BoxRec

iceman21287 wrote:As for 19th century baseball players (1876-1900 approx.), I respect the players of that era, especially guys like Anson and Jim Galvin (who threw 1292.2 innings and won 92 games in a 2 year period), but the fact is that the rules of the game in the 19th century were so different than the modern rules, which really were set around 1901, that I can't blame fans for not knowing much about that time period. Jim Galvin's era of baseball is essentially the same as the London Prize Ring era of boxing.

Actually, the rules are essentially the same as today since about 1892 (I think that was the year) when the mound was fixed at 60'6". 1901 was the beginning of the two current leagues, and is generally set as the bginning of "modern" baseball. There were other periods when there were more than two (or more) leagues, but 1901 started the AL/NL that we all know today.

Nice to see another baseball fan on this forum. PudGalvin was a true great, as were many others of the period, like Hoss Radbourn who won 60 ganmes in a single year, or Mike Kelly, probably the first truely national baseball star . Of course, the rules were quite different in prior to 1892, but it should not diminish their accomplishments.

Sorry for the off topic. Now back to boxing.

I still think it will be difficult to get many of the true pioneers of boxing selected on this forum. Give it a few months, but I'd be surprised to see John L selected, even though he should be on everyones ballot. Of course having said that, perhaps many will vote him in just to prove me wrong. Well, I can hope anyway...

kidlefty wrote:I certianly wouldn't be surprised to see many oldtimers not getting the votes they deserved, but John L. Sullivan? That would be like having a baseball HOF without Babe Ruth. I mean really, SIX votes? That's shocking to me. We're not talking about an obscure, forgotten fighter here, we're talking about the first modern heavyweight champion.

Did people not vote for him because they underestimate his importance or because they simply don't know who he is? I'm not sure which I'd rather hear, they both would be extremely disapointing.

I think Joe Gans was more deserving than John L. Sullivan and Jack Johnson, and he is not even in the list. Gans should have been first time ballot of our votes. Hopefully he makes it next month.

who didnt vote for Ali? That is pretty strange to me.

I'm very happy to see Monzon getting in on the first ballot here. It's ok as time goes by to "re-assess" first choices. Very happy to see Archie in this intitial group but those two along with Ezz were a bit of a surprise to me.

Fame is a word that has different meanings to different people, that kind of diversity in thinking is fine with me. Good show!

Overall, the selections were good. All of the 10 guys picked were deserving. Of course since most of us picked 25 guys, most of us think that certain guys were overlooked. However, I think it's a good thing that there was such a wide variety of opinons. It indicates that people are thinking for themselves. I think suspect that people will do start researching more thoroughly other boxers that got some votes and consider them for next time.

There seemed to be a good variety of styles of guys who were selected. There seemed to be a little each of all sluggers, boxers, and pressure fighters.

The lower weights didn't get a lot support, but at least there were a couple of smaller guys (Armstrong and Pep) that got selected.

There did seem to bit of a bias as to eras that fighters fought in. as mentioned there weren't any real old timers picked. On the other hand, there weren't many modern fighters picked either.
Of the 10 guys selected, 7 were at their best in the late 1930's, 1940's and 1950's.
Harry Greb was the only fighter that fought before this time period. Ali and Monzon were the only ones who were at their best after this time period.

I personally would have liked to have seen old timers such as Gans, Langford Fitzsimmons, Johnson, Benny Leonard, and Wilde make it. Also would have liked to have seen more recent fighters like Arguello, Sanchez,Hagler, Joe Frazier, and Michael Spinks make it.
The little support that Spinks got was the most disappointing (though not surprising) to me. He never lost as a lightheavyweight in a very competitive era for the division. Rarely does anyone talk negative about him, somehow he never seems to be on most people's radar screen.
Still, I must say that there isn't one guy who didn't make it that was way more deserving than the 10 that did. There are certainly a lot of close calls, and the 10 who did make it were all atleast guys that you could make an arguement for.

All 10 guys that were selected were also selected in the first year of the Internation Boxing Hall of Fame. Actually, the first few years their selections were pretty good. Then their selections began to get stranger. Hope that doesn't happen with us.

So we need to keep making informed voes and and try to be as unbiased as possible. We are off to a good start.
Thanks agains to Kid Lefty for the idea and compiling everything. Also thanks to everyone that voted. This has been a lot of fun.

The Great John L wrote: Nice to see another baseball fan on this forum. PudGalvin was a true great, as were many others of the period, like Hoss Radbourn who won 60 ganmes in a single year, or Mike Kelly, probably the first truely national baseball star . Of course, the rules were quite different in prior to 1892, but it should not diminish their accomplishments.

Charley Radbourn was one of the true greats of 19th century baseball. However, he didn't win 60 games. He won 59

Seriously though, 59 wins and a 1.38 ERA...678 innings pitched and 441 K's... probably the greatest single season ever by a pre-modern rules pitcher.

Providence Grays represent

iceman21287 wrote:

The Great John L wrote: Nice to see another baseball fan on this forum. PudGalvin was a true great, as were many others of the period, like Hoss Radbourn who won 60 ganmes in a single year, or Mike Kelly, probably the first truely national baseball star . Of course, the rules were quite different in prior to 1892, but it should not diminish their accomplishments.

Charley Radbourn was one of the true greats of 19th century baseball. However, he didn't win 60 games. He won 59

Seriously though, 59 wins and a 1.38 ERA...678 innings pitched and 441 K's... probably the greatest single season ever by a pre-modern rules pitcher.

Providence Grays represent

Sorry, but MacMillan's Baseball Encyclopedia, 2nd and 8th editions both have Radbourn at 60 wins. The IP are actually 678 2/3. Where did you get the 59 wins from, because I have several other books with his accomplishments, and they all have 60 wins.

Aren't BB stats great?

Ok, ok,... I'm as big a baseball fan as anyone (dues payin' SABR member), but let's stay a little on topic here fellas.

My sincerest appologies.

Ambling Alp wrote:I think suspect that people will do start researching more thoroughly other boxers that got some votes and consider them for next time.

That's exactly what I'm hoping for. I'll start the February ballot thread sometime later today, and I think we should use that to campaign for who we thing belongs and to put out information on oldtimers or other fighters who might get overlooked.

Of course I can't even stay within my own rules,...

baseball-reference.com shows him with 59 wins.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/radboch01.shtml

Perhaps there's been some historical research since those Macmillans were published.

kidlefty wrote:Of course I can't even stay within my own rules,...

baseball-reference.com shows him with 59 wins.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/r/radboch01.shtml

Perhaps there's been some historical research since those Macmillans were published.

You continued this discussion, so I'll add my two cents--again. The official BB reference for the past 35+ years has been the MacMillian, but as you noted my two copies are dated. However, the BHOF web site also says 60 wins, so I'll stick with the old reference until I see the new MacMillan. There are other sites that also say 59 and 60 wins, so there may be a game that there was some scoring change made recently.

Now I gotta go to Borders to check this out -- and maybe even buy the book... ($$$).

The Great John L wrote:

iceman21287 wrote:

The Great John L wrote: Nice to see another baseball fan on this forum. PudGalvin was a true great, as were many others of the period, like Hoss Radbourn who won 60 ganmes in a single year, or Mike Kelly, probably the first truely national baseball star . Of course, the rules were quite different in prior to 1892, but it should not diminish their accomplishments.

Charley Radbourn was one of the true greats of 19th century baseball. However, he didn't win 60 games. He won 59

Seriously though, 59 wins and a 1.38 ERA...678 innings pitched and 441 K's... probably the greatest single season ever by a pre-modern rules pitcher.

Providence Grays represent

Sorry, but MacMillan's Baseball Encyclopedia, 2nd and 8th editions both have Radbourn at 60 wins. The IP are actually 678 2/3. Where did you get the 59 wins from, because I have several other books with his accomplishments, and they all have 60 wins.

Aren't BB stats great?

Yeah they are

I got the 59 from the Major League Baseball official website. But truthfully I trust MacMillan's Baseball Encyclopedia more. So let's just go with he had 60 wins

There isn't ever going to be a new Macmillan from what I've heard.

Actually, it has already been officially replaced by Total Baseball as the "official" record book of mlb, and even that is quickly being supplanted by internet resources. There's been a lot of research in the last decade, and some stats in the old Big Mac have been discovered to be inacurate.

baseball-reference.com is considered to be an extremely reliable source.

kidlefty wrote:There isn't ever going to be a new Macmillan from what I've heard.

Actually, it has already been officially replaced by Total Baseball as the "official" record book of mlb, and even that is quickly being supplanted by internet resources. baseball-reference.com is considered to be an extremely reliable source.

Yeah I love baseball-reference. It's the best online source IMO.

kidlefty wrote:There isn't ever going to be a new Macmillan from what I've heard.

Actually, it has already been officially replaced by Total Baseball as the "official" record book of mlb, and even that is quickly being supplanted by internet resources. There's been a lot of research in the last decade, and some stats in the old Big Mac have been discovered to be inacurate.

baseball-reference.com is considered to be an extremely reliable source.

Yes, I've used it quite often, but Radbourns 60 was a long accepted pre 1900 record. I'd kinda like to know why it's now being shown as 59 at baseball-reference. Maybe we could get barry to do a little baseball reseach on this one.

Here's some info from the baseball-fever message board:

Saves weren't regularly recorded until 1960 & didn't become an official statistic until 1969.

As for Radbourn, he was credited with various totals in years past, but 60 became the standard until being changed to 59 in 1983. This was a case of people applying modern rules to previous situations where rules didn't exist. There were no rules governing how pitchers were awarded wins in Radbourn's day.

The game in question is the game of July 28, 1884, Providence @ Philadelphia. Cyclone Miller pitched the first 5 innings for Prov. & trailed 4-3. Providence scored 4 runs in the top of the 6th. Radbourn took the mound & pitched 4 scoreless innings. As was customary of the period, the scorer gave Radbourn the win. By today's rules, the starter would get the win.

I think modern researchers ought to leave this kind of stuff alone. It's one thing to find an error in an RBI total as they did with Hack Wilson. But if it was customary to credit a win to Radbourn for that situation in 1884, it should stand today. The record books also pick & choose to count some wins but not others. In Dizzy Dean's 30-win season, there was a game that under modern rules (& EVEN UNDER THE SCORING PRACTICES OF THE DAY) credited him with a win. They didn't take Dean's win away.

Now consider this one -- On July 28, 1889, Radbourn started & pitched 4 shutout innings, leaving the mound with a 13-0 lead. He was credited with the win, but he did not pitch 5 innings. Under modern rules, he can't get a win, so why did they take away a win in 1884 but not 1889?

So I guess we'll never have a definitive answer.

Now let's get back to boxing!

Watch for the February thread later today. Right now I need to take a break from this monitor.

elmersalsa wrote:I think Joe Gans was more deserving than John L. Sullivan and Jack Johnson, and he is not even in the list. Gans should have been first time ballot of our votes. Hopefully he makes it next month.

Gans did get ten votes. I think there's an excellent chance he'll get in next month.

While I think we all have some disappointment with fighters we picked not receiving more votes (can't believe I was the only one to choose Packy McFarland and Les Darcy) we can't complain too much, as I think it's obvious our panel knows alot more about there individual selections, than the average voter does in the political arena.