BoxRec

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 15:55**

theone wrote:
See, now you have no idea of what your talking about, which is not meant as an insult. Turpin fought several fighters who were top ten ranked!
Dont know where you got your information but according to the offical ibohf record book only the three I mentioned were top ten rated guys when they fought Turpin. The guys you mentioned may have one time been ranked fighter but werent any real threats when they fought Turpin:

Vince Hawkins---was in the middle of losing 14 out of his last 19 fights when Turpin beat him. He was done as a serious fighter.
Albert Finch --- was not ranked according to my records but maybe thats because he was British champion. Redardless, he didnt have a very impressive career.
Jean Stock ---was 9-9-2 in last 20 bouts before fighting Turpin. was 6-6 afterwards. No big deal beating him.
Pete Mead---Lost the last 6 fights of his so-so career. Turin was the fifth straight lost of his final losing streak.
Luc van Dam---His career was all but done when he fought Turpin a year before he retired and it was his 13th loss, his sixth by ko.
Alex Buxton---Ther worse of the bunch. was 12-8 in the last 20 fights before fighting Turpin and then went 2-18-2 afterwards.
Jacques Hairabedian---An absolutely mediorce fighter who Turpin beat the way he was supposed to.

Walter Cartier---was in the middle of an 7-8-2 streak when he fought Turpin. He was so far gone that fourfights ealeir he was knocked out by light hitting WELTERWEIGHT grreat Kid Gavilan.
Charles Humez---Best of the list. Cant find his ranking but he had a very good record. Didnt really beat anyone of note however.

Not a list of wins to merit the hall of fame in my estimation.

Turpin beat a lot of very good fighters and besides that I think beating a near peak Robinson gives Randolph a post in the hall of fame by itself..
should not be nearly enough to get him in. One fight should not a career make not matter how impressive. If he would have beaten Olsen, Mitiri and maybe a couple of other quality fighters, then maybe.

Robinson actually said after he retired that Turpin was the strongest
I have a Robinson interview with Curt Godey on tape that took place in the seventies, where he states that Lamotta was by far the physically strongest fighter he ever faced.
Turpin also made an impact in the Lightheavyweight division when he was past his best but still able to beat a lot of the good fighters about.
what impact? He was 1-2 against the only good lightheavies he faced. Tko win over Cockell a loss to Hans Stretz by decision and by 2nd round ko toYolande Pompey.

[/quote]

I suppose being ranked in the top ten at light-heavyweight isn't making an impact!... oh well!...

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 15:59**

I suppose being ranked in the top ten at light-heavyweight isn't making an impact!... oh well!...

Apparently not. Exactly how did Turpin make an impact as a light heavyweight? What were his accomplishments? Besides Cockell what figher of note did he beat at lightheavy?

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 16:09**

theone wrote:
I suppose being ranked in the top ten at light-heavyweight isn't making an impact!... oh well!...
Apparently not. Exactly how did Turpin make an impact as a light heavyweight? What were his accomplishments? Besides Cockell what figher of note did he beat at lightheavy?

I don't need to justify his accomplishments to you mate, if you don't think the fact that he was rated in the top ten at light-heavy counts for anything then I think that says more about you than it does about Turpin.

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 16:20**

I don't need to justify his accomplishments to you mate, if you don't think the fact that he was rated in the top ten at light-heavy counts for anything then I think that says more about you than it does about Turpin.

Alot of fighter have made the light heavy weight top ten; doesnt make them hall of famers. Alot of fighters have been in multiply weights top ten, and still are not considered hall of famers. making the top ten rankings means that you were at one time at least good enought to be copmpetitve with the elite of that particular weight class. It does not guarantee all time greatness. if he had acutllay won the world title, along with his other accomplishments, there would have been more of a justification for him being inducted into the hall.

I love the sport of boxing and beileve along with baseball it has the richest and best history of all the other major sports. I believe the Hall of fame should be a little harder to get into than just upsetting an all time great and making the light heavyweight top ten standings.

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 16:24**

>>>Dont know where you got your information but according to the offical ibohf record book only the three I mentioned were top ten rated guys when they fought Turpin.<<<

Well, the IBHOF book, which I have as well, is not a book that has been researched to the max, but my source is the actual rankings from Ring magazine (Every ranked fighter that ever appeared from 1925 thru 1986), which were the rankings for that time and before!

Just beating Robinson though most certainly would not be qualification to the Hall, but Turpin was a very successful European fighter, which there were probably some Euro fighters more worthy, but they most certainly could have done a lot worse than Turpin!

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 16:39**

Well, the IBHOF book, which I have as well, is not a book that has been researched to the max, but my source is the actual rankings from Ring magazine (Every ranked fighter that ever appeared from 1925 thru 1986), which were the rankings for that time and before!

The rankings in the book was actually complied with the assitance of The Ring
magazine and Fight fax inc. Regardless of who has the more acurate information, the list of contenders provided were an underwhelming lot, and if they possessed their rankings during the time they fought Turpin, than it was a very sorry time for the division. Really just looked at their careers at the time they fought Turpin and see for yourself.

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 16:51**

Well Fight Fax is last source anyone should be using when it pertains to boxing history, or old records as the old records that Fight Fax has are the same kind that were in the old Ring Record books and they have many, many errors in their records that are pre-1960 that it's not even funny. Actually, when it comes to accuracy Fight Fax was only started in 1983, or 1984 so anything after that should be pretty accurate, although like anyone they make errors too, but their older records, pre-1960, are very incomplete and inaccurate. The Hall of Fame book, which I believe has three separate editions (I have the second edition) of which each newer edition had a little more research done than the other, but there has never been a record book with the amount of bouts that boxrec has, but the Hall of Fame book is a good source, better than most historical type books available and they did have some pretty good and knowledgeable people that helped out some while compiling it.

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 17:13**

the Hall of Fame book is a good source, better than most historical type books available and they did have some pretty good and knowledgeable people that helped out some while compiling it.

Its a fantastic read as well. Ive owned the second edition and purchased the third editon this summer. It has a great photo of Jersey Joe Walcot on the cover, wrapping his hands.

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 17:30**

I've got the second edition...I've heard that they have bettered, in terms of research, with each new edition.

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 18:11**

You know besides the feeling that the "fan" should have his moment in the sun somehow I do have another thought about this subject. I can not think of a candidate that has made it into the Hall of Fame that I really take exception to to this point. Nothing seems totaly out of line.

But I see one coming up before I end my days, probably in the next decade or so this name will come up. And unless something fundamentally changes I know I would want to do all that I could to prevent it from ever happening. For several reasons but mostly because I would love to dissuade the type of boxing behavior that this fighter has engaged in. And I do not think this "champion" has done the things needed to earn membership.

It may not be who you think...It is not Ruiz though I hope that would be avoided as well. Not even a HW. But I don't know how you go about seeding that idea without it being counterproductive. Fame and Infamy are one and the same. So it probably will come to pass and the more I would rail against the more likely the outcome.

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 18:13**

There must be a few Asian fighters that haven't gotten within a sniff of the HOF - fighters such as Jung Koo Chang, Jiro Watanabe and a few others immediately come to mind. A lot obviously depends on the fighter's 'visibility'

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 18:21**

>>>I can not think of a candidate that has made it into the Hall of Fame that I really take exception to to this point. Nothing seems totaly out of line<<<

Check out the record of Harry Harris...seems as though his induction in the HOF is through his win over Pedlar Palmer...I think Harris is about the least deserving HOF member!

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 18:30**

Yep there are a tier of fighters who can be claimed to be controversial.

Someone has to be the "worst" pick. You may have pinpointed it.

It's just that I'm not crying out for the injustice of it. However there is this one fighter I will have that feeling about. And I just have a sick feeling that I will live to see it.

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 18:31**

What fighter?

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 18:34**

Barry, as always I can not bring myself to type his name. And I am deathly afraid of seeding the very outcome I would love to avoid. I think you probably can guess the name of the combatent I am allegedly thinking of.

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 18:43**

I have no idea, but I'm trying to thing of someone very criminal-like!

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 18:47**

Actually it's not his personal life, I don't even think that should be an issue. It's not about personal behavior, let the gangstas have fame if they are good fighters. Liston and Johnson belong there. Nope it's the pursuit of his career and title.....I can't beleive the word "allegedly" didnt' tip you off. It's Joe

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 19:43**

theone wrote:
I don't need to justify his accomplishments to you mate, if you don't think the fact that he was rated in the top ten at light-heavy counts for anything then I think that says more about you than it does about Turpin.
Alot of fighter have made the light heavy weight top ten; doesnt make them hall of famers. Alot of fighters have been in multiply weights top ten, and still are not considered hall of famers. making the top ten rankings means that you were at one time at least good enought to be copmpetitve with the elite of that particular weight class. It does not guarantee all time greatness. if he had acutllay won the world title, along with his other accomplishments, there would have been more of a justification for him being inducted into the hall.

I love the sport of boxing and beileve along with baseball it has the richest and best history of all the other major sports. I believe the Hall of fame should be a little harder to get into than just upsetting an all time great and making the light heavyweight top ten standings.

Ok if you want to be pedantic about it name me a fighter who beat a world champion of Rays reputation when Robinson wasn't just the world middleweight champion but recognised as the best boxer pound for pound in the world, who should be in the hall of fame and isn't?.....

The fact is Turpin was still able to be world ranked at light-heavyweight when more or less blind in one eye. I'm not saying he was the best middleweight of all time but he beat the man that many think is the best middleweght of all time and came close to doing it twice and I believe that this alone marks him out as a hall of famer imo.
I don't see anyone disputing James Braddocks right to be in the hall of fame, yet his ring accomplishments were no better than Turpins and he was hardly a 'great' champion... but he got the vote obviously because he beat the odds to win the world title... but on pure talent pound for pound he is miles behind Turpin.

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 20:03**

Ok if you want to be pedantic about it name me a fighter who beat a world champion of Rays reputation when Robinson wasn't just the world middleweight champion but recognised as the best boxer pound for pound in the world, who should be in the hall of fame and isn't?.....

Dont really understand your question. What ever answer i give would actually back up my argument that one victory no matter how good the fighter beaten was, should not be enough to get into the hall of fame. Duran was defeated in his prime by Dejesus, when alot of people considered him the best fighter pound for pound. This victory did not guarantee Dejesus enshrinement. However if you look at their records Dejesus probably deserves the honor more than Turpin.

I don't see anyone disputing James Braddocks right to be in the hall of fame, yet his ring accomplishments were no better than Turpins and he was hardly a 'great' champion... but he got the vote obviously because he beat the odds to win the world title... but on pure talent pound for pound he is miles behind Turpin.

As much as I admire what he accomplished i dont believe he deserves enshrinement either, exactley for the reasons you stated.

Posted: **12 Nov 2005, 20:46**

theone wrote:
Ok if you want to be pedantic about it name me a fighter who beat a world champion of Rays reputation when Robinson wasn't just the world middleweight champion but recognised as the best boxer pound for pound in the world, who should be in the hall of fame and isn't?.....
Dont really understand your question. What ever answer i give would actually back up my argument that one victory no matter how good the fighter beaten was, should not be enough to get into the hall of fame. Duran was defeated in his prime by Dejesus, when alot of people considered him the best fighter pound for pound. This victory did not guarantee Dejesus enshrinement. However if you look at their records Dejesus probably deserves the honor more than Turpin.
I don't see anyone disputing James Braddocks right to be in the hall of fame, yet his ring accomplishments were no better than Turpins and he was hardly a 'great' champion... but he got the vote obviously because he beat the odds to win the world title... but on pure talent pound for pound he is miles behind Turpin.
As much as I admire what he accomplished i dont believe he deserves enshrinement either, exactley for the reasons you stated.

It depends on what you think a fighter should do in order to get into the hall of fame. I think proving yourself an outstanding fighter and winning the world title from the greatest fighter of his era is enough to justify Turpin being in the hall. There are certainly a lot of 'worse' fighters in there. Does Braddock belong in there?... from the point of view of sheer ability probably not but for what he over came in winning the world title yes.

Posted: **13 Nov 2005, 06:07**

The hall of fame should be for a career of greatness, not just one moment. The accomplishment should be mentioned in the hall, like Roger Maris's 61 homerun in the baseball hall of fame, but not the fighter.

Posted: **13 Nov 2005, 08:36**

I don't understand why Braddock is in the hall of fame. I woulden't have expected him to be there.

Posted: **13 Nov 2005, 11:39**

theone wrote:The hall of fame should be for a career of greatness, not just one moment. The accomplishment should be mentioned in the hall, like Roger Maris's 61 homerun in the baseball hall of fame, but not the fighter.

But greatness can be a matter of perspective. While Braddock wasn't a great fighter ability wise his achievement of winning the world title when he did could be classed as a great acheivement. Many fighters are put into the hall of fame for the impact they had on their sport... it maybe only one night, but if that night is an historic occasion, that will long be remembered in the history of the sport, then can you really begrudge that man a place in the hall?. The fact that some fighters are not in the hall that should be shouldn't be held against the fighters that do make it into the hall.

Posted: **13 Nov 2005, 11:43**

Buzz---Oh, Calzaghe....Don't worry, I don't think there would be a chance in hell that he gets any where near the HOF, unless it's on a visit to see the plaques of some of the actual greats of boxing!

Posted: **13 Nov 2005, 11:56**

But joes one of the all time greats!!!!!.

.... 17 + defences and a 8 year reign don't lie!!!

???? :( :( :(

BoxRec

Who Belongs In The Hall Of Fame ?

re

re

re

re

re

re

Braddock

re