BoxRec Hall of Fame Voting Results (May 2008)

[Ambling Alp]

It's official! Six new fighters were voted into the prestigous BoxRec Hall of Fame.
They are:

Les Darcy
Jack Dempsey (The Nonpariel)
Khaosai Galaxy
Fighting Harada
Pascual Perez
Tommy Ryan

11 members voted. Eight votes were necessary to be voted in.

A rundown of the vote totals:
9 Votes
Khaosai Galaxy

8 Votes
Les Darcy
Jack Dempsey (Nonpariel)
Fighting Harada
Pascual Perez
Tommy Ryan

7 Votes
Nicolino Locche
Vincente Saldivar
John L. Sullivan

6 Votes
Joe Brown
Aaron Pryor
Antonio Cervantes
George Dixon

5 Votes
Miguel Canto
Flash Elorde
Holman Williams

4 Votes
Gene Fullmer
Lloyd Marshall
Manuel Ortiz
Eusebio Pedroza
Beau Jack
Jim Driscoll
Young Stribling
Fritzie Zivic

3 Votes
Jack Britton
Johnny Kilbane
Kid McCoy
Luis Rodriguez
Freddie Welsh
Jack Dillon
Humberto Gonzalez
Joe Jeannette
Kid Norfolk
Ken Norton
Tom Sharkey
James J. Corbett
Jersey Joe Walcott

2 Votes
Sammy Angott
Ted Kid Lewis
Jimmy Barry
Tommy Gibbons
John Henry Lewis
Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
Pancho Villa
Esteban DeJesus
Sugar Ramos
Jeff Fenech
Daniel Zarazoga
Ismael Laguna
Battling Nelson
Peter Jackson
Harry Wills

1 Vote
Young Corbett III
Mike Gibbons
Young Griffo
Freddie Miller
Freddie Steele
Sammy Mandell
Cocoa Kid
Pedro Montanez
Horacio Accavallo
Joey Archer
Jose Caratolli
Jorge Fernandez
Artuo Godoy
Betulio Gonzalez
Eduardo Lausse
Rafael Merentino
Mauro Mina
Angel Rodriguez
Justo Suarez
Jose Torres
Battling Levinsky
Owen Moran
Tony Zale
Billy Graham
Ace Hudkins
Lew Jenkins
Rinty Monahagen
Billy Petrolle
Ad Wolgast
Lew Tendler
Bob Montgomery
Floyd Patterson
Danny Lopez
Victor Galindez

Thanks to Seamus,Borinken25,giacomino,Martin sosa Cameron, Dempseyfire,Ezzard,p4p1,Expug,Sockdolager, and Voice on TV for voting.
This was fun.

Comments would be appreciated.

[raylawpc]

I suspect Tommy Ryan and the Nonpariel Jack Dempsey would be embarrassed that they got in ahead of the great John L. Sullivan.

(I gave all of my votes to Sullivan. Apparently, that didn't count. . .

I demand a recount!! )

[Ezzard]

I know Hall Of Fames are usually set up with a pioneers category or soemthing similar. Boxrec's is just who we consider to be the greatest fighters and that's it.

With this in mind why does Sullivan deserve to be voted in before than say Jeanette or Jackson?

I am not trying to make mischief here. I am interested in the knowledgeable posters of this forum helping me to get their point of view.

[The Great John L]

With this in mind why does Sullivan deserve to be voted in before than say Jeanette or Jackson?

Thanks for providing evidence of why this whole process is best left to others...

[Ezzard]

With this in mind why does Sullivan deserve to be voted in before than say Jeanette or Jackson?

Thanks for providing evidence of why this whole process is best left to others...

But, John, Sullivan rarely appears above these names in people's all-time lists...

I did actually vote for him...

[The Great John L]

With this in mind why does Sullivan deserve to be voted in before than say Jeanette or Jackson?

Thanks for providing evidence of why this whole process is best left to others...

But, John, Sullivan rarely appears above these names in people's all-time lists...

I did actually vote for him...

It’s supposed to be a hall of fame not a popularity contest or an attempt to determine who the “greatestâ€

[raylawpc]

I know Hall Of Fames are usually set up with a pioneers category or soemthing similar. Boxrec's is just who we consider to be the greatest fighters and that's it.

With this in mind why does Sullivan deserve to be voted in before than say Jeanette or Jackson?

I am not trying to make mischief here. I am interested in the knowledgeable posters of this forum helping me to get their point of view.

There is a quote about Sullivan that says he took boxing from the back alleys to the front pages. Sully was a historical figure. He aroused trememendous interest in boxing among the general public. He ushered in the MQ era. He was the most popular and recognized athlete of his era.

You can go on and on about his accomplishments, and what he did for the game.

Langford and Jeannette were great fighters, but Sullivan's popularity and charisma transformed boxing from a criminal activity into a legitimate sport.

[raylawpc]

I did actually vote for him...

So did I but my vote didn't count, apparently.

[Ambling Alp]

When the Boxrec Hall of Fame was first started by Kid Lefty, I suggested the idea of having a Pioneer category, and no one was interested.

I agree that the fighters from the 19th century and early 20th century are overlooked. To some people, boxing magically got better with the emergence of film.

However, I do think the voting has improved. Fitzsimmons, Jeffries,Walcott, McGovern and Gans are all in and recently Tommy Ryan and "Nonpariel" Dempsey were just elected.

I agree that Sullivan should have been in a long time ago. However, it's not like Sullivan is being completely ignored. He only missed being elected this time by one vote.
There is a good chance that he as well as fighters like Dixon and McCoy will make it soon.

Overall, I strongly defend the voting so far. There has been good represnetation of weight classes,countries,eras etc. Only 69 fighters over 100 years have been elected so far. There are very few cases of fighters that have been elected that are defintely less deserving than than someone who is eligible and who hasn't. Almost without exception, you can atleast make a stong case for who is in.

Of course this isn't perfect. Yes most of the guys that you pick won't make and there will votes for people that you can't even fathom that someone would consider. However, that's life. I thought Michael Spinks should have been in on the 1st ballot, and he didn't make it until the 8th ballot. Only 5 of the 25 guys that I voted for this time made it.

Make your case and try to educate people. Most of all, have fun and vote.

[Ezzard]

I did actually vote for him...

So did I but my vote didn't count, apparently.

Ray, I take your points, and John L's too...

I guess this Hall Of Fame dosn't have the pioneer thing taking into account which might actually be for the best as not enough of us know about that period, perhaps...

One other observation would be that the front page news you talk about may have been something more relevant to the USA and there are people voting from many countries. He may not have the same relevance abroad as he does for our American cousins.

My guess is that because you voted all 25 votes to one man your vote didn't get counted as you cannot duplicate your votes. Alp may have mistakenly thought your vote was a joke vote similar to Collins' (Yours was a joke wasn't it, Collins?!).

[The Great John L]

…One other observation would be that the front page news you talk about may have been something more relevant to the USA and there are people voting from many countries. He may not have the same relevance abroad as he does for our American cousins…

John L’s fame did extend across the ocean as he was quite a celebrity in England and parts of Europe as well. Anyone new to this forum who did know anything about boxing would probably be quite surprised to see a HOF list with 69 names and no John L, but I guess as Alp noted it’s merely for fun. Of course it’s also quite embarrassing for anyone who’s a regular poster on this forum.

[The Great John L]

I did actually vote for him...

So did I but my vote didn't count, apparently.

Of course it didn't because it actually made sense.

[raylawpc]

I did actually vote for him...

So did I but my vote didn't count, apparently.

Ray, I take your points, and John L's too...

I guess this Hall Of Fame dosn't have the pioneer thing taking into account which might actually be for the best as not enough of us know about that period, perhaps...

One other observation would be that the front page news you talk about may have been something more relevant to the USA and there are people voting from many countries. He may not have the same relevance abroad as he does for our American cousins.

My guess is that because you voted all 25 votes to one man your vote didn't get counted as you cannot duplicate your votes. Alp may have mistakenly thought your vote was a joke vote similar to Collins' (Yours was a joke wasn't it, Collins?!).

Where do the "rules" say you can't cast all 25 votes for the same person? Even so, could they have not counted one? As I understand it, if one of those votes had been counted, Sully would have been in.

[raylawpc]

…One other observation would be that the front page news you talk about may have been something more relevant to the USA and there are people voting from many countries. He may not have the same relevance abroad as he does for our American cousins…

John L’s fame did extend across the ocean as he was quite a celebrity in England and parts of Europe as well. Anyone new to this forum who did know anything about boxing would probably be quite surprised to see a HOF list with 69 names and no John L, but I guess as Alp noted it’s merely for fun. Of course it’s also quite embarrassing for anyone who’s a regular poster on this forum.

Yes, Sully was feted and well-received across Europe. When one reads the newspapers from those days, it is apparent that Sully was an athlete of international significance.

[raylawpc]

[quote="Ambling Alp"]I agree that Sullivan should have been in a long time ago. However, it's not like Sullivan is being completely ignored. He only missed being elected this time by one vote. [quote]

Count my vote for Sullivan and he's in now. That's all I ask.

[The Great John L]

Count my vote for Sullivan and he's in now. That's all I ask.

Better he's left out so this “Hall of Fameâ€

[Ambling Alp]

I did think that raylawpc's vote was a joke. I could have counted it as one vote for Sullivan.
However, he still would not have been elected. It's a little complicated, but bear with me.
75% of the vote will get you elected. A fighter can be elected if he has slightly less than if the number of voters isn't divisible by 4 and we assume he would have gotten the remaining votes.
So for example, this time 11 votes were cast. 8 votes were needed (even though 8 out of 11 is slightly less than 75%) because if we assume that the the fighter would have gotten the remainng vote then he would have 9 out 12 votes giving him 75%.

I don't like this rule myself, it was kidlefty's ruling. I think it's confusing and more importantly it's less than 75%. I have asked about this before and no one seems to mind.


Sullivan got 7 out of 11 votes. Even if I would have counted raylawpc's vote, he would have only received 8 out of 12, which isn't enough. He would have needed 9 out of 12 votes.
(What I meant by Sullivan being one short was that if one person that submitted a ballot but didn't vote for Sullivan, would have voted for him he would have been elected.)

However, if for example both the Great L and raylawpc would have voted for Sullivan, he would got 9 out of 13 votes. 13 isn't divisible by 4, so we would 16 would have been the number that we used. We would have assumed he would have gotten the remain 3 votes which would have given him 12 out of 16 and 75% and he would have made it.

The bottom line is that if you want someone elected, it helps to vote for them.

[The Great John L]

...The bottom line is that if you want someone elected, it helps to vote for them.

Which would merely lend credibility to this charade. Better to leave it to it's own demise.

[raylawpc]

I did think that raylawpc's vote was a joke. I could have counted it as one vote for Sullivan.
However, he still would not have been elected. It's a little complicated, but bear with me.
75% of the vote will get you elected. A fighter can be elected if he has slightly less than if the number of voters isn't divisible by 4 and we assume he would have gotten the remaining votes.
So for example, this time 11 votes were cast. 8 votes were needed (even though 8 out of 11 is slightly less than 75%) because if we assume that the the fighter would have gotten the remainng vote then he would have 9 out 12 votes giving him 75%.

I don't like this rule myself, it was kidlefty's ruling. I think it's confusing and more importantly it's less than 75%. I have asked about this before and no one seems to mind.


Sullivan got 7 out of 11 votes. Even if I would have counted raylawpc's vote, he would have only received 8 out of 12, which isn't enough. He would have needed 9 out of 12 votes.
(What I meant by Sullivan being one short was that if one person that submitted a ballot but didn't vote for Sullivan, would have voted for him he would have been elected.)

However, if for example both the Great L and raylawpc would have voted for Sullivan, he would got 9 out of 13 votes. 13 isn't divisible by 4, so we would 16 would have been the number that we used. We would have assumed he would have gotten the remain 3 votes which would have given him 12 out of 16 and 75% and he would have made it.

The bottom line is that if you want someone elected, it helps to vote for them.

FYI, when I'm joking, you'll know it because I'll follow the statement with a couple of these:

There is nothing in the rules that says you can't cast multiple votes for one or more candidates, so I'd appreciate it if you would count my votes, and put Sully in the HOF where he belongs.

[Seamus]

It's often going to be like MLB All Star ballots, Presidential elections etc. Always going to be people who think the voting results are ridiculous.

For me, Rocky Marciano getting in on the 1st ballot was ridiculous, as was Joe Frazier and Sonny Liston getting in ahead of Panama Al Brown, Packey McFarland, Pascual Perez and Tommy Ryan to name just a few. But that's the popular vote, and it doesn't change my opinion whatsoever.

I've got Kid McCoy and Philadelphia Jack O'Brien from my 1st ballot and they weren't even close to getting in this time. So, I believe everyone has a few selections who's lack of support is baffling.

[raylawpc]

It's often going to be like MLB All Star ballots, Presidential elections etc. Always going to be people who think the voting results are ridiculous.

For me, Rocky Marciano getting in on the 1st ballot was ridiculous, as was Joe Frazier and Sonny Liston getting in ahead of Panama Al Brown, Packey McFarland, Pascual Perez and Tommy Ryan to name just a few. But that's the popular vote, and it doesn't change my opinion whatsoever.

I've got Kid McCoy and Philadelphia Jack O'Brien from my 1st ballot and they weren't even close to getting in this time. So, I believe everyone has a few selections who's lack of support is baffling.

Yeah, but John L. Sullivan NOT in a boxing hall of fame? Might as well leave out Babe Ruth from a baseball hall of fame. Or the nation electing somebody other than George Washington as first president of the US.

Would you have even heard of any of those guys you named if John L. Sullivan had not come along and elevated the popularity of the sport at the key time in history that he did?

[Seamus]

So you're saying Sullivan should be in mainly because of his services to boxing, instead of perhaps his record ?

[raylawpc]

So you're saying Sullivan should be in mainly because of his services to boxing, instead of perhaps his record ?

No. Sullivan only lost one fight in his career (to James J. Corbett), was undefeated during his prime, and for 10 years was widely acknowledged as the heavyweight champion. That alone probably qualifies him.

Add to that that boxing was illegal when Sullivan came onto the scene. Sullivan brought boxing from the back-rooms to the front pages, and his support for the new Marquis of Queensbury rules over the old (and illegal) bare knuckle rules gave boxing respectability. John L. Sullivan is still remembered today by sports fans in general, not just boxing fans. (You mention the name "John L. Sullivan" to most sports fans, and you'll get a nod of the head. Try "Tommy Ryan," "George Dixon," "Jim Jeffries," "Terry McGovern," "Joe Gans," or even "Bob Fitzsimmons," and all you'll get is a blank stare or "What team did he play for. . .")

[Ambling Alp]

I did think that raylawpc's vote was a joke. I could have counted it as one vote for Sullivan.
However, he still would not have been elected. It's a little complicated, but bear with me.
75% of the vote will get you elected. A fighter can be elected if he has slightly less than if the number of voters isn't divisible by 4 and we assume he would have gotten the remaining votes.
So for example, this time 11 votes were cast. 8 votes were needed (even though 8 out of 11 is slightly less than 75%) because if we assume that the the fighter would have gotten the remainng vote then he would have 9 out 12 votes giving him 75%.

I don't like this rule myself, it was kidlefty's ruling. I think it's confusing and more importantly it's less than 75%. I have asked about this before and no one seems to mind.


Sullivan got 7 out of 11 votes. Even if I would have counted raylawpc's vote, he would have only received 8 out of 12, which isn't enough. He would have needed 9 out of 12 votes.
(What I meant by Sullivan being one short was that if one person that submitted a ballot but didn't vote for Sullivan, would have voted for him he would have been elected.)

However, if for example both the Great L and raylawpc would have voted for Sullivan, he would got 9 out of 13 votes. 13 isn't divisible by 4, so we would 16 would have been the number that we used. We would have assumed he would have gotten the remain 3 votes which would have given him 12 out of 16 and 75% and he would have made it.

The bottom line is that if you want someone elected, it helps to vote for them.

FYI, when I'm joking, you'll know it because I'll follow the statement with a couple of these:

There is nothing in the rules that says you can't cast multiple votes for one or more candidates, so I'd appreciate it if you would count my votes, and put Sully in the HOF where he belongs.

It does say in the original rules that "we are simply counting the number of ballots each fighter is named on."

Therefore, a fighter can't more than one vote per ballot.


Assembling a Ballot
Voters are instructed to consider all eligible candidates for each ballot. Fighters should be considered based on their performance and accomplishments in the ring.

Do not rank the fighters in order, please just list them alphabetically. No one gets any extra points for being ranked higher than another, we are simply counting how many total ballots each fighter is named on.
Voters should list the 25 fighters most deserving of election. If a voter feels there are fewer than 25 candidates deserving of election, then he (or she) may list as many as he feels are deserving.

All legal ballots will be tabulated at the end of the voting each month. Candidates who are named on 75% or more of the ballots will be inducted into the Hall that month. If there are number of ballots submitted for which there is no whole number representing 75%, the closest number of ballots to 75% without going over will be considered worthy of induction (for example, in the April election, 11 ballots were submitted. 9 votes would represent 82%, and 8 would represent 73%, therefore 8 ballots were the minimum requirement for induction in that election).

raylawpc - I do apologize for not taking your vote seriously. I could have given Sullivan one vote. However, as I explained earlier, he wouldn't have made it anyway. I encourage you and The Great John L. and anyone else that support Sullivan to vote for him next time. I would also encourage you to complete a full ballot next time and add anyone else that you think belongs.
I do hope that people take part in this even if they do think there are glaring omissions.

[raylawpc]

John L. Sullivan