Hall of Fame Nominees

[Sven Tingstrom]

Two words---- TIPPY LARKIN

I read all the names that you guys are throwing around, and I pretty sure these guys fought not long ago.Hence your younger age,but Tippy is not on the lips of the boxing crowd sorta "outta sight ,outta mind" situation. Its a shame.
But Larkin (The Garfield Gunner) fought 1930's-1950's, you can look up his record and see who and what he accomplished.
Just reading his record does not does not give his abilities the justice he deserves. His skills were tremendous.
Only one of his fights exist on film vs Billy Graham in 1947, and it is a lose there for every boxing fan not being able to see him in action.
He's been neglected by the IBHOF for too long.

You are very smart fellow!

[kal.majeed]

Ike Weir, Young Peter Jackson, Mike O'Dowd, Jeff Smith - these are four boxers I mention, give details/links to and who all retire before Larkin's career even begins - Ike Weir dies before Larkin is even born and neither Weir, Jackson, O'Dowd or Smith have even been recognized by the World Boxing Hall of Fame (that HAS recognized the weak chinned Larkin); The 'weak chinned' reference is attributed via legendary trainer Ray Arcel (link below):

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/larkin-t.htm

For who wishes to answer: Does the 10 times stopped (more than the others combined) Larkin deserve to be in the IBHOF more than Weir, Jackson, O'Dowd or Smith?

Also, there is an old saying in boxing - "Any fighter can hit away at a heavy bag and look like a million dollars."

Taken a step further, any number of boxers can have bouts - against caliber opponents - and look like a million dollars; this does not equate to being deserving for the IBHOF; if that were the case then Iran Barkley's fight videos against Darrin Van Horn (the only one ever to stop Van Horn) and Thomas Hearns (the only one ever to earn two wins, at championship level, over Hearns - even Leonard could not do that) would elect him to the IBHOF.....

Note: This is not a personal attack (against anyone) just stating the facts; also, record reading is not nearly as basic as it may 'appear'.

[Ambling Alp]

[I think Camacho is one of those classic examples of people not being able to give credit to someone they don't like. There wasn't much to like about him, but he was a helluva a fighter. He had a lof of quality wins. He basically took on almost anyone at the top over a long period of time.
Some of his wins were against guys that may not have been at their very best, but they weren't shot.

Limon was only 29 years old and had a great fight against Chacon right before he took on Camacho. No evidence whatsoever before the fight that he was shot. Camacho beat him easily and suddenly Limon was shot. Howard Davis had a lot left when Camacho beat him.
Boza Edwards was still a very good fighter when Camacho beat him.
Not sure how Haugen can be past his prime. He was only 30 and only had 30 fights before he fought Camacho.


Rosario was in his prime has been in the Hall of Fame for a long time and Camacho beat him.

As others mentioned, Camacho also had several wins over not great but solid fighters.

This should be an absolute no-brainer. He could be annoying. He was also a great fighter.

Haugen wasn't that good even in his prime. Possibly should've lost to Miguel Santana (from what I've read--though I never saw it). And Haugen's prime was at lightweight; that's what I was referring to.
Limon had been in tons of wars and was never a great fighter to begin with, but let's just say Camacho gets full credit for that win.
Boza never accomplished anything of note at lightweight; he was noted at super feather.
So that leaves us with...
Ramirez
Rosario
Limon
(I don't think Rosario belongs in the HOF, either, BTW.)As for Davis, he lost every time he stepped up (Camacho, Watt, Rosario--and yes, I think Chapo won that 114-112).

I don't like Floyd, but he clearly belongs. Macho doesn't.

Haugen was just as comfrotable fighting at 140 as 135. It was more of a natural weight for him that Camacho at the time; Camacho's
early career was at 130. No Haugen wasn't a legend, but he was a good fighter. He was in his prime when he fought Camacho.

Boza-Edwards looked good at lightweight. He easily beat Melvin Paul and Charlie Brown who were good lightweights.

You say it leaves us with Ramirez, Rosario, and Limon. As if that isn't much. Those are some pretty nice wins.
I agree that Rosario might not be deserving to be in the Hall of Fame, but it's still a very good win for Camacho.

I think we have to look at what a geniune Hall of Famer is. It's not just how many other Hall of Famers you have beat. Johnny Risko beat 7 Hall of Famers and is not in the Hall of Fame; nor should he be. He lost frequnetly to lesser fighters.
Eder Jofre only beat one Hall of Famer (who wasn't at his best) and yet he is in the Hall of Fame and is probably one of the better Hall of Famers.

You also have to look at how many good-very good fighters they beat, and how rarely they lost to lesser fighters.
Camacho beat many good fighters over the course of his career. Besides Rosario, Limon,Boza-Edwards,Ramirez,Haugen and Davis, he beat many solid fighters like Melvin Paul, Rafael Williams, Freddie Roach,Tony Baltizar etc. Beating one of these guys seem that big of a deal, but he beat a string of them.

Was he overhyped? Sure. That isn't the question. Was as good as say Bernard Hopkins, or De La Hoya? No. But he was better than many fighters who are already in the Hall of Fame and the guys that we mentioning as being borderline.

Rover said:1. Haugen accomplished nothing at jr. welter besides the defeat of Camacho. I judge fighters' best weights on accomplishments. Camacho had already won a jr. welter belt and defended it twice, so that tells me that he was comfortable at the weight.
2. Same for Boza. Never won a lightweight title; his title was won at jr. lightweight. Hector didn't beat him there.
3. Jofre was the best in his division. That was undisputed, and his reign was lengthy. Camacho won a jr. light belt and made one defense, after which he relinquished it. You could argue that he was the best lightweight in the world after Rosario destroyed Bramble, and I'd agree, but Camacho defended his title later that night and then left the division.
As for the argument that other undeserving candidates are in, I'd say that errors shouldn't be compounded.[/quote]

I think part of our disagreement is because of the value you seem to put on belts, and title defenses of those belts. I don't think they necesarily mean much. Those aren't major"accomplishments" to me. Beating a quality opponent in a non-title fight is far more impressive to me than beating a mediocre one in a title fight.

Often there there are several fighters in a given weight class who are better than one of the WBS beltholders. In fairly modern times you can pick the right opponents and have several title defenses. That doesn't mean you are better than someone else who is fighting better opponents and doesn't win a title belt, or wins one and doesn't have a lot of successful defenses becasue he loses to a really fighter.

Haugen was a good (not arguing great) jr welterweight. Boza Edwards was very about as good at 135. Just because he didn't a title belt there doesn't mean he wasn;'t good. and he would have won one if he had beat Camacho!

As for your point about compounding errors by putting in guys that aren't worthy-I see where you are coming from. For instance, if we took every fighter who was better than Jess Willard and put him in the HOF there would be 1000 guys in. I agree that two wrongs don't make a right.

However, I am not just talking about one or two bad picks that already in. I can name literally dozens of Hall of Famers that Camacho was beter than and many who he was roughly even with that are already in. If you think that there are that many undeserving fighters in the Hall of Fame, then there is little point of even discussing the Hall of Fame because it is so bad.

[kal.majeed]

Some more ‘nominees’:

Northwest HW champion Pat Killen (1 stoppage loss – via being intoxicated):

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/killen-p.htm

World Colored MW champion Panama Joe Gans (stopped only once as recorded by BoxRec – recorded as a foul loss by cyberboxingzone):

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/pjgans.htm

Cuban MW champion Kid Charol (never stopped; defeats Panama Joe Gans and decade long South American MW champion K.O. Brissett):

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

Multi-division top contender Lou Scozza (never stopped):

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/scozza-lou.htm

World Colored HW champion Obie Walker (never stopped):

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Obie_Walker

Boxer/Judge/Referee Paul Cavalier (never stopped; first to defeat James J. Braddock):

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Paul_Cavalier

Top HW contender Roscoe Toles (1 stoppage loss – avenged; multiple wins over South American HW champions Alberto Santiago Lovell and Arturo Godoy):

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

Top LHW contender Al Gainer (never stopped):

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/gainer-al.htm

Top MW contender Tommy Yarosz (1 stoppage loss – on cuts in his final year as a pro):

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Tommy_Yarosz

Never stopped South American LHW champions Dogomar Martinez and Mauro Mina:

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

3-time world FLW champion Pone Kingpetch (3 stoppage losses – all avenged):

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Human:11494

Is anyone a World Boxing Hall of Famer? IBHOF? Or just a footnote in history?

[Rover]

I think part of our disagreement is because of the value you seem to put on belts, and title defenses of those belts. I don't think they necesarily mean much. Those aren't major"accomplishments" to me. Beating a quality opponent in a non-title fight is far more impressive to me than beating a mediocre one in a title fight.

Often there there are several fighters in a given weight class who are better than one of the WBS beltholders. In fairly modern times you can pick the right opponents and have several title defenses. That doesn't mean you are better than someone else who is fighting better opponents and doesn't win a title belt, or wins one and doesn't have a lot of successful defenses becasue he loses to a really fighter.

Haugen was a good (not arguing great) jr welterweight. Boza Edwards was very about as good at 135. Just because he didn't a title belt there doesn't mean he wasn;'t good. and he would have won one if he had beat Camacho!

As for your point about compounding errors by putting in guys that aren't worthy-I see where you are coming from. For instance, if we took every fighter who was better than Jess Willard and put him in the HOF there would be 1000 guys in. I agree that two wrongs don't make a right.

However, I am not just talking about one or two bad picks that already in. I can name literally dozens of Hall of Famers that Camacho was beter than and many who he was roughly even with that are already in. If you think that there are that many undeserving fighters in the Hall of Fame, then there is little point of even discussing the Hall of Fame because it is so bad.[/quote]
I said Boza and Haugen were known for their accomplishments at 130 and 135, respectively. In both cases, those mainly consisted of championships. Boza basically accomplished nothing of note after the Chacon loss in 83. Yes, he'd have won a belt if he'd beaten Camacho. He didn't beat Camacho; he lost clearly. Same goes for Haugen. He was mainly known for the Pazienza trilogy in which he won the lightweight belt that he lost shortly thereafter to Whitaker (no shame there).
As for the issue of undeserving inductees, I see no issue with taking a stand that the errors of past admissions should not be compounded. Those inductees are in; nothing can be done about it, but their ranks should not be increased. Voters should become more selective, as the HOF is becoming watered down with all of these undeserving inductees.

[Ambling Alp]

I think part of our disagreement is because of the value you seem to put on belts, and title defenses of those belts. I don't think they necesarily mean much. Those aren't major"accomplishments" to me. Beating a quality opponent in a non-title fight is far more impressive to me than beating a mediocre one in a title fight.

Often there there are several fighters in a given weight class who are better than one of the WBS beltholders. In fairly modern times you can pick the right opponents and have several title defenses. That doesn't mean you are better than someone else who is fighting better opponents and doesn't win a title belt, or wins one and doesn't have a lot of successful defenses becasue he loses to a really fighter.

Haugen was a good (not arguing great) jr welterweight. Boza Edwards was very about as good at 135. Just because he didn't a title belt there doesn't mean he wasn;'t good. and he would have won one if he had beat Camacho!

As for your point about compounding errors by putting in guys that aren't worthy-I see where you are coming from. For instance, if we took every fighter who was better than Jess Willard and put him in the HOF there would be 1000 guys in. I agree that two wrongs don't make a right.

However, I am not just talking about one or two bad picks that already in. I can name literally dozens of Hall of Famers that Camacho was beter than and many who he was roughly even with that are already in. If you think that there are that many undeserving fighters in the Hall of Fame, then there is little point of even discussing the Hall of Fame because it is so bad.

I said Boza and Haugen were known for their accomplishments at 130 and 135, respectively. In both cases, those mainly consisted of championships. Boza basically accomplished nothing of note after the Chacon loss in 83. Yes, he'd have won a belt if he'd beaten Camacho. He didn't beat Camacho; he lost clearly. Same goes for Haugen. He was mainly known for the Pazienza trilogy in which he won the lightweight belt that he lost shortly thereafter to Whitaker (no shame there).
As for the issue of undeserving inductees, I see no issue with taking a stand that the errors of past admissions should not be compounded. Those inductees are in; nothing can be done about it, but their ranks should not be increased. Voters should become more selective, as the HOF is becoming watered down with all of these undeserving inductees.[/quote]

I think we are going in circles here. Maybe we will agree about other fighters and other subjects. I guess it's time to move on to weighter issues than if Hector Camacho should make it.

[Ambling Alp]

Some more ‘nominees’:

Northwest HW champion Pat Killen (1 stoppage loss – via being intoxicated):

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/killen-p.htm

World Colored MW champion Panama Joe Gans (stopped only once as recorded by BoxRec – recorded as a foul loss by cyberboxingzone):

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/pjgans.htm

Cuban MW champion Kid Charol (never stopped; defeats Panama Joe Gans and decade long South American MW champion K.O. Brissett):

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

Multi-division top contender Lou Scozza (never stopped):

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/scozza-lou.htm

World Colored HW champion Obie Walker (never stopped):

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Obie_Walker

Boxer/Judge/Referee Paul Cavalier (never stopped; first to defeat James J. Braddock):

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Paul_Cavalier

Top HW contender Roscoe Toles (1 stoppage loss – avenged; multiple wins over South American HW champions Alberto Santiago Lovell and Arturo Godoy):

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

Top LHW contender Al Gainer (never stopped):

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/gainer-al.htm

Top MW contender Tommy Yarosz (1 stoppage loss – on cuts in his final year as a pro):

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Tommy_Yarosz

Never stopped South American LHW champions Dogomar Martinez and Mauro Mina:

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

http://boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?human_ ... &cat=boxer

3-time world FLW champion Pone Kingpetch (3 stoppage losses – all avenged):

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php?title=Human:11494

Is anyone a World Boxing Hall of Famer? IBHOF? Or just a footnote in history?

Most are footnotes. I would consider Kingpetch and Mina, but that is about it.

[CNorkusJr]

Ike Weir, Young Peter Jackson, Mike O'Dowd, Jeff Smith - these are four boxers I mention, give details/links to and who all retire before Larkin's career even begins - Ike Weir dies before Larkin is even born and neither Weir, Jackson, O'Dowd or Smith have even been recognized by the World Boxing Hall of Fame (that HAS recognized the weak chinned Larkin); The 'weak chinned' reference is attributed via legendary trainer Ray Arcel (link below):

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/larkin-t.htm

For who wishes to answer: Does the 10 times stopped (more than the others combined) Larkin deserve to be in the IBHOF more than Weir, Jackson, O'Dowd or Smith?

Also, there is an old saying in boxing - "Any fighter can hit away at a heavy bag and look like a million dollars."

Taken a step further, any number of boxers can have bouts - against caliber opponents - and look like a million dollars; this does not equate to being deserving for the IBHOF; if that were the case then Iran Barkley's fight videos against Darrin Van Horn (the only one ever to stop Van Horn) and Thomas Hearns (the only one ever to earn two wins, at championship level, over Hearns - even Leonard could not do that) would elect him to the IBHOF.....

Note: This is not a personal attack (against anyone) just stating the facts; also, record reading is not nearly as basic as it may 'appear'.

You make very strong points in your return posting. Your references to Boxers Weir,Jackson,ODowd and Smith might be very correct in arguing their acceptance to the "Hall". I must admit that my boxing history does not really take an in depth look at the boxers pre-1940. (Only the usual names that are strewn about that we all know and love- Johnson,Dempsey,Jeffries, etc etc). And maybe these gentlemen you mention warrant admission to the "Hall" in your view, I am only stating Larkin would deserve merit on his basis on career stats alone and not to be compared to other fighters previous or post career.I also agree that with your statement that HOF recognition should not be based on how many times fighting against worthy opponents, but I would say-fighting versus top caliber opponents and WINNING. He held the Jr-Welterweight title vacated by Barney Ross years earlier.
As far as Iran Barkley- why are we comparing Larkin to Barkley ? Barkley was one of the toughest title holders in the ring. Yes Iran deserves merit of his own to be HOF worthy-absolutely. And I'm sure someday he will be in(actually I thought Barkley was in already ?). Why compare boxers ?
Either a fighter warrants induction on his own meritorious achievments against his opposition in his era.-or he doesnt.
I dont understand how boxing fans can compare lets say Ali to Marciano to Dempsey. The eras are way too dramatically changed to compare anything from fight strategies, to size differential of the fighters, to regular ring generalship, to trainers way of teaching boxing styles,rules and equipment used.
Compare Ali to contemparies (Norton, Foreman, Frazier -Absolutely) but to compare different eras of fighters versus each other is very tough and impossible to argue.
Or we can leave it to a computer to figure out Marciano over Ali.

[kal.majeed]

To Ambling Alp: They may not quite be the 'footnotes' as they 'appear' to be as these fighters' careers play key roles in deciphering the secrets to cross era matchups (just thought I would give folks a 'heads up' so it does not hit them like a ton of bricks).

To CNorkusJr: I am a historian (not just a boxing one) and if I had a nickel for every time someone(s) says that something(s) are "impossible" and then someone or group attains the alleged "impossible", I'd be a billionaire. History is layered with folks who attain the alleged "impossible".

The only thing I find "impossible" is why anyone still says that - with all that mankind has accomplished (and eventually will accomplish)......

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I'd vote for several of those "footnotes" over the "no brainer'- Camacho.

[Sven Tingstrom]

Ike Weir, Young Peter Jackson, Mike O'Dowd, Jeff Smith - these are four boxers I mention, give details/links to and who all retire before Larkin's career even begins - Ike Weir dies before Larkin is even born and neither Weir, Jackson, O'Dowd or Smith have even been recognized by the World Boxing Hall of Fame (that HAS recognized the weak chinned Larkin); The 'weak chinned' reference is attributed via legendary trainer Ray Arcel (link below):

http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/larkin-t.htm

For who wishes to answer: Does the 10 times stopped (more than the others combined) Larkin deserve to be in the IBHOF more than Weir, Jackson, O'Dowd or Smith?

Also, there is an old saying in boxing - "Any fighter can hit away at a heavy bag and look like a million dollars."

Taken a step further, any number of boxers can have bouts - against caliber opponents - and look like a million dollars; this does not equate to being deserving for the IBHOF; if that were the case then Iran Barkley's fight videos against Darrin Van Horn (the only one ever to stop Van Horn) and Thomas Hearns (the only one ever to earn two wins, at championship level, over Hearns - even Leonard could not do that) would elect him to the IBHOF.....

Note: This is not a personal attack (against anyone) just stating the facts; also, record reading is not nearly as basic as it may 'appear'.

You make very strong points in your return posting. Your references to Boxers Weir,Jackson,ODowd and Smith might be very correct in arguing their acceptance to the "Hall". I must admit that my boxing history does not really take an in depth look at the boxers pre-1940. (Only the usual names that are strewn about that we all know and love- Johnson,Dempsey,Jeffries, etc etc). And maybe these gentlemen you mention warrant admission to the "Hall" in your view, I am only stating Larkin would deserve merit on his basis on career stats alone and not to be compared to other fighters previous or post career.I also agree that with your statement that HOF recognition should not be based on how many times fighting against worthy opponents, but I would say-fighting versus top caliber opponents and WINNING. He held the Jr-Welterweight title vacated by Barney Ross years earlier.
As far as Iran Barkley- why are we comparing Larkin to Barkley ? Barkley was one of the toughest title holders in the ring. Yes Iran deserves merit of his own to be HOF worthy-absolutely. And I'm sure someday he will be in(actually I thought Barkley was in already ?). Why compare boxers ?
Either a fighter warrants induction on his own meritorious achievments against his opposition in his era.-or he doesnt.
I dont understand how boxing fans can compare lets say Ali to Marciano to Dempsey. The eras are way too dramatically changed to compare anything from fight strategies, to size differential of the fighters, to regular ring generalship, to trainers way of teaching boxing styles,rules and equipment used.
Compare Ali to contemparies (Norton, Foreman, Frazier -Absolutely) but to compare different eras of fighters versus each other is very tough and impossible to argue.
Or we can leave it to a computer to figure out Marciano over Ali.

Smart post!