BoxRec

ya, just total noobage of guys unfamiliar with those lower weight greats

giacomino wrote: ↑07 Aug 2022, 08:55

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑05 Aug 2022, 15:53 McGuigan probably should not be in there, but his supporters will probably point out the win over Pedroza. There are certainly worse guys in there.

There several smaller fighters who are in there that nobody ever questions:
Sixto Escobar, Hilaro Zapata, Chang Jung Koo, Yoko Gushiken, Maso Ohba. How often does anyone ever talk about these guys?

Seems like the one constant is that if you have a lot of title defenses (regardless of the quality of competition) they will put you in. Quantity over quality.

Um, of the five your mention, only Zapata won titles in two weight classes. Never saw Escobar, but the other four were long-time belt holders back when there were two belts a division, and in the case of Jung Koo, Gushiken and Ohba, they were dominant in their divisions. Their credentials are far better than a lot of heavier fighters in the hall. The bigger question is why more light fighters aren’t in (such as longtime two-division champion Santos Laciar, who beat Zapata and was a belt holder for the better part of six years)

If you are a heavyweight you get in for winning one fight (Willard, Braddock, Johansson). If you are a flyweight and win a belt and make 5-10 defenses and win significant fights in your division you don’t deserve it because most fans in the US never heard of you

My problem with fighters in the lower weight classes is this: The talent pool is simply very shallow. How many adult men can weigh under 126?
To make it worse, we have way too many weight classes. If it was just flyweight, bantam weight, and featherweight, it would not be as bad.
But 105, 108, 112, 115, 118, 122 and 126?
With that many weight classes over a stretch of just 21 pounds, there simply can't be any depth, and it much easier to be a belt holder. (.ie. it's a lot easier to win a title at light flyweight than heavyweight.)
Look at all these guys getting title shots after just two years. It would not happen so routinely if the division was strong.
Another thing we have to get away from is the number pf title defenses. It's meaningless. You can always find an easy mark to defend your title against. The sheer number of title defenses doesn't mean anything. At all.

Again, I agree that heavyweights like Willard and Braddock should not have been elected.
However there are guys at other weight classes that should not be in either.
Escobar lost a lot of fights and doesn't have a win as good as Braddock's over Baer.
Same with Chalky Wright. Nobody ever questions them.

The talent pool in those lighter weights can be very impressive in places like Japan, Thailand, Mexico, Philippines, etc.

Seamus wrote: ↑07 Aug 2022, 21:53 The talent pool in those lighter weights can be very impressive in places like Japan, Thailand, Mexico, Philippines, etc.

Exactly. How many American men? Not as many as there used to be. Thailand, Philippines, parts of South and Central America? Loads of them. My 5’3 wife always says she feels like she can see men eye-to-eye when we travel south of the border or in Asia. To me El Chocolatito is the most accomplished boxer in the game with the possible exception of Canelo but we consistently have pages and pages of commentary on boxrec every time somebody new wins an alphabet heavyweight belt and immediately want them inducted into the HOF

the irony of bringing up 'hardly get mentioned' when last week same guy was going on about the likes of joe baksi hardly getting mentioned compared to much lesser guys....

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Aug 2022, 19:57

giacomino wrote: ↑07 Aug 2022, 08:55

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑05 Aug 2022, 15:53 McGuigan probably should not be in there, but his supporters will probably point out the win over Pedroza. There are certainly worse guys in there.

There several smaller fighters who are in there that nobody ever questions:
Sixto Escobar, Hilaro Zapata, Chang Jung Koo, Yoko Gushiken, Maso Ohba. How often does anyone ever talk about these guys?

Seems like the one constant is that if you have a lot of title defenses (regardless of the quality of competition) they will put you in. Quantity over quality.

Um, of the five your mention, only Zapata won titles in two weight classes. Never saw Escobar, but the other four were long-time belt holders back when there were two belts a division, and in the case of Jung Koo, Gushiken and Ohba, they were dominant in their divisions. Their credentials are far better than a lot of heavier fighters in the hall. The bigger question is why more light fighters aren’t in (such as longtime two-division champion Santos Laciar, who beat Zapata and was a belt holder for the better part of six years)

If you are a heavyweight you get in for winning one fight (Willard, Braddock, Johansson). If you are a flyweight and win a belt and make 5-10 defenses and win significant fights in your division you don’t deserve it because most fans in the US never heard of you

My problem with fighters in the lower weight classes is this: The talent pool is simply very shallow. How many adult men can weigh under 126?
To make it worse, we have way too many weight classes. If it was just flyweight, bantam weight, and featherweight, it would not be as bad.
But 105, 108, 112, 115, 118, 122 and 126?
With that many weight classes over a stretch of just 21 pounds, there simply can't be any depth, and it much easier to be a belt holder. (.ie. it's a lot easier to win a title at light flyweight than heavyweight.)
Look at all these guys getting title shots after just two years. It would not happen so routinely if the division was strong.
Another thing we have to get away from is the number pf title defenses. It's meaningless. You can always find an easy mark to defend your title against. The sheer number of title defenses doesn't mean anything. At all.

Again, I agree that heavyweights like Willard and Braddock should not have been elected.
However there are guys at other weight classes that should not be in either.
Escobar lost a lot of fights and doesn't have a win as good as Braddock's over Baer.
Same with Chalky Wright. Nobody ever questions them.

The worst cases of “title defense” padding are frequently in the higher divisions. Shumenov, Stieglitz, Braehmer, Erdei, Bivol early on, even GGG the first few years he was a belt holder fought absolutely horrific opposition. Or Wilder? Braddock’s big win over Baer is considered big because Baer was a heavyweight - Americans idolize heavyweights - and it was unexpected. Baer had won a couple of big fights before that, winning the belt the previous fight against a circus clown. But nobody thinks it’s a HOF feat if a lightweight beats a lightweight champion who had just won a title in his previous fight. Wright beat way better opposition than Braddock, IMO.
The talent pool for 105-126 is shallow in the US, not the rest of the world. We are just conditioned to think that only big fighters are great and exaggerate the feats of heavyweights

As for James J. Braddock, I think his inclusion to the Hall of Fame was more due to the fact that he was a cultural phenomenon. A genuine folk hero in one of the most difficult times in American history. He became something of a symbol of the indomitable spirit of man. Him defeating Max Baer was called "the greatest upset since Corbett defeated Sullivan," as many thought that Baer had all the potential for greatness as he blew through Schmeling and Carnera like they were nothing.

As for his actual boxing skills and abilities, Braddock was a solid fighter. He was a top contender at 175, then his career was plagued with injuries. Wins over John Henry Lewis, Jimmy Slattery (111-13-0 overall record), and Tuffy Griffiths were indications of just how good he could be. But he also came up short against Loughran and Rosenbloom--- which shows that if Braddock came up against men who were faster than he was he had a difficult time.

When he campaigned as a heavyweight, though, his smaller size made him faster than the bigger man which helped him succeed against Corn Griffin, Art Lasky, and ultimately Baer. He also had pretty good hitting power with his overhand right.

Overall, however, I think it can be said of Braddock that he was a man who was in a lot of great fights but he wasn't necessarily a great fighter himself kind of like Arturo Gatti, Wayne McCullough, Bobby Cysz, and others who had a lot of fanfare for their gutsy performances but were truthfully a notch or two below the genuine world class. A guy who comes to mind who's also in the Hall of Fame was Rocky Graziano, who was in a lot of great fights but he wasn't necessarily a great fighter considering Ray Robinson blew him away pretty quickly.

giacomino wrote: ↑07 Aug 2022, 23:53

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Aug 2022, 19:57

giacomino wrote: ↑07 Aug 2022, 08:55

Um, of the five your mention, only Zapata won titles in two weight classes. Never saw Escobar, but the other four were long-time belt holders back when there were two belts a division, and in the case of Jung Koo, Gushiken and Ohba, they were dominant in their divisions. Their credentials are far better than a lot of heavier fighters in the hall. The bigger question is why more light fighters aren’t in (such as longtime two-division champion Santos Laciar, who beat Zapata and was a belt holder for the better part of six years)

If you are a heavyweight you get in for winning one fight (Willard, Braddock, Johansson). If you are a flyweight and win a belt and make 5-10 defenses and win significant fights in your division you don’t deserve it because most fans in the US never heard of you

My problem with fighters in the lower weight classes is this: The talent pool is simply very shallow. How many adult men can weigh under 126?
To make it worse, we have way too many weight classes. If it was just flyweight, bantam weight, and featherweight, it would not be as bad.
But 105, 108, 112, 115, 118, 122 and 126?
With that many weight classes over a stretch of just 21 pounds, there simply can't be any depth, and it much easier to be a belt holder. (.ie. it's a lot easier to win a title at light flyweight than heavyweight.)
Look at all these guys getting title shots after just two years. It would not happen so routinely if the division was strong.
Another thing we have to get away from is the number pf title defenses. It's meaningless. You can always find an easy mark to defend your title against. The sheer number of title defenses doesn't mean anything. At all.

Again, I agree that heavyweights like Willard and Braddock should not have been elected.
However there are guys at other weight classes that should not be in either.
Escobar lost a lot of fights and doesn't have a win as good as Braddock's over Baer.
Same with Chalky Wright. Nobody ever questions them.

The worst cases of “title defense” padding are frequently in the higher divisions. Shumenov, Stieglitz, Braehmer, Erdei, Bivol early on, even GGG the first few years he was a belt holder fought absolutely horrific opposition. Or Wilder? Braddock’s big win over Baer is considered big because Baer was a heavyweight - Americans idolize heavyweights - and it was unexpected. Baer had won a couple of big fights before that, winning the belt the previous fight against a circus clown. But nobody thinks it’s a HOF feat if a lightweight beats a lightweight champion who had just won a title in his previous fight. Wright beat way better opposition than Braddock, IMO.
The talent pool for 105-126 is shallow in the US, not the rest of the world. We are just conditioned to think that only big fighters are great and exaggerate the feats of heavyweights

The biggest problem with the "talent pool" from 105-126 is that there are actually 7 talent pools from 105 to 126.
Therefore, an individual pool is going to have less fighters to start with.

There are more heavyweights than straweights, junior flyweights, and flyweight combined.
What is the difference between a junior flyweight (108) and a flyweight (112)? A big lunch?

The proof is in the pudding:

Look at how most of these guys get their titles. They fight for 2 or 3 years, not many fights, virtually untested. They fight for a title against a title holder who often not much more experienced than that.
Then some of them make successful title defenses against opponents that nobody has ever heard of. Then they are supposed to get in the Hall of Fame.

Chung Jung Koo got one within 2 and half years.
Yoko Gushiken got one got one after 8 fights and two years experience.
Zapata got a title shot in three years. Beat a guy who was 13-4-1.

And if you want to go farther back when these guys did pay their dues on the way up, some of them should make it to the HOF.
However, how do you justify Chalky Wright and Sixto Escobar? Still waiting for someone to answer that one.