The 606v2 Hall of Fame

First topic message reminder :

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]

interesting bunch this week.

Napoles, i would say about as nailed on as it gets... apart from monzon his only defeats were cuts, champion for years etc, etc. Banker YES

Nelson. I have to declare a vested interested. One of my favourite fighters. Green as they come when he fought sanchez and gave him hell til he gassed at the end. A few years later and a rematch would have been a fight for the ages. Could occasionally seem unmotivated in fights and just going through the motions. His defeats when they came, were close fights, and he invariably was better in rematches. Probably could have been more active for his longevity but was avoided... and being african, his big fights were on the road. Still very competitive when well past his prime. Great fighter. Cast iron YES.

Norris. Tricky one. HOF talent definitely. Longevity surprisingly good considering the ko defeats he took (the jackson ko was a peach!). Big names were all well past their sell by, and around at a time that wasn't great for the division. Some of the accusations that kept mitchell out could be directed at norris. Close but no cigar. NO

Norton. Probably the easiest decision. As ghosty says, had the ali fights been scored objectively (not sure he won all 3, but certainly had the better of them over the series), the 70's heavyweight scene would have played differently.Well short of calibre required for inclusion though for me. NO

Olivares. Tough one, but falls short for me... too many defeats at a time when he should have been prime. Great to watch because it was kill or be killed. Too much time on his back and too many prime defeats to average fighters for HOF for me. Close again but . NO

I agree with Chris about the black and white nature of this week's decisions in four of the five cases. As everyone has said, Napoles is one of the easiest calls we'll ever have to make. Barring that strange cut-eye loss to Backus, he was an unbeatable welterweight until well into his dotage; his wins against top men at 147 were generally conclusive, and he is hardly deducted marks for failing to beat the fearsome Monzon at 160. A clear YES.

If you're a top tenner in an original weight division, and top 5 in one of the more recent junior categories, as I believe that Azumah Nelson is, then it doesn't require too much thought to include him in our Hall either. Victims of the calibre of Gomez, Cowdell, Villasana, Martinez, Laporte and Fenech and that fabulous performance in defeat to Sanchez are more than enough to guarantee him the nod from me. YES.

If one were only to look at the victime on Terry Norris's CV, we'd be electing him as well, and without hesitation. However, Leonard was virtually shot, Curry and Taylor absolutely were and most of the rest of his championship defences were of the "good, but hardly great" variety. The manner of his significant defeats is hard to overlook; Jackson and Brown gave him a proper hammering and I just don't feel that his career overall represents an elite warrior, particularly bearing in mind that it was fought entirely at 154, rather than the more challenging divisions either side. NO.

If Ken Norton could have been guaranteed fights exclusively against men who weren't a one-punch KO threat, he'd probably deserve H of F status. The Ali performances were certainly of the highest order, as were his wins over Quarry and Young and his performance in defeat to Holmes. No Hall of Famer should appear utterly petrified whenever he's in against a puncher, however. Norton did so, without fail, and to see him before the Foreman fight was to see a boxer who had already decided to submit without offering even token resistance. I simply can't include such a fighter in my Hall of Fame, and for me, he is a NO.

So we come to much the most difficult conundrum, that of Olivares. I recently placed him at 5 in Ghosty's all-time bantamweight list, and I wonder if I might have been a bit generous to him. Certainly, his progress to the 118 lb title was exhilarating, and those performances against Rose and Rudkin were extraordinary. However, after about 1971, his record, across two weights, is remarkably spotty. The loss (and two big winning struggles) against Castillo; the twin losses to Herrera (at bantam, mind you); the inexplicable KO loss to Hafey, when he was still in his prime. I have to disagree that he was "a damn good featherweight" - to me, his record at 126 was no better than serviceable, as his losses against almost everyone with a name in the division, bar Chacon, show. I can therefore understand why Milky has given Ruben the thumbs down. Nevertheless, that incredible trail that he blazed at 118 still stays with me. There was a time that everything he hit at that weight seemed to stay crumpled on the canvas, and I believe that there is just enough substance there for me to give him the nod here. By a narrow margin, Olivares is a YES.

I placed Olivares at number two for the bantamweights which may be a tad high but your placing of 5 is about the norm thus far Captain.

i guess there are similarities to gomez for olivares... just his record is a poorer version.

We see a lot of today's fighters pilloried for quality of opposition. To me olivares had a great punch and was great to watch, rolled over a bunch of roadsweepers with losing records, and started to come unstuck quite quickly when the opposition improved. He moved up a weight due to weight troubles not for glory, so no excuses for the defeats really that i can see except being a bit chinny.

Flat track bully! We'll have john mugabi in next

I can see i'm ploughing a lone furrow again but hey, its boring if everyone agrees

As I say, milky, your points re. Olivares are well made, and I'm not far away from rowing in with all of them. He does have a string of non-roadsweeper victims at 118, however, and it is particularly the manner in which he disposed of people like Rudkin and Rose that prompts me to vote for his inclusion. I am a long way from being finally decided about him, though, and could certainly be persuaded against before this time next week.

My last post was a little light hearted Captain, i can see why he's held in high esteem. I do think one of the good things about these threads and ghosty's all time rankings (that i still haven't voted for... sorry mate!) is that it throws up some forgotten heroes who get their dues...

... but also throws up some guys whose name is such that they maybe seem an automatic choice, but on closer inspection might be a bit more marginal than you think.

I remembered olivares as this all conqureing bantam who cam a bit unstuck when he mixed it in higher weight classes late in his career. I had a closer look at his record and saw an all conquering bantam with a couple of good wins, but a relatively short reign as champion and patchy performances thereafter, all while a young man. Still a great fighter obviously, but we're talking the best of the best here. No beef with those who see it differently, but not an auto choice for me, given the standards we're setting.

As others have already said Napoles is an easy a yes as one could hope to get, top five in one of the original divisions, needs no further comment beyond saying an absolute copper bottomed yes.

Whilst not as guaranteed as Napoles, Nelson is a pretty easy yes for me, as Zoomy said the other day a proper fighter often going into the back yard of other greats to fight and winning more than enough of those against guys of the calibre of Cowdell, Gomez and Fench mean he is also a yes.

Norris falls just a little short for me, a little too inconsistent and there is a real feeling he got most of the names on his record at the right time, just don't see an elite ledger there and when he did lose it was often pretty conclusively, so he is a no.

Norton is a similarly easy no, solid fighter and a win over Ali speaks well and there are half way decent wins on the record such as Quarry but again it is the sheer conclusive nature of his losses that count against him as he took some shellackings and he is another guy who I suspect were he not a heavyweight he would not trouble our thinking for more than a minute No

As tends to be the case there is always a guy who taxes your thinking and this week is no different with Olivares. His bantam reign whilst short was as exciting as one could hope to see and as Chris has said he could arguably be the biggest puncher that division has seen, his record does become a little more spotty as he moves up the weights but wins over Rudkin and Rose and the sheer excitement he generated at his best mean he is a very close yes, but not one I make with absolute certainty.

Im more or less in agreement with the concensus on Norton, Norris, Napoles and Nelson.

Olivares I think is closer than is being suggested. Hes one of those fighters that I think is a tad overrated due to his style and popularity. On his day he was undoubtadly an elite fighter with power capable of beating possibly any other bantam in the world but he was also also capable of performing well below that.

He has an extensive and impressive winning streak with plenty of KOs right up to his world title shot and while there are some good names in there such as the experienced world operator Jose Medel, its largely domestic level opposition which doesnt really offer much in terms of Hall of Fame standing.

It did mean that he had racked up plenty of experience and rounds when he faced Rose at a relatively young age and his impressive win highlighted what he was capable of at his best.

Its possibly his inconsistency after this combined with the fact that the division wasnt blessed with big names that hurts him a little and this carries up to featherweight aswell. Herrera and Castillo were competitive but not really elite bantams and his losses to them are at a time when he should really have been coming into his best and dominating what was a reasonable but not amazingly talented division. At bantamweight, a win column of Rose, Rudkin, Castillo, Kanazawa and Pimentel couple with losses to Castillo and Herrera is good but not outstanding in my view. I wouldnt consider any of those fighters elite or outstanding. You also have to consider that its somewhat lacking in overall dominance and longetivity.

Then you have has his featherweight career which is even patchier. A gutsy losing effort against Arguello where he was competitive for most of the fight and an impressive early KO of Bobby Chacon is just not really enough to disguise glaring holes all over the place and in truth his featherweight career is below average although he was probably entering the twilight of his career at for much of it.

Theres a bit of a suspicion with Olivares that he was overly reliant on his power, but that was what made him what he was and what made him such a threat and entertaining fighter to watch. At bantam his power meant that he carried a threat level for anyone. However pure boxing ability I am inclined to feel he is somewhat overrated in relation to his standing.

He falls on the borderline for me. I think his record, ability and overall popularity would be plenty for the existing Hall of Fame but for an elite one I think its a close call and for me it comes down how much one values overall popularity and entertainment value and his explosive power which made him great to watch and one of Mexicos most favoured sons. I must admit at the outset I thought it would be very difficult to leave Olivares out given his status, but in a brutal analysis of his career there are certainly enough holes to argue against inclusion. He is limited in terms of dominance and longetivity in either weight he fought at and his win to loss ratio at the championship level isnt exactly brilliant either. Basically my head says no to Olivares and my heart says yes so by the absolute narrowest of margins I will vote for his inclusion as I would rather see him in than out. But I think its very marginal and could not fault someone for voting different.

Napoles - yes
Nelson - yes
Norris - no
Norton - no
Olivares - yes

Have to confess, captain, Milky and Colonial, that my memory played tricks on me with regards to Olivares' Featherweight career - for some reason I had it in my head that he'd managed a defence or two in both of his 126 lb reigns, rather than being ousted in his maiden defence each time. A bit of an oversight on my part.

That said, his Bantamweight achievements - in particular the manner in which they came - and the fact that he coupled them with any kind of success at the higher weight mean I'm sticking with my yes. A little more borderline than I'd first thought, but I just can't get out of my head the image of him absolutely cutting through Rose, outgaming Castillo to edge their title series and devastating Rudkin. He's still in for me.

The more I think about it, the more I feel the inconsistency of giving Olivares the nod, while rejecting others with arguably stronger CVs. If we take Rose as much the best victim on Ruben's record, we can say that this is respectable, but not elite. If we examine his championship record at the weight, 6-2, it is the same, lacking in longevity, however explosive it was at times.

Of his featherweight career, with the single exception of Chacon (twice), we cannot say that Ruben's career was anything better than decent. Beatings by Arguello, Lopez and Pedroza (when old) are no shame, but what about the losses to Kotey and Hafey when not far, in years at least, past his peak?

CL makes the fair point that with Ruben, it's a head v heart situation more than is the case with most fighters. To be consistent, though, I feel that the head has to win. The great peak of Olivares' career is just too short, the highlights just too few, to justify his inclusion here. With the utmost reluctance, I fear that I must reverse my original vote and judge him a NO.

What a marvellous thread this is, and how rich in learning opportunity.

At first glance I believed I had this one nailed. Napoles, Nelson and Olivares dead cert ' yesses ' and Norton and Norris missing out. My eyes nearly popped out of my head when I read dissenting opinions concerning Olivares. One of my favourites from my youth, ATG bantam, devastating hitter, etc., etc.

I am finding, more and more, that my memory is becoming less reliable with the passing years and, prompted by the excellent arguments presented by the dissenters, I found myself propping the memory up with a little dispassionate research and eventually saying an extremely reluctant ' no ' to Olivares.

I didn't see that one coming at all.

In summary, then :

Napoles, Nelson - Yes

Norris, Norton, Olivares - No.

Whilst I am not going to change my vote, I am on reflection pretty pleased that some are doing so and wavering on Ruben because the more I think about it think perhaps he sits more comfortably in the second chance club. Think will be better placed to see how deserving or otherwise he is once this exercise is complete.

I too would prefer to see Olivares at least, in the second ballot group rather than outright disqualification so on that basis at least I will keep my vote a yes. He is one of those fighters that I could not quibble too much either way whether he ends up in or out whereas there are certainly some others awaiting second review that I believe have stronger claims than Olivares.

Napoles - Yes.
Nelson - Yes.
Norris - No.
Norton - No.
Olivares - No.

This thread is good idea. There are too many people in the Hall of Fame lol I havent even heard of most of them. It should be for only the most famous boxers.

Napoles - no
Nelson - no
Norris - no
Norton - no
Olivares - no

Waingro, much as I appreciate the input, it is quite important that you should know a little about the fighters concerned, or at least do a little research on them, before casting your votes. Anyone who seriously believes that Napoles is not Hall of Fame worthy, and what's more, does so without giving a reason ("Because I haven't heard of him" won't suffice), can't really be taken seriously. I'm therefore going to ignore your vote on the basis that I outlined in my initial post on this thread (see above). If you're going to play, play by the rules, or find another thread.

Waingro, care to offer any reasons as to why none of those fighters warrant inclusion? I would echo captain carrantuohil and emphasise that for the purpose of this excercise reasons such as not having heard of someone are completely invalid and unless you can provide a reasoned argument to back up your vots then I too would have to suggest they should be ignored unfortunately.

My reason is that it is supposed to be a hall of fame so if its full of guysthat hardly anyones heard of then its not really fame. It should be for boxers that are famous like Tyson and Ali and Lewis not guys that no ones heard of i asked people in my boxing gym and they havent heard of these dudes neither so what is the point? I think if they were quality then alot more people would have heard of them like Ali and stuff. Just my opinion though they are your rules so not sure what you are basing it on.

It's only full of guys of whom YOU have not heard. This is more a reflection of your ignorance of the sport (both you personally and your friends) than of the fame or ability of the boxers concerned. It's why you should be, and will be, disqualified from offering an opinion on them without bothering to do some basic research about people who are legends of the sport.

After reading through all the arguments either way and weighing them against each other it seems Olivares is the only question mark.

Nelson - YES
Napoles - YES
Olivares - NO
Norton - NO
Norris - NO

Waingro, where do you rank Rocky Balboa P4P?

Nelson - Yes
Napoles - Yes

Both easy enough decisions there!

Norton - No
Norris - No
Olivares - No

Norton and Norris both no's for the reasons mentioned above. Olivares a tough one as I don't know a great deal about him, however having read the opinions above and a brief background read I've leant towards not including him.

An extremely interesting week's debate. There was near unanimous serious opinion about four of the fighters up for consideration, and the result was that there are two new members of our Hall of Fame. Jose Napoles and Azumah Nelson are the extremely deserving new entrants; Terry Norris and Ken Norton, by contrast, received a general thumbs down and disappear from the reckoning in perpetuity. The same, perhaps surprisingly, applies to Ruben Olivares. He generated much discussion, but ultimately, only just over 36% of the vote, and goes the same way as Norris and Norton.

We begin a new week with Carl "Bobo" Olson. It is not generally appreciated that during the 1950s, commonly regarded as a golden age for middleweight fighters, Olson actually reigned as champion for longer than any fighter other than Sugar Ray Robinson. He came to prominence in the late 1940s with a victory over the ageing Teddy Yarosz, and, despite a decision loss against Dave Sands, challenged Robinson for the somewhat spurious "Pennsylvania State World Middleweight Title" in 1950, losing by 10th round KO. Olson would lose to Sands again, but beat men such as Lloyd Marshall en route to another loss at Robinson's hands for the genuine world title in 1952. However, the following year, Olson would finally win the vacant crown against Randy Turpin and defend three times, either side of an unsuccessful challenge for Archie Moore's light-heavyweight crown. In 1955, Olson put his title on the line against the come-backing Robinson, lost heavily and did so for a fourth time in their return. He would not trouble the upper echelons of the sport again.

Carlos Ortiz began his pro career by racking up 27 unbeaten fights as a lightweight/light-welterweight. Despite a couple of subsequent points losses, he avenged the one against Kenny Lane when it mattered to become world light-welterweight champ in 1959. Ortiz then engaged in a close trilogy against the great Duilio Loi, coming out narrowly on the short side, before dropping to lightweight permanently and setting his legend in stone. He took the WBA title from the long-reigning Joe Brown and unified the title, travelling across Asia and beating men such as Flash Elorde before surprisingly losing the crown to Ismael Laguna. Ortiz set the record straight in a rematch before the end of 1965 and reigned for another three years, defending against Laguna and Elorde, boxing a draw with Nicolino Locche and twice thrashing Sugar Ramos. A title loss to Carlos Teo Cruz heralded the end of his great career, which finally finished at the hands of Ken Buchanan in 1972.

Manuel Ortiz was the most prolific bantamweight champion of all time. Initially making his mark with a series of tough fights against men such as Jackie Jurich and Lou Salica, he was twenty-six when he took the 118 lb crown from the latter in 1942. An extraordinary run of success was to follow - Ortiz only lost a non-title fight against featherweight great Willie Pep, while racking up 15 successful defences of his bantamweight crown over the next four and a half years. He briefly lost his crown to Harold Dade, immediately regained it and made another four successful defences, although now clearly past his best, before finally relinquishing his grip over the division in 1950. He boxed on for another five years, but unsurprisingly, never regained his former pre-eminence.

Carlos Palomino's career began with a twelve-fight unbeaten streak before he lost a decision to the crafty Andy Price. However, he rebounded, rising up the welterweight ranks, drawing with veteran 147 lb contender Hedgemon Lewis and landing a title shot against WBC champ John Stracey in 1976. A series of brutal body shots put paid to the British champion, and Palomino embarked on an exciting reign that featured seven successful defences and classic encounters against men such as Dave Boy Green and Armando Muniz. He would lose his title by split decision to Wilfred Benitez, and in his next fight, Palomino was soundly outpointed by Roberto Duran. That would sound the death knell for his top-level career, and apart from an abortive five-fight comeback in the late 1990s, Palomino dropped from the scene.

It is at least arguable that Laszlo Papp was the greatest amateur boxer of all time. More than 500 victories in a vest, with just five losses. The first man to win three gold medals at the Olympic Games, which he did at light-middle and middle, he was, exceptionally, allowed by the Communist Hungarian Government to turn professional in recognition of his services to his country. Already 31 when allowed to turn pro, Papp based himself in Vienna and after two early draws, went on a winning streak that gained him the European middleweight crown and a place as number one contender for Joey Giardello's world title. Just as he was about to take on his supreme challenge, Papp found himself thwarted by his Government, which decided that after all, pro boxing was incompatible with socialist principles. A popular man across the boxing world, Papp was forced to retire, still unbeaten as a pro, with thoughts of what might have been.

Evening captain, hope you don't mind me getting my thoughts in early. I believe that each of the five candidates this week are all very easy choices either way - mind you, I thought the same last week, and how wrong I was!

Olson was certainly a very consistent performer throughout his career, and more than earned his right to be remembered as a fine fighter. However, elite he most definitely was not, and as such he has no business making our Hall of Fame, I feel. A cliché it may be, but being Robinson's bunny in such an emphatic manner only serves to show the gulf between the great and the very good, and the fact that Olson fell to more or less as many losses as he racked up wins against the top performers of his day makes me believe that he belongs in the latter category. A clear no.

Carlos Ortiz is, to me, the finest of all Puerto Rican fighters, and his place in the Hall of Fame should be guaranteed. A top ten all-time Lightweight, a fairly good 140 lb man, and on the right end of series results against quality men such as Laguna, Brown, Ramos, Elorde and Charnley; records don't get much better than that. Not facing Napoles when 'Mantequilla' was a top, top contender at 135 lb is a slight mark against him, but nowhere near enough to push him out of consideration here. An easy yes.

Manuel Ortiz, for my money, is the nearest rival to Eder Jofre when it comes to the title of being the greatest Bantamweight champion of them all - to me, he would be an automatic inclusion here, though I suspect his inconsistent form in non-title bouts may make the votes a little more mixed. However, it shouldn't be forgotten that as a green-as-grass novice of only a dozen or so fights, he was already mixing it with men such as Salica, Lemos and Montana, all sometime world champions, and the phenomenal body of work in his title reigns is enough to remove any doubts from my head. Another yes.

Palomino is just the sort of case which underlines the importance of your Hall of Fame idea, captain. A fine technician, no doubt, and his tenure as WBC champion was a fine one; superb knockout of Green, a couple of epics with Muniz, etc. But what the hell is he doing being honoured at Canastota? I think we can all agree that his showings against Benitez and Duran - the two best men he met - perfectly show that he was no all-time great, and his puzzling inability / reluctance to unify with Cuevas between 1976 and 1979 only make his already dubious claim all the more flimsy. A certain no.

Assuming that we're basing inclusion / expulsion purely on professional achievements, Papp is another straightforward thumb down job. I can see the appeal of thinking what might have been - however, Hall of Fame inclusion shouldn't be based on a collection of what ifs and maybes, and as such Papp simply doesn't have the record to be placed at such heights. It's another no.

In summary, an emphatic thumbs up for both Carlos and Manuel Ortiz, with Olson, Palomino and Papp falling by the wayside equally as emphatically. Cheers captain.

Entirely agree with you, Chris - this is the easiest week that I can recall having to sort out.

Olson is not close to elite level - I suppose that his easy victory over Turpin would probably be his career best against a top fighter somewhere near his peak. However, he was not an especially active champion, with the win against the great Gavilan the obvious highlight of his defences. Beats me how he was the bookies' favourite to beat Robinson in their third fight, still more how so many pundits fancied him to do a number on Moore when they fought for the 175 lb crown. NO without a second thought.

Carlos Ortiz exuded class throughout his career. Only Duilio Loi stopped him being a long-reigning champion at light-welter, but his record at lightweight marks him out as probably the fourth best 135 lb man since the war. His list of victims brooks no argument; here is an all-time great. An easy YES.

The same applies to Manuel Ortiz. Non-title losses be blowed; that record between 1942 and 1947 would suffice for entry to our Hall, even if Ortiz had never accomplished anything before or afterwards. A top four bantamweight of all time, in my view, and one of the easiest selections I shall ever make. YES.

Totally agree that Palomino is one of the most mystifying inclusions in Canastota. Always good value for money, but it's not that unfair to place him only just a tiny bit above his double victim Muniz in the overall 147 lb pecking order. Nothing on his thirty-odd fight record is of the requisite class to merit so much as a second glance when it comes to a credible Hall of Fame. A certain NO.

I want to emphasise that this Hall of Fame is all about the greats of professional boxing. I had understood that the same applied to Canastota, since they haven't bothered to induct Felix Savon or Teofilio Stevenson. Laszlo Papp was a greater amateur boxer than either Cuban, for me, and in my view, had enough talent to have dominated the world of the professional middleweights from about 1958 onwards. However, he wasn't allowed to, and anything else is so much speculation. Utterly useless to bemoan his ill fortune; Papp is a great, I've no problem admitting that, but he doesn't belong among this august body. NO.

Nothing to add to Chris' and captain's comments except, perhaps, that I was sorely tempted to vote a controversial ' yes ' for Papp. Ultimately, though, the captain's ( absolutely correct, ) insistence that we concern ourselves only with professional boxing rules Papp out. Stone cold reason and tales of what might have been are not good bedfellows.

The others are easy, for me, leaving my vote exactly in accordance with Chris' and the captain's :

Carlos Ortiz, Manuel Ortiz - Yes.

Olson, Palomino, Papp - No.

Before I vote is there any way we can establish how many of them Waingro has heard of?

If not will risk it anyways. Both Ortiz' are givens Carlos is as safe a bet as you'll get and as others have rightly said Manuel's form at his absolute pomp guarantee his safe passage, two certain yes's

Olson is just too hit and miss and his record overall really do say good and not truly great, as guys like Basillo and La motta were real borderline cases struggle to see an argument to say yes, so he is a no

Palomino is a no, losses to the best he faces says everything needed about his level, no for me and an easy one

Papp similarly has to be no, simply does not have enough as a pro, which is all that should bother us to justify him finding a placing in here. No

No boat rocking here and my votes pretty much mirror those that have gone before

Carlos and Manuel Ortiz- Yes

Papp, Palomino and Olson- No

The three i've voted no for show exactly what is wrong with the current hall of fame, while they were quality fighters none of them really established themselves at the top level with Olson coming closest. While there is no shame in losing to either Benitez or Duran it does highlight the level that Palomino was at because unlike Olson he doesn't have any top level wins to make up for it, fine fighter as he was just a baffling inclusion in Canastota.

Nothing much to add to whats already out there as I agree with voting. Papp is the interesting one but I agree that in a strictly professional sense he does not have enough of a body of work.

Olson - no
Carlos Ortiz - yes
Manuel Ortiz - yes
Palomino - no
Papp - no

Could I suggest that once we're done we have a section of the hall of fame for outstanding amateur boxers as well?

isn't it boring when we all agree. My votes are the same as everyone else's but i am going to flag Manuel Ortiz, as the only pause for thought.

He gets included because of the great run as champion, but he's not as cast iron for me as he seems to be for everybody else. Firstly there are a lot of defeats on there for an elite fighter, notwithstanding the inevitibility of some when fighting so frequently.

Also there is some serious paddding on he record, many of his defences were against guys with losing/mediocre records. He may have mixed it with decent guys quite early as chris says but, not that early and he lost to most of them - his record against quality opposition is decent but not exceptional imo.

I'm no real historian like many of you, but looking at it coldly, i'm surprised at the auto free pass he's getting. As the Captain says, there was a great run in there, about 5 years worth straddling the forgivable lesson he was given by pep, and that added to the fact that he was a real tough guy, tips it for me, but i can see an argument that makes it close.

Still in the process of making decisions, though it seems like a relatively straightforward week. Just to jump on milkyboy's point, and I admit I'm going off a look on boxrec, what are Manuel Ortiz's best wins, particularly during his title reign? Just looking for some further qualification of how great he was really as he does seem like he's already nailed on, but I'm definitely curious as I feel milkyboy makes a fair point.

Totally understand Milky's point - this was not an age when the bantamweight division was chock-full of stars. Nevertheless, this was the era of a single world champion, and to hold the title, with the exception of a four-month spell, for eight years, deserves full recognition, I think. I suppose that Lou Salica and Dado Marino would be the best names on his championship CV, slash. There's no suggestion that Ortiz didn't fight the best available; it is true that the best available at 118 in the 1940s wasn't that fabulous. Better men were probably fighting at flyweight at the time, but Ortiz beat them when they moved up, so he certainly stood out among the little men of the time.

Fair points captain, sometimes fighters are defined by their opposition and their wasn't a lot of that around for Ortiz, not his fault. By comparison, Carlos O is sure-fire because he fought other outstanding fighters - and his only losses were to those very elite.

I was looking around for something to debate this week, and figured the best i could come up with was that Manuel O wasn't quite as cast iron as was being suggested!

... which i still think is true. The longevity and the run are enough for inclusion but my view (in terms of how seemingly closely matched he was with the better, but not exceptional fighters, he fought) is that had he been in another era he might not be on the list. I do however, recognise that that's purely a qualitative judgement on my part... and that you could say the same thing about a lot of fighters.

Good points captain, seems to be a case of beating everyone available at the time but being unfortunate to not quite have too many fellow greats around to match up against. However, I've been sufficiently convinced to vote Manuel as a yes.
As to the others, Carlos is a nailed on yes for me. To Olson and Palomino I vote no, not of the standard this hall requires despite being fine fighters in their own right. Papp seems to have been a victim of circumstance, arguably the greatest ever amateur, he was prevented from proving himself fully as a pro. Sadly, this means I have to vote no too.

It seems as though there will be no additions to the votes on last week's contenders, so I shall take the liberty of a slightly early round-up and introduction of this week's five candidates.

There was total agreement that both Carlos Ortiz and Manuel Ortiz should join our Hall of Fame. There was equal unanimity that none of Bobo Olson, Carlos Palomino or Laszlo Papp should again be permitted on the candidates' slate.

This week, we begin with the curious career of Willie Pastrano. Beginning life as a featherweight in 1951, Pastrano was campaigning at light-heavy and heavyweight by the end of 1955. Decision victories over Joey Maxim and Rex Layne in the latter year established his name and he spent much of the end of the 50s taking on Europe's best heavyweights, with mixed results. A decision loss to Scottish light-heavyweight Chic Calderwood in 1960 seemed to have ended his championship pretensions, but an unlucky draw with Archie Moore two years later reignited them, and Pastrano finally landed a title shot against the excellent Harold Johnson in 1963. To universal surprise, Pastrano secured a split decision win, and successfully defended his title twice, including against Terry Downes. A notoriously lazy trainer, Pastrano was then stopped by Jose Torres in 1965 and promptly retired.

A precocious amateur, winner of a middleweight Olympic gold medal at the age of 17, Floyd Patterson continued his youthful promise by blazing a trail to a shot at the vacant heavyweight title at the age of just 21. An easy victory over Archie Moore led to a number of defences against men from below the first rank of contenders, before Patterson came a spectacular cropper against Ingemar Johansson, being dropped seven times en route to a third round stoppage loss. Patterson would rebound, regaining the title from the Swede and winning their rubber match, but all the while, the threatening shadow of Sonny Liston was hanging over him. Eventually forced by public opinion to defend against Liston, Patterson was thrashed in one round and suffered the same fate in their re-match. He would box on for another decade, losing a shot at Muhammad Ali's world title, but generally holding his own against many of the other top men of the day, before retiring. A distinguished boxing Commissioner, Patterson would also later pilot his adopted son, Tracy Harris Patterson to a world title belt of his own.

As a bantamweight, Eusebio Pedroza's career seemed to be going nowhere fast. A barely deserved shot at Alfonso Zamora's WBA title ended in humiliating defeat, and his next fight also ended in a loss inside the distance. However, life took an upward turn from then on. As a featherweight, Pedroza quickly landed a tilt at the WBA title, and victory over Cecilio Lastra was the start of a remarkable reign. Over the next seven years, Pedroz defended his belt a division record 19 times, frequently on enemy turf, turning back the challenge of men such as Ruben Olivares, Rocky Lockridge (twice) and Juan Laporte. He was still only 29 when he finally had the crown battered away from him by Barry McGuigan, but this was effectively the end of the Panamanian's career at any meaningful level.

Just 4 foot 11 inches tall, Pascual Perez was for many years the shortest world boxing champion of all time. What he lacked in stature, he more than compensated for in power, however. Initially based exclusively in his native Argentina, Perez put together an unbeaten streak of 24 fights before taking on world flyweight champion Yoshio Shirai in a non-title fight. A draw satisfied no-one and four months later, Perez travelled to Japan to take on Shirai again, this time with the title on the line. A comfortable decision victory heralded a title reign that was to last for five and a half years, encompassing nine successful defences, before Perez lost his crown in Bangkok to Pone Kingpetch. He lost a rematch too, more comfortably, but Perez continued to fight, racking up another 28-fight winning streak without ever approaching another title shot. After four losses in his last six fights, Perez finally retired in 1964.

Eddie Perkins' career started slowly. He lost his first two fights and after 22 contests, boasted the unremarkable log of 15-7. However, he persevered, learning his trade and earning recognition as a real championship prospect with a decision win over Carlos Hernandez. Eventually he earned a shot at the redoubtable Duilio Loi's 140 lb title, and after a drawn first fight, took the crown from the Italian at the second attempt, despite being floored twice. Loi would win their third championship encounter, but then retired, leaving Perkins in prime position to fight for the unified light-welter title in 1963 against Roberto Cruz. A comfortable decision win was followed by two successful defences before Perkins lost the crown to his former victim Hernandez. Perkins would lose to legends Jose Napoles and Nicolino Locche before moving up to welterweight at the start of the 1970s and positioning himself as a leading challenger for Napoles' crown with two wins over Armando Muniz. The title shot never arrived, however, and age caught up with Perkins, who lost his last four fights before retiring.

I'm more than comfortable in saying ' yes ' to Pedroza and Perez and ' no ' to Pastrano and Perkins.

Patterson ? Oh Lordy !

I so much want to say yes. Heart of a lion, dogged determination, an object lesson in the maximising of one's gifts, youngest champion, first to regain the heavy crown ( and how ) and that gutsy twilight part of his career during which he was getting robbed blind against Ellis and beating Bonavena. All topped off by a man who oozed dignity and decency.

As I say, I want to say yes.

So why can't I ?

Because, quite simply, to do so would mean to make allowances for Floyd which I will happily deny many another. His first reign would have been curtailed any time D'Amato had seen fit to throw him to Liston. As it was the highlight of said reign, ( as far as posterity goes, ) was a defence against a man having his first pro fight, yet still knew enough to drop Floyd. Then there are the Liston debacles.

A ' no ' for Floyd it is, I'm afraid, though I don't like it one little bit.

Only Pedroza and Perez for me, then.

Pedroza is about as straight forward as it gets and is a yes every way you look at it.

Perez is a little less straight forward but is also a yes, the very lowest divisions are often like the heavies in this exercise in that they are not always chock full of quality meaning longevity and consistency become key determinants and on this respect Pere3z simply has to earn his berth.

Perkins is perhaps a little unfortunate in being around the likes of Loi, Locche and Napoles but alas such is life and his record against those guys does tend to suggest a level a little below that we are looking for and means he is a no.

Pastrano is simply too hit and miss, you look through his record and it is nigh on impossible to establish when he was at his actual best as every decent run is littered with losses no great fighter has the right to pick up, and this has to mean he gets a no.

Patterson is for me like Mcguigan and to a lesser extent Buchanan in being a guy I would dearly love to say yes to but simply cannot. As others have said on here Floyd's light heavy career is one of boxings great what might have beens but for this purpose we have to deal in what was and what was was a wildly inconsistent heavyweight career and two first round losses to a guy who didn't secure berth into the HOF, a reluctant but absolute no

Let me do the easy stuff first. Pastrano is a comically inadequate nomination for a Hall of Fame, for all that Angelo Dundee insisted that of all the fighters he ever handled, Pastrano had as much talent as any with the exception of Ali (yup, including Leonard). Good win over Johnson, which is disputed to this day, and otherwise a flimsy CV at best. Anyone losing to Calderwood at their peak has no business whatever among elite company. NO.

Perkins has greater claims, both in achievements and quality of opposition, but he's still a good way short of the level we're looking for here. 1-1-1 against Loi is damned good going, but there just isn't quite enough to back this up for me, so he must be a NO.

I can't have Patterson here, either, I'm afraid. Being the youngest heavyweight champ is praiseworthy, up to a point, but can we really allow entry to someone who visited the canvas more than twenty times as a pro? The failure to fight Liston earlier is an ineradicable black mark against Floyd as well, as are his struggles against the dreadfully limited Johansson. A great gentleman of the sport, but not of Hall of fame material for me. NO.

I've been dreading making a decision on Pedroza, and that dread has been redoubled after seeing the first couple of votes here. The longevity is there, the travelling is there, the 19 defences are there, but let's hold on a minute. We were saying precisely the same about Brian Mitchell not so long ago. If Pedroza ever proved himself the best featherweight in the world, he did so for a brief period after Juan Laporte won the WBC title, Pedroza having eked out a disputed decision over the Puerto Rican for the WBA title when they fought. This is another thing about Eusebio - the gift decisions, far too frequently for comfort, where not only Laporte, but also Taylor and Lockridge were on the short side of egregiously poor scoring. Olivares was ancient, so where's the meat in this reign? A Salvador Sanchez-Pedroza unification bout would have cleared up so many of the doubts, which, for me at least, persist. I'm very open to persuasion by a good counter-argument, but I regard Pedroza's case as unproven, and for now, he must be a NO for me.

I have no such problem with Pascual Perez. He was the undisputed king of the little men for almost as long as Pedroza, travelled a fair bit during his reign as well and ruled his division with a rod of iron. There was never much doubt about the identity of the king of the flyweights between 1954 and 1960, which is why I'm happy to give Perez the nod here. YES.

It's an easy yes to both Pedroza and Perez with the rest being equally easy Nos

Ayup captain, I think each case here is straightforward, though I may be in the minority in thinking that.

I'm sure we'll all agree that Pastrano falls massively short of the level we're looking for. It's admirable that he regularly gave away height and weight in facing Heavyweights, but even at his preferred 175 lb, his record is just about as patchy as it gets. For every win against a Maxim Layne, there's a surprising defeat to the likes of Thornton and Calderwood, and his contentious win over a battle-worn Johnson isn't enough to make full amends. An easy no, fine technician though he was.

Patterson is an equally clear no in my mind, and I suspect he'd be just that to many others had he not campaigned in boxing's most noted division. The oppostition he feasted on - even if it was at D'Amato's request, rather than his own - was frankly embarrassing at times while he was champion, and those two hammerings at the hands of Liston only demonstrated that Patterson, quite simply, was never really the best Heavyweight in the world. Fine gentleman, and of course a very good fighter, hence why even after a punishing career he still acquited himself well against the leading Heavyweights of the late sixties and early seventies. But not Hall of Fame worthy. Another no.

It is in the case of Eusebio Pedroza that I'll disagree this week, captain, and disagree fairly strongly. Ghosty's recent all-time Featherweight top fifteen thread illustrated that I clearly rate the Panamanian a lot higher than most others seem to, but to be frank I simply don't see more than six or seven Featherweights who achieved more than him. Granted, they were of a very different era, but in a division where the likes of Attell and Kilbane have achieved legendary status while making sparse defences of their crown under full championship conditions and stacking every single possible advantage in their favour, Pedroza deserves to be recognized as the real deal; a man who took on just about every worthwhile contender and who gave new significance to the term 'world champion', risking his title in places where championship boxing had never even been seen beforehand. To hold the lack of a Sanchez unification against him seems harsh, considering the tragic circumstances, and even taking that in to account, by my reckoning that still gives the man from Panama a nigh-on three year window in which he was the consensus man at 126 lb. Can't say I care much for his rough and ready style - though I think he was impeccable in defeat against McGuigan - but for his consistency, globe-trotting as champion and contribution to the Featherweight division, I vote him a yes.

I'm totally back in agreement with you when it comes to Perez, though. Let's remember that the man didn't turn professional until he was twenty-six; if my memory serves me correctly, he was in his mid thirties (practically ancient for a Flyweight) by the time Kingpetch took the crown from him, his first loss of any real consequence, and as Kingpetch himself would be on the cusp of an all-time top ten Flyweight spot, there's no disgrace there. As an outstanding champion in the days when there was only one to each division, Perez stands as part of Flyweight's elite three in my eyes along with Wilde and Villa, and while there aren't many eye-catching names on his record, the dominance over his best contemporaries consolidates his place. Another yes.

Whenever I watch Perkins, it's clear he had class in abundance. What he does not have, however, it a title reign dominant enough or a record containing enough quality to be placed amongst the elite, which is exactly what the 606 Hall of Fame caters for. Maybe a little unfortunate in some aspects of his career, but ultimately to give him a place here would be setting the bar too low. No, once again.

In summary, yes to Pedroza and Perez, no to Pastrano, Patterson and Perkins. Cheers.

Pedroza is a tricky one. Personally I would have his reign as slightly better than Mitchells overall as I think he beat better quality but there are definate parallels that can be drawn.

There is a large problem with kind of late 70s to late 80s era the cooperation between the sanctioning bodies was strained making unified champions hard to get and even harder to maintain. Promoters like King could have the WBC strip fighters seemingly at a whim and excercised huge influence over the organisation. Its therefore more difficult to apportion blame for certain unifications not happening.

However the fact remains that I would consider perhaps the big guns in the division around Pedroza's reign to be himself and then Sanchez, Nelson and perhaps Gomez who could be tempted up to challenge. These were the greats and the fact remains Pedroza did not fight or beat any of them. It also seems highly unlikely he could have beaten Sanchez although this alone is not enough of a reason to disregard him.

However the likes of LaPorte, Lockridge and Taylor represented the top contenders outside the really elite big guns. The problem is these wins (and draw with Taylor) kind of ask more questions than they answer about Pedrozas true calibre as there are arguments to say he could have lost several of them and certainly none of them were very convincing wins that you might expect of a really elite fighter. Then he surrendered his title to McGuigan who was a good but not great fighter. I think we have a scenario whereby there is a champion like Pedroza who holds a belt for a long time but is never really seen as the top guy in the division then you have to look past the title and explore the win colums with more detail.

Even if we can forgive him for fights with the likes of Nelson, Sanchez or Gomez not taking place then I think one is still obliged to examine the rest of his reign in even more detail. In this regard I think his claim is based largely on longetivity at statistical defences. If he had beaten the likes of Lockridge, LaPorte or Taylor convincingly with little room for argument I think I would probably give him a yes but he seemed to struggle against all his better opponents to the point where there are question marks there. Cant really say he dominated the division with men like Sanchez and Nelson there and in terms of raw ability and talent I dont think he was an elite level fighter so while I think the margin is tight, I will say no for the purposes of this more elitish HoF where I think he maybe falls just short. Again hes probably one of those guys who deserves a second look when the list is finished and a more complete picture is painted.

As for the other contenders, I am happy to go with the flow citing agreement with most of the above.

Pastrano - no
Patterson - no
Pedroza - no
Perez - yes
Perkins - no

I'm a yes for perez and no for everyone else.

Looks like this week's debate is all about pedroza. I'm siding with the captain and colonial here. The precedent has been set, that in the modern era of multi weight champions, a long reign on its own isn't good enough.

When its a long reign without really proving yourslef best in the division, and where there are close/disputed decisions against the quality you did meet, you move into the question mark territory. Let's face it, someone looking back at his record only could make a case for sven ottke.

It is close, and when its marginal i allow some qualitative judgement... I never felt he was truly elite when i saw him.

I think in light of recent events it's important to keep the Hall of Fame alive and kicking.

For me it's a yes for Perez, dominant for such a long time. As others have alluded to, Pastrano, Perkins and, sadly, Patterson aren't elite. Fine fighters and each with some excellent achievements, but they are no's.

Pedroza I'm going to take a little more time with, a very difficult case as we've already seen with a fairly split vote so far.

We shall be persevering, slash. Delighted to read your comments. Don't forget to post your final decision on Pedroza before the end of Sunday night; it could end up being rather important.

I've decided to go with a no for Pedroza captain, though he's certainly a borderline case I don't feel I should vote yes just to get him in for reconsideration, I should vote the way I think. On balance I feel he falls in between the very good and the elite. Some very good wins but failure to defeat or at least fight the elite around you, combined with the competitive nature of his fights with the very good fighters (LaPorte for example) leads me to go with no.

Hope i'm not too late. Was at work. Pedroza gets in for me. Borderline but in. Was watching some of his fights at work last week. My word, what a clean hitter.

Perez gets in easily I should think.

Patterson - If we pt him in we'd have to put bruno in - just for sheer likeability - then windy would have to get out his bhop-pavlik post fight disguise and we'd all leave the building looking like gay zorro.

Pastrano ...No

Perkins - Can't make allowances I'm afraid. No - but the kind of no you get from gents trying their first comb over. Reluctant but inevitable acceptance of it not going your way.

Perez - yes.
All of the others - no.

Sorry for the brisk post but realise I've missed the deadline for this already!

Just what I was waiting for, FoF.

The past week's debate has essentially focused on one boxer. Of the other four, Pascual Perez was unanimously voted in to join the glitterati who comprise our Hall of Fame. Equally decisively, Willie Pastrano, Floyd Patterson and Eddie Perkins were permanently rejected by voters. Eusebio Pedroza polarised opinion to such an extent that voting on him was precisely evenly divided. His 50% score is insufficient for automatic entry to the Hall, but puts him among those fighters who will receive a second ballot next year.

This week's contenders are headed by Aaron Pryor. An alternate on the all-star 1976 USA Olympic team, Pryor made rapid headway through the pro ranks. After 18 successive wins, 16 inside the distance, he took on the former WBA light-welterweight champion Peppermint Frazer, thrashed him in five rounds and placed himself at the head of the queue to fight the venerable champion, Antonio Cervantes. Once again, Pryor was up to the task, despatching Cervantes in four, and making five easy defences before his ultimate test. In an unforgettable bout with triple-weight champion Alexis Arguello, Pryor rallied in the championship rounds to stop the great Nicaraguan in 14. He repeated the dose in a slightly anti-climactic return fight and then gained recognition as the IBF's first champion at 140. Sadly, the shadow of drugs had already begun to hang over Pryor, who retired as undefeated champion in 1985. A comeback two years later would feature his only defeat and show that Pryor was far removed from his glory days, and he finally retired for good in 1990.

Dwight Muhammad Qawi's boxing education was served in Rahway State Penitentiary, where he served a lengthy stretch for various crimes. On release, he became a Muslim and, undaunted by an early decision loss, reeled off a serious of impressive wins, culminating in important victories over former light-heavyweight champion Mike Rossman and fellow alumnus of Rahway, James Scott. Now pitted against Matthew Saad Muhammad for the WBC 175 lb title, Qawi turned in an awesome performance to smash Saad in ten, repeated the feat in even more clinical fashion in their return and then took on Michael Spinks for the undisputed light-heavyweight crown. A tough, grinding fight was won narrowly, but clearly, by Spinks, prompting the 5 foot 5 Qawi to move up to cruiserweight. Here, he quickly earned a shot at the WBA title, winning a war against Piet Crous and defending once, before losing a thrilling shoot-out against Evander Holyfield by split decision. This marked the beginning of the end of Qawi's competitive career. He was thrashed by Holyfield in a rematch, lost to George Foreman at heavyweight and dropped a decision to Robert Daniels for his old cruiserweight crown. He retired in 1992, came back for a further three fights in 1997 and finally hung up the gloves at the age of nearly 46.

Ultiminio "Sugar" Ramos, like so many of his accomplished contemporaries, began life as a pro boxer in Cuba, before having to move after the Castro revolution of 1959. Boxing between featherweight and lightweight, he was unbeaten in his first 40 fights, apart from a controversial disqualification loss, whereupon he fought the respected Eloy Sanchez in Mexico and destroyed him inside three rounds. A tilt at Davey Moore's featherweight crown five months later was the upshot, a bout that engendered tragedy and bitter controversy. By the end of it, Ramos was the new champion, but Moore was in a coma from which he would never wake up. As champion, Ramos defended successfully on three occasions, but then lost the title in decisive fashion to the great Vicente Saldivar. Ramos quickly landed a lightweight title shot at Carlos Ortiz, which he lost in controversial circumstances because of a cut. An immediate rematch, however, saw Ramos outclassed and stopped in four. Ramos drifted out of the picture for two years, came back, but after a good win against Raul Rojas, lost to his namesake Mando Ramos, a defeat which finished his aspirations at a higher level.

Luis Rodriguez was another of the great Cuban emigres of the late 1950s. His unbeaten run in his homeland had already marked him out as something out of the ordinary when he travelled to America for the first time and handed a boxing lesson to the former welterweight champion Virgil Akins. Incredibly active, Rodriguez continued to win until dropping a split decision to Emile Griffith in a non-title fight. The result was close enough to propel him into title contention, so there was great surprise when soon afterwards, he was floored and outpointed by Curtis Cokes. Rodriguez soldiered on, gaining his revenge on Cokes and finally landing a welterweight title shot at Griffith in 1963. This was to be his finest hour, as he outpointed the great Virgin islander to take the crown. However, he lost a tight split decision in the return, and again went down by split decision when the pair clashed for a fourth time the following year. Rodriguez was not for giving up, however; a string of wins again saw him in a final eliminator for the 147 title, where this time, he was stopped in the 15th by his old rival Cokes. Rising to middleweight, Rodriguez twice beat Bennie Briscoe and won and lost against Vicente Rondon en route to a shot at Nino Benvenuti's world title at 160. This was to prove a step too far - Rodriguez was knocked out by a single left hook, and, although he was to box on for almost three more years, that was the end of his career at the top level.

Edwin Rosario's credentials as one of boxing's fiercest hitters were established early. He won his first twenty-one fights, 20 by KO, on the way to a shot at Jose Luis Ramirez's WBC lightweight title. A tight decision win put Rosario on top of the world, but after two successful defences, he was surprisingly stopped by Ramirez in their re-match. Rosario remained among the big boys, however, beating Frankie Randall in a thriller, and losing a hotly contested decision to Hector Camacho in another challenge for the WBC title. His showing was good enough for an immediate shot at Livingstone Bramble's WBA crown, and defying the bookmakers' odds, Rosario thrashed Bramble in two rounds. He would lose the crown a year later, brutally mauled by Julio Cesar Chavez, and although he regained it after Chavez moved up in weight, he was quickly beaten again, this time by former victim Juan Nazario. Rosario still had enough left to win the WBA crown at 140 against Loreto Garza, but he lost it by stunning first round KO in his first defence, and his career tragically tailed off into drug abuse and ultimately, the contraction of HIV and a sadly premature death.

For me, Pryor is an absolute yes. My only slight at him would be that he could have done more, i.e. moving up in weight to chase the Leonard fight more vigorously. However, when all is said and done, he was a fighter of the highest calibre, and his two wins over Arguello are almost hall of fame worthy in themselves.

As for the others, whilst all undoubtedly very accomplished fighters with their moment of success, I feel that they all let themselves down at various points in their careers when they really should have pushed on in order to confirm their greatness. Their great wins are somewhat levelled out by disappointing or unexpected losses, and as such I can find no place for them in this Hall of Fame.

Pryor - Yes.
Qawi - No.
Ramos - No.
Rodriguez - No.
Rosario - No.

Morning, captain.

While I wouldn't quite class Pryor as a one hundred percent, nailed-on inclusion, I'd say he's pretty damn close. As FoF has rightly pointed out, there is a slight element of 'what if?' regarding his career as he could have been even greater; but what he did do is enough to secure a positive vote from me. He was the definition of a dominant champion for a good while at 140 lb - one of the few additional divisions which can even come close to the original eight in terms of quality - and while Cervantes and Arguello are the only two names on his record which grab a reader by the scruff of the neck, it's perhaps the way in which he got past them which is most impressive of all. Without much hesitation, it's a yes.

Considering that he had absolutely no amateur career, learned his boxing in the toughest environment most could imagine and had a terrible start when winning only once in his first three professional outings, Qawi's achievements are all the more praiseworthy. That said, he didn't establish himself as anything other than the third or fourth best at Light-Heavyweight in his own era (admittedly a very strong one) and as such, he simply can't be inducted here. Always found the Indian sign he held over Saad a little mystifying, even if Saad was slightly on the wane by the time they met, and those wins aside his record at the highest level is inconsistent - too inconsistent for a place amongst the elite. Much to admire when it comes to Qawi, but it's a no from me.

Ramos was a damn fine Featherweight who would have reigned for a lot longer had he prospered in the days of multiple belts per division. However, impressive though his record is, it also shows that he fell short more often than not when faced with the truly elite; Saldivar and Ortiz were without doubt the two best men he faced, and he was 0-3 against them. That's his fate sealed - a decisive no.

Rodriguez, I think, is maybe one of the more underappreciated Welterweights of years gone by, but still didn't own the division at any time with enough authority to secure a place in our Hall of Fame. He was perhaps unlucky not to do so - I'm sure most who have seen them will accept that a couple of the decisions he dropped to Griffith were controversial, to say the least - but ultimately, there can't really be any room for such sentiment when we're separating the good from the truly elite. He campaigned admirably at the higher weight, but not with enough consistency to earn a spot here, and so it's without any hesitation that I say no to him.

Rosario, to me, is one of the ultimate Jekyll & Hide characters of modern boxing; a seemingly unbeatable Lightweight beast on certain days, an uninspired drifter on others. Indeed, it's his ability (if that's the right word) to drift between the sublime and the average which makes the 'no' vote I'm about to cast for him inevitable. For each impressive win there is a surprising or ignominious defeat, and while he left a lasting impression on the Lightweight era he fought in, he certainly falls well short of that for all eras - and afterall, isn't that what the Hall of Fame should really be about? Magnificent fighter when on song, but it's a no from me.

So in round up, yes to Pryor. No to Qawi, Ramos, Rodgriguez and Rosario.