International Boxing Hall of Fame changes starting in 2020

[keithmoonhangover]

I'm going to let the Bowe thing slide for now.

I do think you are right that someone should have to have to have a certain % (like 75%) to get in. But as you, I realize that they have to select someone every year. Maybe they could do just one guy.

I'm more interested in why you are saying it would filtering out some guys.

I'm on his side on the Bowe thing. One big win and he's in the IBHOF? If Bowe is in, then why isn't Lloyd Honeyghan?

[Senya13]

But those articles, praising the skills of those early 20th century boxers, were written by reporters who had no idea of what boxing would look like only 40-50 years into the future.

Are you an expert on sporting writers of that era? Who were the most highly regarded boxing experts in the 1890s?
But, of course, everyone knows what Frazier and Foreman fought like, ESPN Classic had been airing the same fights over and over and over for decades. They weren't exactly regarded as boxing virtuosi.

[oogiebe]

Not to change the subject, but I find having Leon and Kenny in the same regard a bit preposterous.

The Ring, May 1981
The "worst" heavyweight champions
John Tate (WBA, 1979-80) 19.5
Primo Carnera (1933-34) 14
Marvin Hart (1905-06) 8
Leon Spinks (1978) 8
Ken Norton (WBC, 1978) 4
Ingemar Johansson (1959-60) 3.5
Jimmy Ellis (WBA, 1968-70) 2
Ernie Terrell (WBA, 1965-67) 1
Jess Willard (1915-19) 1

I'm talking Norton's career; not his abbreviated reign as WBC champ. FFS how do you rank Sam Langford?

[Bundana]

But those articles, praising the skills of those early 20th century boxers, were written by reporters who had no idea of what boxing would look like only 40-50 years into the future.

Are you an expert on sporting writers of that era? Who were the most highly regarded boxing experts in the 1890s?
But, of course, everyone knows what Frazier and Foreman fought like, ESPN Classic had been airing the same fights over and over and over for decades. They weren't exactly regarded as boxing virtuosi.

Doesn't matter who the most knowledgeable sports writers were in the 1890s. They had never seen anything that resembles modern boxing, and must therefore have been easily impressed. We must read their articles with that in mind.

[Ambling Alp II]

Never understood the faith that people have with newspaper articles from way back. Why does it matter what Joe Blow form the Daily Bugle said? For all we know he doesn't know anything about boxing. He could be biased for or against a particular fighter or a particular style. And as mentioned previously, if you go far enough back they simply don't have as much to compare it to.

[Ambling Alp II]

Where should we put Leon Spinks and Ken Norton, as well as a couple other heavyweights who were robbed of decisions in their favor around 1976-77, among the pantheon of greats?

Norton was better than all of those guys that I mentioned that Yanger lost to. Your really counting Spinks? Yanger also had about a zillion draws in addition to all the losses against obscure fighters.

Pat yourself on the back in finding a guy who had a few good wins. But get realistic.

[Ambling Alp II]

I'm going to let the Bowe thing slide for now.

I do think you are right that someone should have to have to have a certain % (like 75%) to get in. But as you, I realize that they have to select someone every year. Maybe they could do just one guy.

I'm more interested in why you are saying it would filtering out some guys.

I'm on his side on the Bowe thing. One big win and he's in the IBHOF? If Bowe is in, then why isn't Lloyd Honeyghan?

Honeyghan's big win was over Donald Curry. Curry was not as good as a prime Holyfield whom Bowe beat.
Honeyghan also lost to Jorge Vaca and Mark Breland among others.

Bowe's only loss was to a prime Holyfield. Even in that fight, he fought a great fight and easily could have got the decision or at least a draw.
To some degree, you have to look at film and see how good a fighter was. Bowe was better than many of the fighters (heavyweights and non-heavyweights) that are in.

[Senya13]

Norton was a piece of s**t who had no clue how to fight when being pressured. There are hundreds, if not thousands of mediocre heavyweights in history who would have knocked him out in a few rounds. He didn't do anything clever against Ali, whenever Ali started moving, Norton had no idea what to do. He couldn't do s**t to Young either and was given a gift decision.

As for old-time writers, I see it as a rather pointless discussion, trying to persuade people who have close to zero knowledge about sporting writers of that time.

[JC]

Compare the achievements of the best heavyweights in IBHoF to achievements of the best boxers from lower weights, and they are on different levels, yet heavyweight champions got inducted almost automatically. I've been saying this many times, but Benny Yanger's achievements are comparable to Muhammad Ali's, if not greater, and he's not in IBHoF.

I'd never heard of Yanger before.

Do you know why he was known as the Tipton Slasher? Was there some connection to William Perry the bareknuckle fighter?

[Ambling Alp II]

Norton was a piece of s**t who had no clue how to fight when being pressured. There are hundreds, if not thousands of mediocre heavyweights in history who would have knocked him out in a few rounds. He didn't do anything clever against Ali, whenever Ali started moving, Norton had no idea what to do. He couldn't do s**t to Young either and was given a gift decision.

As for old-time writers, I see it as a rather pointless discussion, trying to persuade people who have close to zero knowledge about sporting writers of that time.

Worst post I have seen all year.

[Senya13]

It wasn't explained in any sources I've seen on him. He was called (Young) Tipton Slasher from the earliest fight report that could be found of him.

A very short description of his style, by sporting writer who didn't know what boxing is and was easily impressed.
1900-02-04 The Chicago Sunday Tribune (Chicago, IL) (pages 17, 19)
[BY GEORGE SILER.]
Benny Yanger, known as the "Tipton Slasher," is making rapid progress up the pugilistic ladder. He is a stocky built little fellow and is practicing McGovern's style of fighting. There is one fault I find with his boxing, and that is, he carries his weight too far forward when fighting at close range. This causes him to overbalance and forces him to fall into a clinch. If he would carry more of his weight on his right leg, instead of his left, as at present while infighting, he would retain his balance better and increase his hitting powers.

[Bundana]

Oh, so there have been thousands of mediocre heavyweights throughout history, who would have flattened Norton in a few rounds?

Almost as ludicrous as the claim that Yanger's accomplishments overshadow those of Ali's!!

[Ambling Alp II]

Well of course. Norton could not handle pressure fighters, remember? It's not like Norton was as good Matty Baldwin, Steve Kinney, Kid Herman, Aurelio Herrera, and Eddie Hanlon or the zillion guys that Yanger could only get a draw against.

[Bundana]

Well of course. Norton could not handle pressure fighters, remember? It's not like Norton was as good Matty Baldwin, Steve Kinney, Kid Herman, Aurelio Herrera, and Eddie Hanlon or the zillion guys that Yanger could only get a draw against.

He's a very strange dude… to claim that Yanger's career achievements is in any way comparable to Ali's, is beyond absurd. As is the idea that Norton is a piece of s**t, who would be blasted out in no time, by thousands of earlier heavyweights.

Add to this his superior, condescending attitude... and it's clear, we're dealing with one of those delusional "historians", who believe they come across as having superior knowledge, when they denigrate modern boxing/boxers... while at the same time singing the praises of old-timers from 100+ years ago. Very weird!

[Senya13]

This delusional "historian" thinks Lennox Lewis was the best heavyweight of all time, and has Ray Leonard, Roy Jones and Floyd Mayweather in his top 10. So, wrong guess.

[Onetimeonly]

[Bundana]

This delusional "historian" thinks Lennox Lewis was the best heavyweight of all time, and has Ray Leonard, Roy Jones and Floyd Mayweather in his top 10. So, wrong guess.

I won't accuse anyone of lying, so I'll take your word for it.

But can you explain, why you have thousands of heavyweights easily beating Norton here - while on another board you have him in your top-50 heavyweights all-time? So which is it... is he a piece of s**t, or is he top-50?

[Senya13]

Head-to-head I can imagine lots and lots of heavyweights who might have poor skills and no achievements whatsoever, but who had a punch and who could be aggressive. Something Norton couldn't deal with, at least he never proved he could. So based on achivements, Norton could be Top 50, but head to head he sucks. I don't imagine him being anything other than 2nd or 3rd rater in 1980s and 1990s.

[gilgamesh]

I can refer the same questions to you, can you describe Dixon's, Attell's or Yanger's styles for a start, so I know I'm talking to somebody who researched them and has the expertise to judge their all-time placement?

How much footage have you watched of these fighters?

[gilgamesh]

Not to change the subject, but I find having Leon and Kenny in the same regard a bit preposterous.

The Ring, May 1981
The "worst" heavyweight champions
John Tate (WBA, 1979-80) 19.5
Primo Carnera (1933-34) 14
Marvin Hart (1905-06) 8
Leon Spinks (1978) 8
Ken Norton (WBC, 1978) 4
Ingemar Johansson (1959-60) 3.5
Jimmy Ellis (WBA, 1968-70) 2
Ernie Terrell (WBA, 1965-67) 1
Jess Willard (1915-19) 1

Norton may have belonged on the list due to the length or lack thereof of his reign, but he was a notch above most all of those guys as a fighter, and was robbed against Ali in their 3rd bout.

[keithmoonhangover]

Norton was a piece of s**t who had no clue how to fight when being pressured. There are hundreds, if not thousands of mediocre heavyweights in history who would have knocked him out in a few rounds. He didn't do anything clever against Ali, whenever Ali started moving, Norton had no idea what to do. He couldn't do s**t to Young either and was given a gift decision.

As for old-time writers, I see it as a rather pointless discussion, trying to persuade people who have close to zero knowledge about sporting writers of that time.

Worst post I have seen all year.

Agreed.

[Senya13]

How much footage have you watched of these fighters?

None.

Norton may have belonged on the list due to the length or lack thereof of his reign, but he was a notch above most all of those guys as a fighter, and was robbed against Ali in their 3rd bout.

He also looked one of the worst if not the worst heavyweight titlist in history vs aggressive punchers.

[Ambling Alp II]

Because He got stopped by George Foreman? What else do you have?
Head to head, take a look at not only his fights against Ali, but against Holmes, Young, and Quarry. You have in your top 50 but think he would have been a 2nd or 3rd rater in the 1980s and 1990s. you are sounding more and more ridiculous.

[oogiebe]

Because He got stopped by George Foreman? What else do you have?
Head to head, take a look at not only his fights against Ali, but against Holmes, Young, and Quarry. You have in your top 50 but think he would have been a 2nd or 3rd rater in the 1980s and 1990s. you are sounding more and more ridiculous.

Why are you arguing with him? His first post tells you all you needed to know. Don't waste your time.

[Senya13]

Foreman, Quarry (short-handed and much smaller), Garcia (1975 bout), Stander (short, slow and fat), Shavers, Cooney. When Frazier was staying at mid-range and throwing hooks, he didn't stop bobbing and weaving. Norton is regularly attempting the same thing, but he stops bobbing and weaving when he starts slugging it out, his upper body straight, his hands at chest level or lower most of the time. Easy to be hit. There were lots of punchers, who wouldn't miss this chance in 1980s and 1990s.