
Where the hell are the Canizales brothers.....
Both were great fighters with Orlando
definitely deserving to be in.
Junior Jones is NOT in?
He was a fantastic fighter at peak with a great career...
Maybe Jones is NOT eligible yet as his last fight was 2002?
Wasn't Arbachakov on tha ballot last year?.
As long as Rock, Louis and Ali got it, I ok with that lol.
Thomas Hauser wrote an article that really I identified with as far who Truly belongs.
What he did was send out a poll (a few years Prior to writing the article) to Trainers Teddy Atlas, Eddie Futch, Gil Clancy, Angelo Dundee and Manny Steward, Historians like Randy Roberts and writers like Izenberg, Katz and Farhood and others within the boxing community like DOn Elbaum, Arthur Mercante and Johnny Bos. The Poll asked each "elector to name 20 fighters they felt Absolutely belonged in the Hall.
Only require ment was the fight be retired for 5 years. And each could disgnate thier own standards. Most Common were Longevity, Record agianst other greats and Historical Impact.
When he tabulated the votes, there were 24 fighters who seperated themselves from the rest. ANd 6 fighters were named on every Ballott (In bold). THe top 24 are listed in order of the vote tally:
Robinson
Louis
Ali
Armstrong
Benny Leonard
Willie Pep
Jack Johnson
Rocky Marciano
Archie Moore
Jack Dempsey
Walker
Greb
Gans
Sullivan
Ross
Saddler
Tunney
Ez Charles
Langford
Canzoneri
Hagler
Ketchel
Monzon
Jofre
Those also recieving votes were
Basilio, Benvenuti, Britton, Burley, Cerdan, COnn, Corbett, Dixon, Fitzsimmons, Foster, Frazier, Gavilan, Griffith, Jeffries, lamotta, Kid Lewis, Liston, Benny Lynch, Napoles, Olivares, Carlos Ortiz, Pryor, Luis Rodriguez, Sal Sanchez, Micheal Spinks, Wilde, Ike Williams, Wills and Zarate
THose listed that once the met eligibility who would deserve entrance to the Hall according to the voters were: Chavez, Duran, Foreman, Hearns, Holmes, Holyfield, Hopkins, Jones, SR Leonard and Pernell Whitaker. Those considered on the Cusp of gaining entrance when they were eligible were Barrera, Trinidad and Tyson.
Remember, this article was written in 2002, and the poll was taken a few years earlier.
I understand that some of the timeframes here don't make sense and are inconsistant. For example Eddie Futch died in late 2001. If Hauser took a poll a few years earlier as he stated, I'm not sure any of those would have considered Barrera or Hopkins or Trinidad as Hall of Fame topic worthy. All three needed the first few years of the 2000's to have accomplsihed enough to garner any consideration.
That said, I think the names that were mentioned here, were names that would be a great starting point for the Hall.
The first 24, absolute Layups. They go in on the first ballot were we to revamp the Hall. I would probably include every name in the "next" 29 as well. That starts out the Hall with 43 members. Add in those in the following crew who NOW would be eligible and he have Duran, Holmes, Foreman, SRL and Whitaker. That's 48 members.
The others mentioned would IMO be worthy upon eligibility. And I think from THIS point, if you began induction ceremonies starting this coming summer, with only 7 or 8 members a year eligible, then you could have some unbeleivably TOUGH choices on who the panel of 50-75 to choose from.
Azumah Nelson absolutely belongs in the Hall. But with so many to choose from, it might be 4 or 5 years before he makes it in. Saad Muhammad? Well with only 7 or 8 going in a year, it might be 6 or 7 years before he gets in. And remember, each year more fighters would be come eligible. So that makes it even tougher to gain entrance.
THis is MY Utpopian view of the Boxing Hall of Fame (with an assist from Thomas Hauser no doubt).
In My little world.
Hawk
I agree with the 1st 24 and virtually every name immediately below them in the post on Hauser. I do wonder how guys like Johansson and Benvenuti got in, and in my own prejudiced world, I found Whitaker so displeasing to watch--like every time--that I'd rather not see him in. I would certainly agree he had the talent and the record, but I'm not sure how much "Fame" he achieved outside of the diehard boxing-watchers world. Looking at guys who actually made it into the Hall . . . Cuevas, Terry Norris, Rosario, Palomino?? I'm not so sure. Not sure any of them was a "great" fighter for one thing. I like 'em all, but if they are in, that standard allows many others.
Can't see why Tyson is on the cusp whereas Frazier makes it (maybe I didn't understand the cusp thing). Sal Sanchez to me became more of a legend in death than when he was fighting, and I don't see him as a sure HOFer at all EXCEPT that the standards are as loose as they are (I'm sure that will evoke passions but it's my opinion, and I saw him fight plenty. And I don't give credit for future bouts that might have been.). Azumah I agree definitely belongs, but I also like Norton and Saad, both of whom were credits to the sport, and had the "Fame." Saad had solid credentials at lightheavy at a time when that was a glamorous--alright, talent-laden--division. Lots of exciting defenses and legendary victories BEFORE he won the title.
Holmes belongs without a second thought (I realize this list was compiled before he was eligible).
The women's Golf HOF criteria are interesting, and surely fair . . . but then, what do they need to vote on? Sounds like you either make it or don't based on the criteria. Or are those criteria necessary just to make it to the voting round?
One note: if the HOF were limited to 24 inductees or not many more, it wouldn't be a place worth visiting, IMO. There should be a wider group with more general appeal. As a Don Curry fan, he's the sort I'd like to see in the Hall, in recognition of his greatness or near-greatness, if only for a brief period. (But then, I guess I'd have to admit Sanchez under the same criteria, which, due to his popularity, probably wouldn't be a bad thing. The Hall is a business and needs to pay its bills, so more inductees is better, as long as the criteria aren't unconscionably diluted . . . )
Last edited by Michael Frank; 10-09-2007 at 04:17 PM.
Thought Tyson was on the cusp of being inducted upon eligibility. That is their viewpoint.
Joe Frazier recieved votes by those Polled and thus makes the second list.
Personally I think both belong.
The Current IBHOF, while small in size, isn't soley about those who are inducted and no one else. Heck there is a statue of Billy Backus in there (due obviously due to location of the Hall) and Cast of Primo Carnera's fist.
Neither are in the Hall but both have memoriabilia about them in there.
When I first visited, there was an early Ring Robe of Sugar Ray Leonard (If I'm not mistaken, it was the one he wore for the Andy Hawk Price fight. Anyone who has also been, can you confirm if I have that right?) Leoanard had not yet been inducted yet into the Hall.
The Hall of Fame isn't solely about the inductees. The Enshrinee Plaques are certainly about those who are inducted, but the Hall is about more then JUST those inducted.
Any Hall of Fame should be where you go to read up on and learn about the great participants and events of the sport. It's not limited to just who is enshrined. Diego Corralles and Jose Luis Castillo have almost no chance of gaining entrance into the Hall (at least by my standards) Nor would Arturo Gatti or Mickey Ward. But the thrilling wars that these fighters participated
in would be something that the Boxing Hall should and would recognize.
This said, Canastota would garner infinite more respect if it did have more restrictive and consistant induction policies in place.
Boxing being boxing, we currently have two seperate and unrelated Halls of Fame. ANd neither are perfect.
IMO a rehaul is desperately in need.
Hawk
Maybe we should start our own Hall of Fame because the good folks at the IBHOF and WBHOF sure aren't going to change their induction policies.
I'll contribute my Jack Dempsey autograph to our new Hall . . . how's that for a start?
Maybe I could even convince my old buddy Sean O'Grady to let loose of that film of the Danny Lopez fight!! After all, I did teach him how to drive a car so I think he owes me!
BTW, I wish you guys would drop mentioning the women's golf HOF. I find thinking about Annika Sorenstam incredibly distracting, and I have a lot of work to get done this afternoon. Dan - don't you dare post one of your pictures!!
Junior Jones was a good fighter (and somehow did have Barrera's number), but no way is he hall of fame material.
He was startched by Darryl Pinckney (among others) for god's sake.
The CYBHOF?
Hawk
I actually had Marco winning the rematch agianst Jones, as did several others at ringside, albeit closely.
Agreed with you re Junior's Hall worthiness.
Hawk
Sure. We take the guys who made Hauser's tier one list and induct them as the initial inductees in the regular hall, and induct the second tier guys in the Veteran's Hall.
Requirements: Retired for 5-years and eligible for 5-years. After 5 years, you're off the ballot for the regular hall. The 5-years times just right for the guys who were active when Hauser did his list. After 20 years of retirement a boxer is eligible for inclusion as a veteran.
All we need is a doublewide like the IBHOF, my Dempsey autograph, and we're in business.
>>>Ray, Need I say anything else?<<<
Hawkins---I don't know why you feel that you have the high road beacsue you sure as hell don't...I mean you insult me and then wimp out of the debate...I take it that you are the reason that Gor was so fed up that he implemented a zero-toplerance policy!
I can't believe that I was actually interested in what you had to say...that sure as hell won't happen again as you have showed your maturity and lack of ability to debate!
Last edited by BDeskins; 10-09-2007 at 06:57 PM.
About Billy Wells...I agree about Chuvalo being the better fighter and I probably jumped the gun and based my mentioning Wells entirely on the long time that he was British champ as he was beaten in most of his really big fights. Overall I was basically just saying that too many oversea's fighters are ignored...Well's doesn't necessarily deserve to be a HOF inductee, but there are many who do deserve recognition!
Posting Permissions
| News | Current Champs | WAIL! | Encyclopedia | Links | Home |
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks