The 606v2 Hall of Fame

Inspired by Trussman's thread on the uselessness of the current Hall of Fame, I have decided that we should have our own, one that will be exclusive, elitist and in every way superior to the one at Canastota.

I propose the ground rules to be as follows:

We need founder members of our Hall - I propose 30 - whose position in boxing history almost all of us can agree on. The Hall should be open not just to fighters, but to trainers and anyone else whose contribution to the sport is of direct and compelling significance (ie not Stallone, but most certainly the Marquess of Queensberry).

The rules for acceptance by our board are simple. We vote and a successful candidate needs 75% of the vote or they do not get in. I suggest no longer than a week to decide on the initial thirty. No fighter can be considered unless retired for five years.

Once we have our initial 30, I suggest that we consider 5 per week, working our way in alphabetical order through the current Hall of Fame and sorting the wheat from the chaff to begin with. Again, 75% is required for admission, the results to be calculated at the end of a week (I suggest Monday to Sunday - result on the next Monday morning). Once we have done that, anyone can suggest a contender, as long as we don't end up considering more than 5 for one week. The insane and the p***-taking should have their votes struck out, by the way.

Let's be unashamedly elitist!

My suggestion for the inaugural 30 is as follows. It is intended to be as uncontroversial as possible, but we need to ensure that we have the right names, so we need as many votes as possible. Alternative suggestions are great, but let's think carefully, so we have a really good first list:

1) Daniel Mendoza, 2) The Marquess of Queensberry, 3) John L Sullivan 4) Bob Fitzsimmons 5) Sam Langford 6) Jack Johnson 7) Benny Leonard 8) Joe Gans 9) Ray Arcel 10) Harry Greb 11) Mickey Walker 12) Gene Tunney 13) Jack Dempsey 14) Henry Armstrong 15) Joe Louis 16) Sugar Ray Robinson 17) Ezzard Charles 18) Archie Moore 19) Willie Pep 20) Sandy Saddler 21) Eder Jofre 22) Muhammad Ali 23) Alexis Arguello 24) Roberto Duran 25) Carlos Monzon 26) Sugar Ray Leonard 27) Marvin Hagler) 28) Michael Spinks 29) Pernell Whitaker 30) Julio Cesar Chavez 31) Jimmy Wilde

Now for everyone else's contributions - is that a reasonable first 31?

[Current boxers under consideration: Sixto Escobar, Jackie Fields, Tiger Flowers, Frankie Genaro, Mike Gibbons
Next 5 candidates: Tommy Gibbons, George Godfrey, Young Griffo, Harry Harris, Len Harvey]

Thanks so much for doing this, captain.

I've not even read the contents of your introductory thread yet, but I shall do, and with interest, the moment I have rendered the thread a ' sticky.'

I agree with 29 Captain but think Hopkins should replace Hagler......

But I won't object to the 30.......like the marquis of Queensbury being there though our resident Oscar Wilde-Rowley might object..

Are you going to distinguish between eras like the current hall of fame - pionerr, old timer, modern etc?

Or will it be just be one size fits all?

Great idea Captain,

No issue with that 1st 30 for me all dead certs for me.

Thanks, Truss. Hoppy, of course, is still active, so ineligible for the Hall at this stage.

I thought one size fits all to begin with, Manos. We can sub-divide later, but for now, we need to weed out the dross at every level.

My apologies......Have no complaints with the list.

Not sure I think of Arguello quite as highly as the others, but still agree with the list.

I agree with the new premise....Just lump them together. After all they are all foundations in the same building..

The captain's candidates for an inaugural thirty seem to me to be perfect.

No complaints from me

Capital idea and can find fault with none of the first 30 names put forward.

Wonderfully interesting concept I must say. No major quibbles with the opening 30 as I believe they are all Hall of Fame worthy.

I would find places Wilde, Ketchell,, Barney Ross perhaps at the initial expense of Spinks, Hagler and Whitaker.

Looks a solid list to me.

All 30 should be in the Hall of Fame but like Colonial Lion I think that maybe a few wouldn't be absolute first draft material. For the boxers have you based inclusion on in ring achievements alone or is other criteria such as popularity and what they did outside of boxing a factor as well? Also Marciano holds wins over 3 of the original list and so that must put him in contention.

Mixture I reckon. Tyson would absolutely be in my first 30 HOF inductees but for achievement alone wouldn't be close.

bellchees wrote:All 30 should be in the Hall of Fame but like Colonial Lion I think that maybe a few wouldn't be absolute first draft material. For the boxers have you based inclusion on in ring achievements alone or is other criteria such as popularity and what they did outside of boxing a factor as well? Also Marciano holds wins over 3 of the original list and so that must put him in contention.

My goodness, Marciano a founding member and no seperate category for those outdated oldies? I think mr azania might go into meltdown!

Fair question, bellchees. I tried to ensure that there was a reasonable spread from the dawn of time to almost present day. I also tried to think of those who perhaps transcended their era and even their sport in some way. The first criterion, of course, was whether their achievements inside the ring made them certainties for entry. After that there was a bit of the X factor. I certainly don't regard Jack Dempsey as accomplished a fighter as Barney Ross, say, but people who don't know boxing know Jack. I did think about Don King as well, but it stuck in my throat to put him in an initial 30 ahead of some of the great fighters. No doubt the Don will make the list at some point.

Marciano will certainly be in it as well, I would think, albeit I'd never put him ahead of Charles or Louis on my all-time p for p list.

Once we have the first 30 sorted out at the end of next week, it may be as well to start by assessing the fighters that Canastota places in the modern category. This will mean that everyone will feel able to contribute, rather than being just the preserve of those of us that are a bit older. Obviously, they'll all have to be looked at eventually, pioneers, the lot, but let's start by building up as much momentum as possible. At the beginning of the week after next, therefore, I'd suggest looking at, and voting on, the first five on the H of F alphabet from the modern era - perhaps someone can look those up, since I'll be away all next week.

Sammy Angott
Fred Apostoli
Carmen Basilio
Wilfred Benitez
Nino Benzenuti

Which will be absolutely fascinating when we come to look at them, Scott, because for me, this quintet contains a fabulous mixture of the yes, the no, and the God, I'm not sure. Debate should be excellent.

Great idea Captain, first 30 look good.

Would take Spinks and Whitaker out and replace them with Barney Ross and Tony Canzoneri

Can't wait until we get to C.

Strangely enough Ghosty, I did the exact opposite when drafting my list - how weird. Well, that's a couple who have mentioned Ross. Many more, and he'll probably have to make the list at the expense of someone.

For me whilst we could quibble there are some who are perhaps more willing than others on there think it was always going to be impossible to get every deserving figure in their in only 30 names, as everyone on this list is deserving little point changing them. Am sure as this goes on the likes of Ross will be nominated and would have to assume they will sail in.

Great list. I wouldn't take any names out.

Something that occurs to me is the right number of votes to constitute a quorum when we're deciding on fighters reaching our Hall of Fame. As our threshold will be 75%, it strikes me that we need a minimum of 4 votes cast (obviously, with at least three in favour) before someone is acceptable. Shouldn't be a problem, I know, but just in case...

Cracking idea, no problems with the initial list from me

As an aside since Captain has mentioned the baseball hall of fame and held it up as an example of a far better run HOF (a position I agree with by the way) I notice in baseball there is a component in their voting related to peoples conduct outside the ring and a consideration that they should bring honour on the sport generally before they are considered.

Now I know this is flawed because Cobb is in there who was a complete SOB, but I know the players who fixed the World series in 1919 were excluded such as Shoeless Joe Jackson (am not sure if that is still the case) Do people think this should be a consideration or is boxing simply too littered with rapscallions to make this viable.

Only induct good guys and watch the tumbleweed blow by...

Maybe Barry Mc will end up in there after all.

Blatant cheating (drugs and Margarito-style hand wraps spring to mind) should bring exclusion. Paradoxically, Monzon the murderer and a variety of other charmers will be in before their feet have touched the ground. I'm not on a moral crusade here!

Probably just as well, suspect my arguments as to why Naz should be in will be an uphill struggle already, but as they say faint heart ne'er won fair maid.

Cheating as in throwing fights is OK?

Mmm, I see where you're going with this, Scott. Well, it's something that has to be taken into consideration, doesn't it? I have to say, though, that I find it harder to say: "Well Ike Williams isn't in because he took an occasional fall," mostly because boxers back then simply had to do as they were told a lot of the time. Now Burley, for instance, never did that, and more power to his elbow. However, while it's morally reprehensible to dive, hand on heart, it's hard to blame a boxer for obeying a gangster's orders.

Not exactly the fighter's choice, if you follow me, whereas peds are entirely down to a person wishing to rig the game in their favour.

Just seeing the first 5 names have left me in a quandry as to what constitutes a hall of fame boxer

Also would it be better to include more than 5 names a week as there are over 110 fighters in the modern era category alone

I did think more than five, but would be hard to have debate over more than that other than simply yes/no. Would never get to the end of the list otherwise though I expect.

Imperial Ghosty wrote:Just seeing the first 5 names have left me in a quandry as to what constitutes a hall of fame boxer

Also would it be better to include more than 5 names a week as there are over 110 fighters in the modern era category alone

To be honest, Ghosty, I see this as part of the appeal. Smaller increments will mean higher quality and more detailed analysis and debate, and will also sustain the thread over a longer period, meaning that there will nearly always be some good subject matter to discuss, even when other topics might have been temporarily exhausted.

I think that your first point almost answers your second, Ghosty. It's not always easy to assess fighters, and we all need to make up our own minds with the help of everyone else on the board.

Weighing the evidence for more than 5 a week is pretty difficult, I'd say, and this is really designed as a marathon, rather than a sprint. It has to be, considering the mess that the IBHOF have made of things by letting the world and his wife in. Don't despair - with this system, we'll be through the moderns before Xmas, and the old timers by this time next year.

I'm not sure how much debate we would have about 5 fighters in the course of a week, there will be occassions when we'd be in agreement that say Benvenuti doesn't get in while Basilio does. Personal preference would say 10 but i'm happy to go with the flow.

Cap, the old timers will be a debate between about 4/5 of us, there's some god awful names on that list too

There certainly are some Godawful names there as well, ghosty. I've suggested beginning with the moderns so that all can be encouraged to express their opinions, as they quite rightly should. Perhaps when we get to the old timers, more will feel emboldened to have their say there as well.

I think that the first five will show how interesting the debates may be. Basilio, as you say, would appear to be a penalty kick-in, while Apostoli would appear equally unlikely to make our grade. Benvenuti, Benitez and Angott will all have both their supporters and opponents, I'd imagine. I find myself especially in two minds about Benitez, but all three have me scratching my head. I'd hope that, if nothing else, our consideration of all these fighters will enhance the common stock of knowledge about them.

I'm decided on three of them but the other two I know what I should go for but feel like doing the opposite, when's this getting started?

Well, I'm away from tomorrow for a week (not that the project needs me around, anyway), but I did want the initial 30 to get the widest possible approval. I thought that we might wait until a week on Monday (June 6th) and begin then. Unless the majority feel differently.

I'd certainly prefer that you be here during deliberations, captain, and particularly so at the beginning. It seems only right and proper, this being your baby, and all.

The creator must be present during the whole process Captain although I fear i'm step ahead of everyone having gone through each fighter and noted down pros and cons in some cases just one or the other

I often thought about ways we could start a 606 Hall of Fame on the old site but always ended up with a ridiculously complex system. Top marks to the captain for coming up with a workable solution.

No real complaints with the first 30 names (although might be tempted to find a place for Wilde to give the Brits a presence - other than the dear old Marquess) and they seem a worthy bunch of first draft inductees.

I'd be tempted to agree with superfly and find a place for Wilde, perhaps in place of Alexis or Marvin? Appreciate the call for a group spread across the eras though so no big compaint!
In regard to breaking it up into eras, I'm not so sure. For me, a great fighter is a great fighter, that is the only category required.
Really looking forward to this though, going to learn a lot, hopefully so I can contribute without looking like a buffoon!

Forgot about Wilde who should be nailed on to be in the original 30