THOUGHTS ON THE RECENT IBHOF CLASS

John Gully-A formidable early nineteenth century British heavyweight. He was first noticed in two game defeats to champion and HOF slugger Hen "The Game Chicken" Pearce. At the time Gully was in debtors prison and these fights got him out. He became accepted as champion after Pearces' injuries caused him to retire. Gully's big wins and those that cemented him as champion were over Bob Gregson. But at that point Gully retired after fewer than a dozen fights. After his fighting days he became a noted race horse owner and ultimately a Member of Parliament.

MY TAKE-This is a clear case of unnecessary dilution of the HOF. Was Gully a tremendous fighter? By all accounts yes. But he was nowhere near the fighter that say Jem Belcher or Tom Cribb or Jem Ward. I mean seriously, have we learned anything new about John Gully over the past 20 years since the IBHOF was formed.

Jack Root-The first light heavyweight champion. Born in what is today the Czech Republic. He began as a middleweight, a BIG one, in the 1890's and beat such notable men as future 175 champ George Gardner, Tommy West and Frank Craig. Then Root moved up to heavyweight and defeated future heavy champ Marvin Hart. Finally Root and HOFer Kid McCoy (the REAL McCoy) were matched for the new 175 crown. Root knocked him down seven times to take the crown. He then defeated Gardner again and then heavyweight champ Jim Jeffries retired. Root and Marvin Hart were matched for the vacant crown and Root was knocked out in 12. Root won 47 fights and lost only to two THE MAN champions, Gardner twice and Hart.

MY TAKE-This one is tougher. Root was a TREMENDOUS fighter. But he was a small heavyweight in a time of only 4-5 divisions and while he was the first 175 king, it wasn't a division that anyone campaigned in until much later. Fleisher thought he was truly a great fighter. The kindest way to think about Gardner was he was one of the top 7-8 p4p guys of the early 1900's. But I just don't think that should be enough. I am not outraged by this decision, but I wouldn't have voted Root in.

Memphis Pal Moore-Pal was a 1910's bantam and here's the first thing to note. He is one of only two men ever to defeat a prime Jimmy Wilde. Yup, that's ATG, one of the top 15 fighters of all time, the Ghost with the Hammer in his hand Jimmy Wilde. Yes Pal had a ten pound weight advantage when they met, but so did many other guys and they couldn't beat Wilde. A spectacularly special win. How did he do it? Moore was as scientific a fighter as we've seen, though he tended to be a slapping sort of puncher. How good? He was a boxing instructor in the US Navy when he and Wilde fought. But Moore did more than just beat Wilde, he won over 100 fights including wins over HOFers Pete Herman, Eugene Criqui, Bud Taylor, Kid Williams and Sammy Mandell. But Moore also never got a title fight and was never considered THE MAN at bantamweight for even a second. Most of the greats he defeated had at least one win over him as well.

MY TAKE-Is a 5-4-4 record against HOFers and never being THE MAN good enough for the HOF? Does the three round win over Wilde carry more weight than his 17 round loss to the Great Wilde? Again this is a close call. Clearly Moore was exceptional. But when I see a guy who was .500 against the best of his time and NEVER THE MAN for even a second? I don't think it's enough.

Dave Shade-Another just TREMENDOUS fighter. He was a welter and middle of the 1920's and appeared in Ring Magazine's rankings every year from their inception in 1924 to 1933 and in eight of those years was ranked in the top five. Another boxer's boxer, Shade was fast and slick and not a big puncher at all. He bobbed and weaved out of a crouch and was VERY hard to hit. But he had a problem. He was in the same divisions and era as some guy named Mickey Walker. Shade turned pro at 16 and made his name by getting a draw with ATG and reigning welter king Jack Britton when only 18 years old. He knocked down Britton in that fight. Shade lost to Walker after breaking his hand, then beat Walker by decision a month, yup a month, later. Then he got another draw with Britton. This is all BEFORE 1924 when the ratings came out. By my count Dave Shade from 1924-1933 defeated 26 ranked fighters. My guess is, had the rankings been around from 1920 on that number would have been over 35. Think about that for a second. This man, in a time when only 88 fighters were ranked defeated more than TWICE as many as Manny P. or Floyd M. when over 188 are ranked! Yet this guy only got three title shots and just couldn't get by Britton or Walker. Dave Shade is the PERFECT example of why we, as fight fans today shouldn't be prisoners of the moment. This guy had over 150 wins, likely over 35 over ranked guys and we are just getting to him NOW!

MY TAKE-In addition to all the above, despite fighting over 200 times he was stopped twice. Once when he broke his hand and one other time by a body shot. Think about that for a second. Here are the issues with Dave Shade. He had a losing record against HOFers and was never a THE MAN champion. But there's a little bit of Tommy Hearns going on here. He wasn't losing or drawing with run of the mill HOFers he was doing that with Mickey Freaking Walker, a top 15 or so all-timer and Jack Britton who only won 200+ fights and was such an ATG he was part of the first IBHOF class in 1990. I don't mean to be a jerk, but the next time someone mentions Arturo Gatti or Chico Corrales or Joel Casamayor or Miguel Cotto as being HOFers please remember we just got to Dave Shade. I think he did enough to overcome not being a THE MAN champion and is deserving.

Julio Cesar Chavez-The most accomplished 140 of all-time and Mexico's greatest fighter. MY TAKE-An absolute no-brainer lock. One of the 25 most accomplished fighters of all time.

Mike Tyson-The formidable late 1980's and 1990's heavyweight. THE MAN champion with two defenses and he defeated ten ranked fighters in his fifty wins. One of the most feared men in boxing history.

MY TAKE-How does one value hype? Tyson was NOT the youngest heavyweight THE MAN champion, but he WAS the youngest to ever LOSE the crown. His record against HOFers was 2-3. Now almost all heavyweight kings are in and Tyson was one of the five greatest draws in the sports history rivalling Dempsey and Ali and De La Hoya. But I think the Tyson vote here has to come down to how does one value hype? This is one of the few casesw where the hype cannot be ignored. He had a HUGE impact on the sport. Having said that, a hard look at his resume makes me wish he had been made to wait a few years. He is NOT and ATG or anywhere close to it in terms of in-ring accomplishment. Inducting him on the first ballot is unnecessarily diluting the Hall in my opinion.

Kostya Tszyu-A really strange resume for a modern fighter in that he was fighting ranked guys in his FOURTH pro fight! He was twice a THE MAN champion at 140 with a total of 16 defenses and 13 wins over ranked guys. His reign lasted for about four years. Extremely impressive especially since one cannot really find a guy he should have fought and found a way not to. A short, yet exemplary career.

MY TAKE-The pluses are he was clearly THE MAN in his time and fought over a dozen ranked guys. The minuses are he never faced a HOF quality fighter anywhere close to their prime, there really wasn't anyone around. His loss to Vivian Phillips, no matter how one slices it, is just a bad, bad loss for a HOFer. Not a huge deal except it gets magnified because Kostya only fought 35 times. I think an argument can be made either way for Kostya. But, like Tyson, inducting him on the first ballot unnecessarily dilutes the Hall in my opinion.

Where am I wrong?

Tyson has more right being in HOF as Dempsey. What was Dempsey's record against HOF 0-2?

GrantZilla wrote:Tyson has more right being in HOF as Dempsey. What was Dempsey's record against HOF 0-2?

Hardly. Dempsey went 7-2-1 against HOFers. Had the division had rankings back then my guess is Dempsey would have defeated over 20 ranked guys.

7 HOFers? Who?

GrantZilla wrote:7 HOFers? Who?

Willard, Gibbons, Miske twice, Carpentier, Sharkey and Battling Levinsky.

Come on Marlb, Willard and Sharky have no business being in HOF. One was big freak with no boxing expirance who claim was beating a old Johnson in 100 degree Cuba, and other was medicre at best.

Carpentier and Battling Levinsky were Light HWs

GrantZilla wrote:Come on Marlb, Willard and Sharky have no business being in HOF. One was big freak with no boxing expirance who claim was beating a old Johnson in 100 degree Cuba, and other was medicre at best.

Carpentier and Battling Levinsky were Light HWs

A couple of things. First the criteria I am using is the same for both guys. It is fair. Second Carpentier and Levinsky and Gibbons all defeated notable heavies and the difference in weight between the two divisions at the time was ten pounds give or take, not the fifty it is today. Lastly the idea that Willard was inexpereinced is nuts. He had been in the ring with men like Arthur Pelkey and Luther McCarty and Gunboat Smith and Carl Morris before he fought Johnson. Had there been rankings in those days all those are top ten guys.

You got no case here. Tyson's wins were over a LHW in Spinks and a 38 year old Holmes after an 18 month retirement.

Please, back then guys like BoneCrusher Smith, Berbick, Golota, Ruddock, ect be HOFers if that's critera of having likes of Sharky, Braddock, and Willard.

And Willard was a hick farmer who didn't start boxing until was 27 when was recruited in White Hope campaign

Shit, knowing how loose HOF is, I won't be shocked at all if those clowns I mentioned above get in.

GrantZilla wrote:Please, back then guys like BoneCrusher Smith, Berbick, Golota, Ruddock, ect be HOFers if that's critera of having likes of Sharky, Braddock, and Willard.

And Willard was a hick farmer who didn't start boxing until was 27 when was recruited in White Hope campaign

Shit, knowing how loose HOF is, I won't be shocked at all if those clowns I mentioned above get in.

OOOOOOOkayyyy.

jack root i said a few weeks ago was boarderline.i dont object to him finaly making it.tyson belongs in the hall.i dont feel though he was a first ballot inductee though.i for one am disappointed in the way mikes oposition is downgraded to noo bodies.bruno twice bonecruser spinks thomas carl williams ruddick and several others were all decent fighters and some packed a good wallop...nor do i like the fact that in the downgrading we refer to fighters like spinks and dismiss him as a LH only.then with that analogy we should dismiss carpentier maybe as a welter or ditto a willie pastrano as a welter etc etc..can we say then that pac is still a featherweight..

being the man is important perhaps but an overstated case too many times.how long was hofamers graziano or lamatto for that matter the man..diluting the hall is not having mike as a member but having sharley braddock ingo for example in the hall as well as willard.ingo showed me nothing.he had a glass jaw and beat patterson another glass jaw and after there third fight my father called it the battle of the glass jaws..he was decked twice in his career by nobodies before the machen fight..koed twice by patterson..after that he fought a winn synoek or something like that and was given credit for a ko win but infact ingo got koed in the first round of that fight..he got a very slow count..his last fight he got a win over 12 i think over brian london but in fact was koed..the bell saved him while ingo was on his knee and would not of beaton the count.the headlines on the back page of the new york daily mirrior showed that photo with the caption wake up ingo you won..
thats dilluting the hall not tyson..to point out the few fighters willard fought which were inferior to several of mikes oponents further downgrades mike.
now several here say mike dont belong..i feel there wrong..its based on yes his disappointments in the ring AFTER he went to jail..he not only fought several good and decent fighters he destroyed them.the fighters he beat i feel were just as capable and far more dangerous then the hofame fighters dempsey beat..to put in another light did not greb beat the same hofamers outside willard and carpienter as dempsey did and he did it three times plus a tunney.greb was not a heavy or even a full fledges light heavy.
the hall yes has stiffs in it and with the largest stretch of the immagination they dont belong..from almost day one the hall has been deluting the hall with inductees...mike is not one of them.

to head off the arguement that holds no merit that gee wasnt tyson the forth or fifth best HW in his era...wasnt walcoot the forth best in his era behind louis charles and marciano..wasnt frazier the third best behind ali and foreman and some can strech that to forth or fifth if we overlap holmes and liston..we can threwout history comb all the divisions and come up with other fighters in the hall who were forth or fifth or even sixth best in there era..

dmar5143 wrote:jack root i said a few weeks ago was boarderline.i dont object to him finaly making it.tyson belongs in the hall.i dont feel though he was a first ballot inductee though.i for one am disappointed in the way mikes oposition is downgraded to noo bodies.bruno twice bonecruser spinks thomas carl williams ruddick and several others were all decent fighters and some packed a good wallop...nor do i like the fact that in the downgrading we refer to fighters like spinks and dismiss him as a LH only.then with that analogy we should dismiss carpentier maybe as a welter or ditto a willie pastrano as a welter etc etc..can we say then that pac is still a featherweight..

being the man is important perhaps but an overstated case too many times.how long was hofamers graziano or lamatto for that matter the man..diluting the hall is not having mike as a member but having sharley braddock ingo for example in the hall as well as willard.ingo showed me nothing.he had a glass jaw and beat patterson another glass jaw and after there third fight my father called it the battle of the glass jaws..he was decked twice in his career by nobodies before the machen fight..koed twice by patterson..after that he fought a winn synoek or something like that and was given credit for a ko win but infact ingo got koed in the first round of that fight..he got a very slow count..his last fight he got a win over 12 i think over brian london but in fact was koed..the bell saved him while ingo was on his knee and would not of beaton the count.the headlines on the back page of the new york daily mirrior showed that photo with the caption wake up ingo you won..
thats dilluting the hall not tyson..to point out the few fighters willard fought which were inferior to several of mikes oponents further downgrades mike.
now several here say mike dont belong..i feel there wrong..its based on yes his disappointments in the ring AFTER he went to jail..he not only fought several good and decent fighters he destroyed them.the fighters he beat i feel were just as capable and far more dangerous then the hofame fighters dempsey beat..to put in another light did not greb beat the same hofamers outside willard and carpienter as dempsey did and he did it three times plus a tunney.greb was not a heavy or even a full fledges light heavy.
the hall yes has stiffs in it and with the largest stretch of the immagination they dont belong..from almost day one the hall has been deluting the hall with inductees...mike is not one of them.

See I don't think being THE MAN can EVER be overestimated in importance. It isn't everything, but it really is the core of the sport isn't it? Isn't one of the things that makes boxing so special that it is as elemental a game as king of the hill? To be the man you have to beat the man? This approach requires ladder climbing and beating other guys just to be the second guy on the hill issuing the challenge.

By my count there have been 500 or so THE MAN champions since John L Sullivan. Yet only 250 or so men are in the Hall. That seems to me as it should be (more or less).

marbleheadmaui wrote:See I don't think being THE MAN can EVER be overestimated in importance.

You have to look at criteria of being THE MAN. Guys like Sharky, Braddock, Willard, I'd argue where not the man. They might have beaten The Man, but they were not the best and as soon asthey defended their title against the best, they lost.

Sharky won the title by controversal decision. Braddock got lucky against a unfocused Baer, sat on his title for payday, and got KO'd by Louis. To me, be like putting Buster Douglas in the HOF for one single good fight.

great video Grant!!!

If Sharky, Braddock and Willard are in then Kostya deserves to be in there.

As to Tyson, do I think he should have gotten in the hall? Yes. On the first ballot? No.

Kostya: I have a soft spot in my heart for him. I really enjoyed watching him fight. Hall of famer? Yes. First ballot: not so sure.


Chavez was the only sure fire lock for first ballot in my view.

freakzilla316ftw wrote:If Sharky, Braddock and Willard are in then Kostya deserves to be in there.

That is ALWAYS the worst way to look at HOF inductees. Justifying mistakes using other mistakes.