raylawpc wrote:Guys: Friends of my son here in St. Louis are moving to LA. He's going to work at UCLA; she thinks she has a job in Pasadena. What would be a good area in which they can look for a house thats convenient for both of them. Young couple - early 30s - planning to have children. Any suggestions?
I think maybe Rick can help you with that, he know the L.A. area better then anybody here, I think, I just know the barrios...
I live in Studio City, which is in the San Fernando Valley and is located approx. the same distance between the Westwood campus and Pasadena.
It's a nice area, roughly 15-20 mintues from both work locations. I don't know this is what they would like, but it's pretty central to everything.
20 min. to downtown L.A., less than a half hour to the beach. Studio City is in the Hollywood Hills areas, clean, nice homes.
If they are looking to someplace between Pasadena and UCLA. This would be in the middle.
If I can be of any help, Tom, let me know. I know all of Los Angeles pretty well.
The above photo was taken at Knott's Berry Farm in 1981. That's Meranda next to Jeri. Andrew is there too but you can't see him. Jeri was about four months pregnant at the time. The actual photo is on tin.
raylawpc wrote:Guys: Friends of my son here in St. Louis are moving to LA. He's going to work at UCLA; she thinks she has a job in Pasadena. What would be a good area in which they can look for a house thats convenient for both of them. Young couple - early 30s - planning to have children. Any suggestions?
I can tell you where to eat but not where to live. What's wrong with Pasadena? It seems like a nice town.
Randy
Nothing, I guess. I've never been there. (The only thing I know about Pasadena is the little old lady the Beach Boys sing about.) My son's friends were told that if they lived in the UCLA or Pasadena area, one of them would have a 40 to 45 minute commute to work. They were looking for a nice place in between.
They knew I'd been out to LA a few times and asked me if I was familiar with the area. I told them that I am not too familiar with the residential areas but I know some people who are!!
Last edited by raylawpc on 20 Aug 2009, 00:45, edited 1 time in total.
raylawpc wrote:Guys: Friends of my son here in St. Louis are moving to LA. He's going to work at UCLA; she thinks she has a job in Pasadena. What would be a good area in which they can look for a house thats convenient for both of them. Young couple - early 30s - planning to have children. Any suggestions?
I think maybe Rick can help you with that, he know the L.A. area better then anybody here, I think, I just know the barrios...
I live in Studio City, which is in the San Fernando Valley and is located approx. the same distance between the Westwood campus and Pasadena.
It's a nice area, roughly 15-20 mintues from both work locations. I don't know this is what they would like, but it's pretty central to everything.
20 min. to downtown L.A., less than a half hour to the beach. Studio City is in the Hollywood Hills areas, clean, nice homes.
If they are looking to someplace between Pasadena and UCLA. This would be in the middle.
If I can be of any help, Tom, let me know. I know all of Los Angeles pretty well.
-Rick Farris
Thanks Rick. Good schools in Studio City (if you know)?
I just read were Oscar De La Hoya considers Julio Cesar Chavez the best fighter he ever faced. Doesn't surprise me coming from Oscar. A fighter who put up more wind and smoke with his pre fight predictions, and then changed trainers more than a Vogue model switches outfits during a fashion show.
His fights with Chavez were so one sided that to consider him his best competition makes me want to put pigeons on Oscar's statue in front of the Staple Center. Gee,Oscar if you say so,I guess I'm going to have to believe that. I guess Floyd Mayweather wasn't as difficult to master. Nor was Hopkins who had you gasping for breath on the all fours on the mat. Then why did you throw in the towel against PacMan?
Maybe Oscar's comment about Chavez being the best he ever fought gives us some insight to De La Hoya's personality. What you hear isn't what you get.
Last edited by dagosd2000 on 20 Aug 2009, 12:06, edited 1 time in total.
I just read were Oscar De La Hoya considers Julio Cesar Chavez the best fighter he ever faceed. Doesn't surprise me coming from Oscar. A fighter who put up more wind and smoke with his pre fight predictions, and then changed trainers more than a Vogue model switches outfits during a fashion show.
His fights with Chavez were so one sided that to consider him his best competition makes me want to put pigeons on Oscar's statue in front of the Staple Center. Gee,Oscar if you say so,I guess I'm going to have to believe that. I guess Floyd Mayweather wasn't as difficult to master. Nor was Hopkins who had you gasping for breath on the all fours on the mat. Then why did you throw in the towel against PacMan?
Maybe Oscar's comment about Chavez being the best he ever fought gives us some insight to De La Hoya's personality. What you hear isn't what you get.
I'm not a DLH apologist, but I'm wondering if he is saying that Chavez was the best fighter vs saying what fighter did he have the toughest fight with. I suppose some could make the case that Chavez was the best he fought based on an entire career. But he was past it when they met.....a bit like he was past it when he met Floyd and Pac.
What order would you put them in?
I'm sort of inclined to go with Whitaker pound for pound and Probably Hopkins overall, as the best fighters he faced (since Floyd and Pac's career are still possibly in upward progress.)
Thanks Rick. Good schools in Studio City (if you know)?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Tom . . . The schools in Studio City are very good, better than in neighboring North Hollywood/Van Nuys area, where you have gangs and the lower end of L.A. City School System. A lot of film industry professionals live in the area and the local economy is supported by the presence of major studios which benefits the cities tremendously. Crime is everywhere in the world but a lot less in these neighborhoods than in those surrounding.
Another place is Burbank (with four major studios within it's borders), which is a little closer to Pasadena (10min) and about 20-30 from UCLA depending on traffic.
Burbank has great schools too, being an incorporated city and not affiliated with the L.A. County school systems. The streets are clean and in great condition.
In Burbank, you'll drive on nice roads, and the homes reflect a "pride of ownership", but when you cross the line into North Hollywood, you'll see pot holes in the roads, grafitti, etc.
Burbank, Studio City or Sherman Oaks would be my recommendation based on the proximity desired to both UCLA & Pasadena (and where you'll find the best schools).
Pasadena is a great place too, as Randy said, but your friends were correct in their evaluation of time & distance.
All three of the areas I recommended are surrounded by the Hollywood hills, lots of trees, recreation, nice restaurants and shopping, hiking nearby (I have a cross training type workout I do with amateur boxers in the hills where I live.)
One more thing about education. There is an elementary school in Studio City, (the Carpenter Street Elementary school) which has a reputation and has won awards for it's outstanding program. It's a public school that provides a private school quality and education, or so I have been told. I know actress Terry Hatcher's daughter attends the school, and she could afford to send her to any number of private schools located in the area. One more advantage to Studio City is one I like best, everything is freeway close, but the person going to UCLA has travel options beyond the freeway. A quick drive thru Laurel Canyon puts you in West Hollywood where you drive Sunset Blvd. a few miles to the UCLA campus.
Personally, I would avoid Hollywood, North Hollywood, Van Nuys. They are also in the area, but the schools suck, and so do the neighborhoods.
If your friends are considering Studio City, have them look up the Carpenter Street Elementary School on-line for reference.
They may also wish to checkout the Burbank School System.
By the way, the house (the exterior, at least) that was used in the old "Brady Bunch" TV series, is located about two blocks from the Carpenter St. School.
That's the only visual reference of the neighborhood I could think of.
-Rick
Last edited by Rick Farris on 20 Aug 2009, 14:33, edited 1 time in total.
Rick Farris wrote:Thanks Rick. Good schools in Studio City (if you know)?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Tom . . . The schools in Studio City are very good, better than in neighboring North Hollywood/Van Nuys area, where you have gangs and the lower end of L.A. City School System. A lot of film industry professionals live in the area and the local economy is supported by the presence of major studios which benefits the cities tremendously. Crime is everywhere in the world but a lot less in these neighborhoods than in those surrounding.
Another place is Burbank (with four major studios within it's borders), which is a little closer to Pasadena (10min) and about 20-30 from UCLA depending on traffic.
Burbank has great schools too, being an incorporated city and not affiliated with the L.A. County school systems. The streets are clean and in great condition.
In Burbank, you'll drive on nice roads, and the homes reflect a "pride of ownership", but when you cross the line into North Hollywood, you'll see pot holes in the roads, grafitti, etc.
Burbank, Studio City or Sherman Oaks would be my recommendation based on the proximity desired to both UCLA & Pasadena (and where you'll find the best schools).
Pasadena is a great place too, as Randy said, but your friends were correct in their evaluation of time & distance.
All three of the areas I recommended are surrounded by the Hollywood hills, lots of trees, recreation, nice restaurants and shopping, hiking nearby (I have a cross training type workout I do with amateur boxers in the hills where I live.)
One more thing about education. There is an elementary school in Studio City, (the Carpenter Street Elementary school) which has a reputation and has won awards for it's outstanding program. It's a public school that provides a private school quality and education, or so I have been told. I know actress Terry Hatcher's daughter attends the school, and she could afford to send her to any number of private schools located in the area. One more advantage to Studio City is one I like best, everything is freeway close, but the person going to UCLA has travel options beyond the freeway. A quick drive thru Laurel Canyon puts you in West Hollywood where you drive Sunset Blvd. a few miles to the UCLA campus.
Personally, I would avoid Hollywood, North Hollywood, Van Nuys. They are also in the area, but the schools suck, and so do the neighborhoods.
If your friends are considering Studio City, have them look up the Carpenter Street Elementary School on-line for reference.
They may also wish to checkout the Burbank School System.
-Rick
Thanks Rick. They will be in LA next week visiting with a realtor. I'll pass along your message and make sure that they request some home showings in Studio City. I have never been to Studio City, but I drove around Burbank when I was in LA a couple of years ago for a conference, and did some Jeffries research. Burbank struck me as a very pleasant city. Nice neighborhoods for the most part. The city library is state-of-the-art, as you probably already know. They have a nice little city park and community center, where the Burbank Historical Museum is located. BTW, the museum has a Jeffries exhibit.
My wife's favorite movie is "Mr. Woodcock," which is rather surprising if you ever met my wife. But she watches it and laughs all the way through. I bet she's seen it 5 or 6 times.
BTW, have you guys seen "The Hammer?" I thought it was a great boxing film.
Synopsis: Approaching forty, Jerry Ferro (Adam Carolla) is unsatisfied with his life as a construction worker and part-time boxing instructor in Los Angeles, CA. After dropping an up-and-coming pro boxer in a sparring session, Jerry decides to don the gloves one last time. The movie recounts his unlikely quest for Olympic gold. Along the way, Jerry receives encouragement from his friend and co-worker, Oswaldo Sánchez (Oswaldo Castillo), and love interest Lindsay Pratt (Heather Juergensen).
raylawpc wrote:My wife's favorite movie is "Mr. Woodcock," which is rather surprising if you ever met my wife. But she watches it and laughs all the way through. I bet she's seen it 5 or 6 times.
BTW, have you guys seen "The Hammer?" I thought it was a great boxing film.
Synopsis: Approaching forty, Jerry Ferro (Adam Carolla) is unsatisfied with his life as a construction worker and part-time boxing instructor in Los Angeles, CA. After dropping an up-and-coming pro boxer in a sparring session, Jerry decides to don the gloves one last time. The movie recounts his unlikely quest for Olympic gold. Along the way, Jerry receives encouragement from his friend and co-worker, Oswaldo Sánchez (Oswaldo Castillo), and love interest Lindsay Pratt (Heather Juergensen).
I haven't seen it, but if a boxing guy like yourself liked it, I expect I would too.
I heard Adam Carolla was involved in a boxing flick, but hadn't considered going until now.
raylawpc wrote:My wife's favorite movie is "Mr. Woodcock," which is rather surprising if you ever met my wife. But she watches it and laughs all the way through. I bet she's seen it 5 or 6 times.
BTW, have you guys seen "The Hammer?" I thought it was a great boxing film.
Synopsis: Approaching forty, Jerry Ferro (Adam Carolla) is unsatisfied with his life as a construction worker and part-time boxing instructor in Los Angeles, CA. After dropping an up-and-coming pro boxer in a sparring session, Jerry decides to don the gloves one last time. The movie recounts his unlikely quest for Olympic gold. Along the way, Jerry receives encouragement from his friend and co-worker, Oswaldo Sánchez (Oswaldo Castillo), and love interest Lindsay Pratt (Heather Juergensen).
I haven't seen it, but if a boxing guy like yourself liked it, I expect I would too.
I heard Adam Carolla was involved in a boxing flick, but hadn't considered going until now.
-Rick Farris
I thought it was hilarious. Calling it a great boxing film was a poor choice of words - its no "The Harder They Fall" - but it is an absolutely hilarious boxing film. It's out on DVD.
In the mid-90's, I worked on a sit-com starring John Ritter called, "Hearts Afire".
The producer was Linda Bloodworth Thomason, Hillary Clinton's best friend and former college roomate.
Linda's husband, Harry Thomason, directed most of the episodes. He owned Thomason aircraft and was President Bill Clinton's best friend.
I was a lighting technician on the show when Clinton was elected, and the Thomason's were the Clinton's first overnight White House guests.
It was about this time our show's hair stylist, Christophe, was brought to LAX by Thomason to cut the President's hair as his Air Force One sat on an LAX runway delaying all other flights.
The press tabbed the incident, "Travel Gate", and it angered many people.
Soon, President Clinton's younger brother, Roger, was working on our TV show with his band, and Hillary's late father was one of our live audience guests.
It was like a trailer park reunion.
Of course we had other guests too, such as when Rush Limbaugh (the Thomason's polar-opposite) who made a cameo appearance.
Rush's right-wing "Ditto Head" fan club filled the audience.
White trash, Ditto Heads, we had a variety of personalities watching us film from the audience seats on stage.
Billy Bob Thornton was one of the series regulars (before he hit it big) and he told me that the Thomason's really pressured the cast to support Clinton's campaign.
Those who did not wish to participate, were conveniently dropped from the show. Ed Asner, a staunch Democrat was happy to do so, so was Ritter and actress Markie Post.
They all just jumped in line and did as told. Billy Bob Thornton was also supportive of Clinton, but not on their terms. He said he would not participate in the campaign.
I respected Billy for that, but some of the ass-kissers were shocked. After a couple seasons, the show folded, and Billy Bob went on to write, produce and star in "Sling blade".
He was nominated for two Oscars, "Best Actor" and "Best Screenplay". He won the Screenplay Oscar and I was happy.
I admire Billy for standing his ground. From that point on his career took off, including a marriage to actress Angelina Jolie.
Billy has been a major player in Hollywood ever since "Hearts Afire". All the ass-kissers are unemployed.
By the way, a few months after Hearts Afire wrapped for good, I went to work on Seinfeld and fell off an 18' high catwalk on stage, breaking my pelvis.
I was in the hospital a couple of days and before leaving had a couple visitors, Billy Bob and the key grip from Hearts Afire.
A year later, Billy's career would take off and I couldn't have been happier. He's a great guy.
A couple things about Billy Bob Thornton. Besides being a stand-up guy and great actor, he is a greater talent as a film maker.
A brilliant writer, smart producer who really knows what he is doing. The film industry is a lot like boxing today.
You have a lot of great technology but few true film makers. Just as the boxers of days past are gone forever, so are the great film makers.
We still have the Spielberg's, etc. but most are lost and the evidence is on the screen. A lot of crap!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
More on Billy Bob:
Billy Bob Thornton not only wrote, produced, directed and starred in Sling Blade, he brought in some of Hollywood's top performers as supporting cast.
These were Billy Bob's friends, like John Ritter, and Dwight Yokum, etc.
They worked on an equity waiver, which meant they'd get a percentage of the gross if the film did well.
As a result, all those who signed the waivers, made $millions from their cut of the mega-profits the film generated.
Using his knowledge and understanding of what shots are most important to a film, when to shoot, how to shoot, how to cheat a shot, how to make movies the way the old timers did.
Billy had his own crew of low budget techs who were talented in their own right, and whom Billy helped go into mainstream film production.
While we were shooting "Hearts Afire," Billy wrote/directed and produced a TV movie for Showtime titled, "One False Move".
He shot it cheap (ala the masters Clint Eastwood & Michael Landon, the ultimate actor film makers), however, he had no choice.
Guys like Eastwood & Landon were highly bankable talents. Billy Bob was a sit-com co-star.
In a world where major films of more than $100 million flop, Billy's "Sling Blade" was produced for approx. $500,000.
The film has made more than $250 million (500X it's original investment).
Another thing about Billy is the balls he has when negotiating a film deal.
Just because a guy has a hot property he wishes to produce, and he is bankable, does not mean he doesn't have to deal with suggestions from those who bring in the money.
They will ask Billy, "Well, why can't you shoot it this way? or wouldn't it be best if he said something else?"
Billy doesn't screw around with a lot of talk. "Becasue I don't want to", he'll answer. He cuts to the chase. A great film maker knows how to eliminate the unneccessary.
Great writers learn to express themselves best with fewer words (something I'm working on).
Lately I've written of some special film personalities.
Billy Bob Thornton is special, unconventional, totally professional.
These are qualities I admire in an artist.
This was sent sent to me by my friend and fellow boxing historian, Tony Triem.
Tony wrote this awhile back, and like myself is a Yank.
Bennie, Rob, tellboy, Wildhawke, Brits, historians, regulars who would like to comment, please do.
After all, the British invented modern-day boxing, as we know it, in 1867 when John Graham Chambers and his friend, Sir John Sholto Douglas, the eighth Marquis of Queensbury, introduced rules to the game that changed it dramatically. They outlawed wrestling, required fighters to wear gloves, provided for a one-minute rest between rounds and gave a fighter 10 seconds to rise after getting floored.
In the ensuing 140 years, dozens of great fighters have emerged from the birthplace of the fight game, and what follows is one man's listing of the 10 best. It's never easy deciding who gets left off of a list like this, but not everybody can make the cut. If they could there would be nothing to fight about. These are the best of the best.
Jimmy Wilde
131-3-2 (99), 13 no-decisions
World Flyweight Champion 1916-'23
It's hard for fans of any era to properly appreciate a man who fought several generations before their own, but Wilde's greatness shouldn't be overlooked just because it occurred 90 years ago. A fighter's historical value is measured by how well he did against the best fighters of his era and in this regard Wilde has few peers in all of boxing, never mind British boxing.
Look at the record again: three losses in 149 fights, with 99 knockouts. Though Wilde rarely weighed more than 100 pounds he was among the best punchers ever. The Ring magazine placed him third among history's great punchers, behind only Joe Louis and Sam Langford, two icons of the sport. And his mammoth winning streaks are rivaled only by those compiled by Sugar Ray Robinson and Willie Pep. This is where he belongs and it's not close.
Freddy Welsh
73-5-7 (32), 82 decisions
World Lightweight Champion 1914-'17
It's unfortunate that when Welsh is remembered at all, it's as the man from whom the great Benny Leonard won the lightweight title in 1917. And it's true, there are worse ways to be remembered. But Welsh was a hell of a lightweight in his own right and his record against the best 135-pounders of the era proves it.
As his record suggests, Welsh was not the puncher Wilde was - few were. And stylistically he was at the other end of the spectrum, a quick-footed, fleet-fisted fighter who relied on his defense the way Wilde relied on his right hand. But because he wasn't a puncher doesn't mean Welsh wasn't great. He was a superb boxer in an age when the ranks were full of tough, angry little guys who could fight. Welsh was among the best.
Jim Driscoll
52-3-6 (35), 8 no-decisions
British Featherweight Champion 1907-'13
Like Welsh, Driscoll was more defensive than offensive and kept his opponents off-balance with superior footwork, speed, and science. He was a better puncher than was Welsh and to be frank you could swap their places in this ranking without too much argument. The primary difference is Driscoll lost to Welsh via disqualification in Cardiff in 1910, and never won a world title - officially.
Driscoll did everything to champion Abe Attell in their title fight in 1909 in New York that one fighter could do to another without knocking him out, and the so-called "newspaper decision" went his way unanimously. But this was the no-decision era, in which any fight that didn't end in knockout was a no-decision. Attell never gave him a rematch, and you couldn't blame him.
Lennox Lewis
41-2 (32)
Heavyweight Champion 1993-'94, 1997-'2001, 2001-'03
There are those who would put Lewis at the top of this list, but only as a result of a favorable bias toward heavyweights or modern fighters or both. Each of the fighters who rate higher than Lewis has more wins than he has total fights and the breadth of one's body of work, not just its visibility, must weigh heavily in these discussions.
That said, Lewis was a wonderful, mostly dominant heavyweight champion whose greatest strength was his versatility. When facing a big puncher, such as David Tua, he could move and box superbly. When confronted with a weaker man, say Andrew Golota or Frans Botha, he was no less destructive than was George Foreman or Joe Louis. And if this were a ranking of the greatest British heavyweights, there is little doubt he'd be at the top. As it is, there's no shame in coming in fourth.
Bob Fitzsimmons
40-11 (32) 11 no-decisions, 1 no-contest
World Middleweight Champion 1891-'97
World Heavyweight Champion 1897-'99
World Light Heavyweight Champion 1903-'05
You could argue Fitzsimmons' inclusion here, as he fought entirely in Australia and the United States and never in Great Britain. Nevertheless, "Ruby Robert" was born in Helston, Cornwall , England , and that qualifies him in this book. You could argue too that his position as boxing's first triple-crown champion is overrated; the light heavyweight crown, which he won in 1903 by beating George Gardner, was mostly a publicity stunt by Gardner 's manager.
Still, Fitzsimmons was outweighed by 30 pounds when he knocked out Jim Corbett to win the heavyweight title, and was 40 years old when he stopped Gardner . His win over Jack Dempsey (The Nonpareil) to win the middleweight crown in 1891 was huge, and, along with James J. Jeffries, who relieved him of the heavyweight belt, Fitzsimmons was one of the dominant fighters of his time.
Ted "Kid" Lewis
173-30-14 (71), 65 no-decisions
World Welterweight Champion 1915-'16, 1917-'19
Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali will be forever linked. That's how it is with Lewis and Jack Britton, who fought one another no less than 20 times between 1915 and 1921, many times with the world welterweight title on the line. They passed it back and forth like it was the plague but Britton wasn't the only great fighter with whom Lewis tangled. He fought all the best fighters at or around his weight including Benny Leonard (Lewis won the "newspaper" decision), and Maxie Rosenbloom (Lewis lost on a foul).
Lewis didn't stop there. He fought solid middleweights and light heavies too, most notably the brilliant Frenchman Georges Carpentier, who stopped Lewis in the first round. For Lewis, even heavyweights, such as South Africa 's Alec Storbeck, whom Lewis stopped in a round, were on the menu. And in addition to holding the welterweight world title, Lewis was, at varying times, the British welterweight champion, the British and European welterweight champion, and the British middleweight champion.
Ken Buchanan 61-8 (27) Lightweight Champion 1970-'72
Like Freddie Welsh before him, Buchanan had the great misfortune of competing in the same era with a physical phenomenon to whom he would lose the title. Welsh had Benny Leonard, Buchanan had Roberto Duran, who stopped Buchanan under dubious circumstances in their title match in New York in 1972. Much has been made in the ensuing years about how Duran never gave Buchanan a rematch, but no less a source than Hall of Fame manager and trainer Gil Clancy, who worked for Buchanan, owed it to lack of fan interest rather than any reluctance on Duran's part.
Either way, Buchanan was a fine boxer-puncher who might have enjoyed a long reign indeed had it not been for Duran's wild tenacity and charisma. As it was, he beat a fine fighter in Ismael Laguna for the title, and defended against Ruben Navarro and then Laguna again before running into Duran. He also beat the great Carlos Ortiz (albeit in the 36-year-old Ortiz' final fight), and future champion Jim Watt.
Randy Turpin 66-8-1 (45) World Middleweight Champion 1951
Turpin is best remembered for his shocking win over middleweight champion Sugar Ray Robinson in London in 1951and it's true that a good deal of it was owed to Robinson's partying and philandering in the days leading up to what he thought would be an easy defense. But there was no such alibi for the rematch, which took place two months later in New York , and it was no easy right for Robinson then, either. Turpin, with his awkward strength and heavy jab, troubled Robinson the way Ken Norton troubled Muhammad Ali and Robinson had to work mightily to regain the title from Turpin on a 10-round knockout.
Either way, Turpin was more than the sum of his bouts with Robinson. He'd won the British and European middleweight titles before facing Robinson, and afterward won the British Empire middleweight title, too. Losses to Carl "Bobo" Olson and Tiberio Mitri appeared to finish him as a top fighter by the end of 1954, but the next year he claimed the British light heavyweight title with a knockout of Alex Buton.
Many fans scoff now at Hamed, so one-sided and humbling was his points loss to the great Marco Antonio Barrera in Las Vegas in 2001. It ruined him as a fighter and performer but it doesn't erase what he got done before that night; namely, whipping good solid fighters such as Tom Johnson, Manuel Medina, Wayne McCullough, Kevin Kelley, Wilfredo Vazquez and Paul Ingle. And losing to Barrera, who surely will be viewed by history as one of the great featherweights, is no embarrassment.
Hamed's highly unorthodox style and outrageous personality made him a target of the purists, but he made up for technical failings and hubris with astonishing athleticism and punching power. It took a fighter the caliber of Barrera to silence him and if not for the copious amounts of money his popularity and drawing power had made for him up to that point, he'd likely have returned and made some noise still at 125 pounds.
Owen Moran 67-16-5 (33), 19 no-decisions
Moran never officially won a world title, but it's hard to think of another guy who came so close so many times against top-tier fighters. Moran twice fought Jim Driscoll, once to a draw (in Driscoll's last fight) and another to a no-decision. He fought the great old champion Able Attell five times and Battling Nelson too, and Ad Wolgast and Packey McFarland, all the biggest names among the lighter guys in the early 1900s.
Moran had a hard time winning against the very top guys and that's reflected in his record and in his position during the time as perennial contender. But no one had an easy time of it against him. He was as relentless and scrappy as any fighter you could name that came before or after him and belongs among the great prizefighters of England .
Rick Farris wrote:This was sent sent to me by my friend and fellow boxing historian, Tony Triem.
Tony wrote this awhile back, and like myself is a Yank.
Bennie, Rob, tellboy, Wildhawke, Brits, historians, regulars who would like to comment, please do.
After all, the British invented modern-day boxing, as we know it, in 1867 when John Graham Chambers and his friend, Sir John Sholto Douglas, the eighth Marquis of Queensbury, introduced rules to the game that changed it dramatically. They outlawed wrestling, required fighters to wear gloves, provided for a one-minute rest between rounds and gave a fighter 10 seconds to rise after getting floored.
In the ensuing 140 years, dozens of great fighters have emerged from the birthplace of the fight game, and what follows is one man's listing of the 10 best. It's never easy deciding who gets left off of a list like this, but not everybody can make the cut. If they could there would be nothing to fight about. These are the best of the best.
Jimmy Wilde
131-3-2 (99), 13 no-decisions
World Flyweight Champion 1916-'23
It's hard for fans of any era to properly appreciate a man who fought several generations before their own, but Wilde's greatness shouldn't be overlooked just because it occurred 90 years ago. A fighter's historical value is measured by how well he did against the best fighters of his era and in this regard Wilde has few peers in all of boxing, never mind British boxing.
Look at the record again: three losses in 149 fights, with 99 knockouts. Though Wilde rarely weighed more than 100 pounds he was among the best punchers ever. The Ring magazine placed him third among history's great punchers, behind only Joe Louis and Sam Langford, two icons of the sport. And his mammoth winning streaks are rivaled only by those compiled by Sugar Ray Robinson and Willie Pep. This is where he belongs and it's not close.
Freddy Welsh
73-5-7 (32), 82 decisions
World Lightweight Champion 1914-'17
It's unfortunate that when Welsh is remembered at all, it's as the man from whom the great Benny Leonard won the lightweight title in 1917. And it's true, there are worse ways to be remembered. But Welsh was a hell of a lightweight in his own right and his record against the best 135-pounders of the era proves it.
As his record suggests, Welsh was not the puncher Wilde was - few were. And stylistically he was at the other end of the spectrum, a quick-footed, fleet-fisted fighter who relied on his defense the way Wilde relied on his right hand. But because he wasn't a puncher doesn't mean Welsh wasn't great. He was a superb boxer in an age when the ranks were full of tough, angry little guys who could fight. Welsh was among the best.
Jim Driscoll
52-3-6 (35), 8 no-decisions
British Featherweight Champion 1907-'13
Like Welsh, Driscoll was more defensive than offensive and kept his opponents off-balance with superior footwork, speed, and science. He was a better puncher than was Welsh and to be frank you could swap their places in this ranking without too much argument. The primary difference is Driscoll lost to Welsh via disqualification in Cardiff in 1910, and never won a world title - officially.
Driscoll did everything to champion Abe Attell in their title fight in 1909 in New York that one fighter could do to another without knocking him out, and the so-called "newspaper decision" went his way unanimously. But this was the no-decision era, in which any fight that didn't end in knockout was a no-decision. Attell never gave him a rematch, and you couldn't blame him.
Lennox Lewis
41-2 (32)
Heavyweight Champion 1993-'94, 1997-'2001, 2001-'03
There are those who would put Lewis at the top of this list, but only as a result of a favorable bias toward heavyweights or modern fighters or both. Each of the fighters who rate higher than Lewis has more wins than he has total fights and the breadth of one's body of work, not just its visibility, must weigh heavily in these discussions.
That said, Lewis was a wonderful, mostly dominant heavyweight champion whose greatest strength was his versatility. When facing a big puncher, such as David Tua, he could move and box superbly. When confronted with a weaker man, say Andrew Golota or Frans Botha, he was no less destructive than was George Foreman or Joe Louis. And if this were a ranking of the greatest British heavyweights, there is little doubt he'd be at the top. As it is, there's no shame in coming in fourth.
Bob Fitzsimmons
40-11 (32) 11 no-decisions, 1 no-contest
World Middleweight Champion 1891-'97
World Heavyweight Champion 1897-'99
World Light Heavyweight Champion 1903-'05
You could argue Fitzsimmons' inclusion here, as he fought entirely in Australia and the United States and never in Great Britain. Nevertheless, "Ruby Robert" was born in Helston, Cornwall , England , and that qualifies him in this book. You could argue too that his position as boxing's first triple-crown champion is overrated; the light heavyweight crown, which he won in 1903 by beating George Gardner, was mostly a publicity stunt by Gardner 's manager.
Still, Fitzsimmons was outweighed by 30 pounds when he knocked out Jim Corbett to win the heavyweight title, and was 40 years old when he stopped Gardner . His win over Jack Dempsey (The Nonpareil) to win the middleweight crown in 1891 was huge, and, along with James J. Jeffries, who relieved him of the heavyweight belt, Fitzsimmons was one of the dominant fighters of his time.
Ted "Kid" Lewis
173-30-14 (71), 65 no-decisions
World Welterweight Champion 1915-'16, 1917-'19
Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali will be forever linked. That's how it is with Lewis and Jack Britton, who fought one another no less than 20 times between 1915 and 1921, many times with the world welterweight title on the line. They passed it back and forth like it was the plague but Britton wasn't the only great fighter with whom Lewis tangled. He fought all the best fighters at or around his weight including Benny Leonard (Lewis won the "newspaper" decision), and Maxie Rosenbloom (Lewis lost on a foul).
Lewis didn't stop there. He fought solid middleweights and light heavies too, most notably the brilliant Frenchman Georges Carpentier, who stopped Lewis in the first round. For Lewis, even heavyweights, such as South Africa 's Alec Storbeck, whom Lewis stopped in a round, were on the menu. And in addition to holding the welterweight world title, Lewis was, at varying times, the British welterweight champion, the British and European welterweight champion, and the British middleweight champion.
Ken Buchanan 61-8 (27) Lightweight Champion 1970-'72
Like Freddie Welsh before him, Buchanan had the great misfortune of competing in the same era with a physical phenomenon to whom he would lose the title. Welsh had Benny Leonard, Buchanan had Roberto Duran, who stopped Buchanan under dubious circumstances in their title match in New York in 1972. Much has been made in the ensuing years about how Duran never gave Buchanan a rematch, but no less a source than Hall of Fame manager and trainer Gil Clancy, who worked for Buchanan, owed it to lack of fan interest rather than any reluctance on Duran's part.
Either way, Buchanan was a fine boxer-puncher who might have enjoyed a long reign indeed had it not been for Duran's wild tenacity and charisma. As it was, he beat a fine fighter in Ismael Laguna for the title, and defended against Ruben Navarro and then Laguna again before running into Duran. He also beat the great Carlos Ortiz (albeit in the 36-year-old Ortiz' final fight), and future champion Jim Watt.
Randy Turpin 66-8-1 (45) World Middleweight Champion 1951
Turpin is best remembered for his shocking win over middleweight champion Sugar Ray Robinson in London in 1951and it's true that a good deal of it was owed to Robinson's partying and philandering in the days leading up to what he thought would be an easy defense. But there was no such alibi for the rematch, which took place two months later in New York , and it was no easy right for Robinson then, either. Turpin, with his awkward strength and heavy jab, troubled Robinson the way Ken Norton troubled Muhammad Ali and Robinson had to work mightily to regain the title from Turpin on a 10-round knockout.
Either way, Turpin was more than the sum of his bouts with Robinson. He'd won the British and European middleweight titles before facing Robinson, and afterward won the British Empire middleweight title, too. Losses to Carl "Bobo" Olson and Tiberio Mitri appeared to finish him as a top fighter by the end of 1954, but the next year he claimed the British light heavyweight title with a knockout of Alex Buton.
Many fans scoff now at Hamed, so one-sided and humbling was his points loss to the great Marco Antonio Barrera in Las Vegas in 2001. It ruined him as a fighter and performer but it doesn't erase what he got done before that night; namely, whipping good solid fighters such as Tom Johnson, Manuel Medina, Wayne McCullough, Kevin Kelley, Wilfredo Vazquez and Paul Ingle. And losing to Barrera, who surely will be viewed by history as one of the great featherweights, is no embarrassment.
Hamed's highly unorthodox style and outrageous personality made him a target of the purists, but he made up for technical failings and hubris with astonishing athleticism and punching power. It took a fighter the caliber of Barrera to silence him and if not for the copious amounts of money his popularity and drawing power had made for him up to that point, he'd likely have returned and made some noise still at 125 pounds.
Owen Moran 67-16-5 (33), 19 no-decisions
Moran never officially won a world title, but it's hard to think of another guy who came so close so many times against top-tier fighters. Moran twice fought Jim Driscoll, once to a draw (in Driscoll's last fight) and another to a no-decision. He fought the great old champion Able Attell five times and Battling Nelson too, and Ad Wolgast and Packey McFarland, all the biggest names among the lighter guys in the early 1900s.
Moran had a hard time winning against the very top guys and that's reflected in his record and in his position during the time as perennial contender. But no one had an easy time of it against him. He was as relentless and scrappy as any fighter you could name that came before or after him and belongs among the great prizefighters of England .
Its a great list . . . as long as its not in any particular order.
Rick Farris wrote:This was sent sent to me by my friend and fellow boxing historian, Tony Triem.
Tony wrote this awhile back, and like myself is a Yank.
Bennie, Rob, tellboy, Wildhawke, Brits, historians, regulars who would like to comment, please do.
After all, the British invented modern-day boxing, as we know it, in 1867 when John Graham Chambers and his friend, Sir John Sholto Douglas, the eighth Marquis of Queensbury, introduced rules to the game that changed it dramatically. They outlawed wrestling, required fighters to wear gloves, provided for a one-minute rest between rounds and gave a fighter 10 seconds to rise after getting floored.
In the ensuing 140 years, dozens of great fighters have emerged from the birthplace of the fight game, and what follows is one man's listing of the 10 best. It's never easy deciding who gets left off of a list like this, but not everybody can make the cut. If they could there would be nothing to fight about. These are the best of the best.
Jimmy Wilde
131-3-2 (99), 13 no-decisions
World Flyweight Champion 1916-'23
It's hard for fans of any era to properly appreciate a man who fought several generations before their own, but Wilde's greatness shouldn't be overlooked just because it occurred 90 years ago. A fighter's historical value is measured by how well he did against the best fighters of his era and in this regard Wilde has few peers in all of boxing, never mind British boxing.
Look at the record again: three losses in 149 fights, with 99 knockouts. Though Wilde rarely weighed more than 100 pounds he was among the best punchers ever. The Ring magazine placed him third among history's great punchers, behind only Joe Louis and Sam Langford, two icons of the sport. And his mammoth winning streaks are rivaled only by those compiled by Sugar Ray Robinson and Willie Pep. This is where he belongs and it's not close.
Freddy Welsh
73-5-7 (32), 82 decisions
World Lightweight Champion 1914-'17
It's unfortunate that when Welsh is remembered at all, it's as the man from whom the great Benny Leonard won the lightweight title in 1917. And it's true, there are worse ways to be remembered. But Welsh was a hell of a lightweight in his own right and his record against the best 135-pounders of the era proves it.
As his record suggests, Welsh was not the puncher Wilde was - few were. And stylistically he was at the other end of the spectrum, a quick-footed, fleet-fisted fighter who relied on his defense the way Wilde relied on his right hand. But because he wasn't a puncher doesn't mean Welsh wasn't great. He was a superb boxer in an age when the ranks were full of tough, angry little guys who could fight. Welsh was among the best.
Jim Driscoll
52-3-6 (35), 8 no-decisions
British Featherweight Champion 1907-'13
Like Welsh, Driscoll was more defensive than offensive and kept his opponents off-balance with superior footwork, speed, and science. He was a better puncher than was Welsh and to be frank you could swap their places in this ranking without too much argument. The primary difference is Driscoll lost to Welsh via disqualification in Cardiff in 1910, and never won a world title - officially.
Driscoll did everything to champion Abe Attell in their title fight in 1909 in New York that one fighter could do to another without knocking him out, and the so-called "newspaper decision" went his way unanimously. But this was the no-decision era, in which any fight that didn't end in knockout was a no-decision. Attell never gave him a rematch, and you couldn't blame him.
Lennox Lewis
41-2 (32)
Heavyweight Champion 1993-'94, 1997-'2001, 2001-'03
There are those who would put Lewis at the top of this list, but only as a result of a favorable bias toward heavyweights or modern fighters or both. Each of the fighters who rate higher than Lewis has more wins than he has total fights and the breadth of one's body of work, not just its visibility, must weigh heavily in these discussions.
That said, Lewis was a wonderful, mostly dominant heavyweight champion whose greatest strength was his versatility. When facing a big puncher, such as David Tua, he could move and box superbly. When confronted with a weaker man, say Andrew Golota or Frans Botha, he was no less destructive than was George Foreman or Joe Louis. And if this were a ranking of the greatest British heavyweights, there is little doubt he'd be at the top. As it is, there's no shame in coming in fourth.
Bob Fitzsimmons
40-11 (32) 11 no-decisions, 1 no-contest
World Middleweight Champion 1891-'97
World Heavyweight Champion 1897-'99
World Light Heavyweight Champion 1903-'05
You could argue Fitzsimmons' inclusion here, as he fought entirely in Australia and the United States and never in Great Britain. Nevertheless, "Ruby Robert" was born in Helston, Cornwall , England , and that qualifies him in this book. You could argue too that his position as boxing's first triple-crown champion is overrated; the light heavyweight crown, which he won in 1903 by beating George Gardner, was mostly a publicity stunt by Gardner 's manager.
Still, Fitzsimmons was outweighed by 30 pounds when he knocked out Jim Corbett to win the heavyweight title, and was 40 years old when he stopped Gardner . His win over Jack Dempsey (The Nonpareil) to win the middleweight crown in 1891 was huge, and, along with James J. Jeffries, who relieved him of the heavyweight belt, Fitzsimmons was one of the dominant fighters of his time.
Ted "Kid" Lewis
173-30-14 (71), 65 no-decisions
World Welterweight Champion 1915-'16, 1917-'19
Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali will be forever linked. That's how it is with Lewis and Jack Britton, who fought one another no less than 20 times between 1915 and 1921, many times with the world welterweight title on the line. They passed it back and forth like it was the plague but Britton wasn't the only great fighter with whom Lewis tangled. He fought all the best fighters at or around his weight including Benny Leonard (Lewis won the "newspaper" decision), and Maxie Rosenbloom (Lewis lost on a foul).
Lewis didn't stop there. He fought solid middleweights and light heavies too, most notably the brilliant Frenchman Georges Carpentier, who stopped Lewis in the first round. For Lewis, even heavyweights, such as South Africa 's Alec Storbeck, whom Lewis stopped in a round, were on the menu. And in addition to holding the welterweight world title, Lewis was, at varying times, the British welterweight champion, the British and European welterweight champion, and the British middleweight champion.
Ken Buchanan 61-8 (27) Lightweight Champion 1970-'72
Like Freddie Welsh before him, Buchanan had the great misfortune of competing in the same era with a physical phenomenon to whom he would lose the title. Welsh had Benny Leonard, Buchanan had Roberto Duran, who stopped Buchanan under dubious circumstances in their title match in New York in 1972. Much has been made in the ensuing years about how Duran never gave Buchanan a rematch, but no less a source than Hall of Fame manager and trainer Gil Clancy, who worked for Buchanan, owed it to lack of fan interest rather than any reluctance on Duran's part.
Either way, Buchanan was a fine boxer-puncher who might have enjoyed a long reign indeed had it not been for Duran's wild tenacity and charisma. As it was, he beat a fine fighter in Ismael Laguna for the title, and defended against Ruben Navarro and then Laguna again before running into Duran. He also beat the great Carlos Ortiz (albeit in the 36-year-old Ortiz' final fight), and future champion Jim Watt.
Randy Turpin 66-8-1 (45) World Middleweight Champion 1951
Turpin is best remembered for his shocking win over middleweight champion Sugar Ray Robinson in London in 1951and it's true that a good deal of it was owed to Robinson's partying and philandering in the days leading up to what he thought would be an easy defense. But there was no such alibi for the rematch, which took place two months later in New York , and it was no easy right for Robinson then, either. Turpin, with his awkward strength and heavy jab, troubled Robinson the way Ken Norton troubled Muhammad Ali and Robinson had to work mightily to regain the title from Turpin on a 10-round knockout.
Either way, Turpin was more than the sum of his bouts with Robinson. He'd won the British and European middleweight titles before facing Robinson, and afterward won the British Empire middleweight title, too. Losses to Carl "Bobo" Olson and Tiberio Mitri appeared to finish him as a top fighter by the end of 1954, but the next year he claimed the British light heavyweight title with a knockout of Alex Buton.
Many fans scoff now at Hamed, so one-sided and humbling was his points loss to the great Marco Antonio Barrera in Las Vegas in 2001. It ruined him as a fighter and performer but it doesn't erase what he got done before that night; namely, whipping good solid fighters such as Tom Johnson, Manuel Medina, Wayne McCullough, Kevin Kelley, Wilfredo Vazquez and Paul Ingle. And losing to Barrera, who surely will be viewed by history as one of the great featherweights, is no embarrassment.
Hamed's highly unorthodox style and outrageous personality made him a target of the purists, but he made up for technical failings and hubris with astonishing athleticism and punching power. It took a fighter the caliber of Barrera to silence him and if not for the copious amounts of money his popularity and drawing power had made for him up to that point, he'd likely have returned and made some noise still at 125 pounds.
Owen Moran 67-16-5 (33), 19 no-decisions
Moran never officially won a world title, but it's hard to think of another guy who came so close so many times against top-tier fighters. Moran twice fought Jim Driscoll, once to a draw (in Driscoll's last fight) and another to a no-decision. He fought the great old champion Able Attell five times and Battling Nelson too, and Ad Wolgast and Packey McFarland, all the biggest names among the lighter guys in the early 1900s.
Moran had a hard time winning against the very top guys and that's reflected in his record and in his position during the time as perennial contender. But no one had an easy time of it against him. He was as relentless and scrappy as any fighter you could name that came before or after him and belongs among the great prizefighters of England .
Its a great list . . . as long as its not in any particular order.
All I see is names, not numbers.
He listed ten he thought were the best, but I see no particular order or reason for such.
His name is listed by historian Tony Triem among Great Britain's ten top boxers. Few here will disagree.
In the 80's. the WBHOF wisely inducted Ted "Kid" Lewis into the Hall of Fame.
Sadly, for Ted "Kid Lewis and more than a dozen legendary WBHOF Inductees, the confused and disorganized WBHOF somehow "lost" track of their inductees, and many were either reinducted unknowingly, or forgotten altogether.
As the current WBHOF Historian, I was able to dig up many forgotten legends this year.
I had he help of two L.A.'s greatest boxing personalities, who wish to remain anonymous.
Ted "Kid" Lewis will return to the WBHOF "honor roll" this year. So will about twenty other names.
Hopefully they will remain there until the organization folds up.
-Rick Farris
Last edited by Rick Farris on 20 Aug 2009, 21:56, edited 1 time in total.
Rick Farris wrote:A World Boxing Hall of Fame embarrassment . . .
Ted "Kid" Lewis
His name is listed by historian Tony Triem among Great Britain's ten top boxers. Few here will disagree.
In the 80's. the WBHOF wisely inducted Ted "Kid" Lewis into the Hall of Fame.
Sadly, for Ted "Kid Lewis and more than a dozen legendary WBHOF Inductees, the confused and disorganized WBHOF somehow "lost" track of their inductees, and many were either reinducted unknowingly, or forgotten altogether.
As the current WBHOF Historian, I was able to dig up many forgotten legends this year.
I had he help of two L.A.'s greatest boxing personalities, who wish to remain anonymous.
Ted "Kid" Lewis will return to the WBHOF "honor roll" this year. So will about twenty other names.
Hopefully they will remain there until the organization folds up.
There may not be a World Boxing Hall of Fame, but these boxers will always be Hall of Famers.
The embarrassing figures who have run the WBHOF into the ground cannot take this from the legends.
-Rick Farris
Thats a shame Rick.
Are there any missing members who are still alive?
If so, would they be included into reintroduction? That might be a bit awkward.
With your increased involvement Rick things will improve tremendously. You are a very committed person.
I hope however that you can get some good support around you.
Its a tough situation . Its difficult when you are serious and want to make a difference and others around you may be ..."less determined" to reach the same goal.
As I mentioned once before, Tony Triem is a real good guy. We spoke through PM a few times.
IfI ever get a chance to talk to him again, I might just mention that we gotta get Benny Lynch on that list.
