Les Darcy wrote:right i have what i think is a very good question, jeff fenechs last fight was may 18 1996, the voting ends on the 25th may 2006 so by then he will be eligible, am i allowed to vote for him?
Im sure kidlefty will follow up on this question aswell, I am all but certian that on the 19th of this month he will be eligible
Les Darcy wrote:right i have what i think is a very good question, jeff fenechs last fight was may 18 1996, the voting ends on the 25th may 2006 so by then he will be eligible, am i allowed to vote for him?
Im sure kidlefty will follow up on this question aswell, I am all but certian that on the 19th of this month he will be eligible :TU:
James Jeffries
Gene Tunney
Aaron Pryor
Salvador Sanchez
Michael Spinks
They all had just one loss (not including a newspaper decison loss that Tunney had) and none of them have been voted in yet.
I'm not saying that they should all automatically be voted in because they only had one loss, but it is interesting that none are in yet. (There are other guys with no losses or 1 loss who aren't in yet as well).
The 5 mentioned here all beat great opponents so they should be strongly considered.
Spinks in particular should be a no brainer.
Ambling Alp wrote:What do the following guys have in common?
James Jeffries
Gene Tunney
Aaron Pryor
Salvador Sanchez
Michael Spinks
They all had just one loss (not including a newspaper decison loss that Tunney had) and none of them have been voted in yet.
I'm not saying that they should all automatically be voted in because they only had one loss, but it is interesting that none are in yet. (There are other guys with no losses or 1 loss who aren't in yet as well).
The 5 mentioned here all beat great opponents so they should be strongly considered.
Spinks in particular should be a no brainer.
Tunney should also be a non-brainer. He not only had only one loss (to HOFer Greb), he avenged it several times over.
Ambling Alp wrote:What do the following guys have in common?
James Jeffries
Gene Tunney
Aaron Pryor
Salvador Sanchez
Michael Spinks
They all had just one loss (not including a newspaper decison loss that Tunney had) and none of them have been voted in yet.
I'm not saying that they should all automatically be voted in because they only had one loss, but it is interesting that none are in yet. (There are other guys with no losses or 1 loss who aren't in yet as well).
The 5 mentioned here all beat great opponents so they should be strongly considered.
Spinks in particular should be a no brainer.
You can add John L. Sullivan to this list of fighters with only one loss. And John L is generally given credit for making MoQ the standard for boxing rules, and also popularizing the sport with the general public. Unfortunately there are few people today who are either aware of these facts, or willing to acknowledge the accomplishments of someone from more than 100 years ago. Either way, he doesn’t seem to appear on many of the ballots on this forum. Talk about a no brainer.
Ambling Alp wrote:What do the following guys have in common?
James Jeffries
Gene Tunney
Aaron Pryor
Salvador Sanchez
Michael Spinks
They all had just one loss (not including a newspaper decison loss that Tunney had) and none of them have been voted in yet.
I'm not saying that they should all automatically be voted in because they only had one loss, but it is interesting that none are in yet. (There are other guys with no losses or 1 loss who aren't in yet as well).
The 5 mentioned here all beat great opponents so they should be strongly considered.
Spinks in particular should be a no brainer.
You can add John L. Sullivan to this list of fighters with only one loss. And John L is generally given credit for making MoQ the standard for boxing rules, and also popularizing the sport with the general public. Unfortunately there are few people today who are either aware of these facts, or willing to acknowledge the accomplishments of someone from more than 100 years ago. Either way, he doesn’t seem to appear on many of the ballots on this forum. Talk about a no brainer.
I think it's a travesty that John L wasn't selected in the first round - I hope we can correct that mistake asap, but it's a shame how few of the ballots he's been mentioned on so far. Maybe there's still a chance of convincing enough of the current voters that he should be in now and they can revise their ballots by the 25th.
kidlefty wrote:I think it's a travesty that John L wasn't selected in the first round - I hope we can correct that mistake asap, but it's a shame how few of the ballots he's been mentioned on so far. Maybe there's still a chance of convincing enough of the current voters that he should be in now and they can revise their ballots by the 25th.
Yes it is rather sad. Any idea how to convice? Unfortunately, most poters probably have no clue about the history of the sport, and especially the true pioneers.
kidlefty wrote:I think it's a travesty that John L wasn't selected in the first round - I hope we can correct that mistake asap, but it's a shame how few of the ballots he's been mentioned on so far. Maybe there's still a chance of convincing enough of the current voters that he should be in now and they can revise their ballots by the 25th.
Yes it is rather sad. Any idea how to convice? Unfortunately, most poters probably have no clue about the history of the sport, and especially the true pioneers.
It's just so damn hard to compare John L Sullivan to modern era fighters. Plus, he's best - albeit perhaps unfairly - known for being outclassed by Jim Corbett, and Jim Corbett's quality is disputed too. I personally intend to wait till Corbett is in before voting for Sullivan - unless you give me strong reasons to the contrary.
kidlefty wrote:I think it's a travesty that John L wasn't selected in the first round - I hope we can correct that mistake asap, but it's a shame how few of the ballots he's been mentioned on so far. Maybe there's still a chance of convincing enough of the current voters that he should be in now and they can revise their ballots by the 25th.
Yes it is rather sad. Any idea how to convice? Unfortunately, most poters probably have no clue about the history of the sport, and especially the true pioneers.
It's just so damn hard to compare John L Sullivan to modern era fighters. Plus, he's best - albeit perhaps unfairly - known for being outclassed by Jim Corbett, and Jim Corbett's quality is disputed too. I personally intend to wait till Corbett is in before voting for Sullivan - unless you give me strong reasons to the contrary.
You’ve just helped to make my point that most posters are clueless. Just ask yourself who had more impact on the history of the sport than John L Sullivan? NO ONE knows for sure how fighters from different eras could perform against each other. So try to think a little deeper. Without him there would most likely have been no Corbett, no Robinson, no Ali.
Using your logic about his loss to Corbett, are you saying that you can’t vote for George Foreman until Jimmy Young gets in? Or no Duran until Lawlor and Lang get elected?
The Great John L wrote:
Yes it is rather sad. Any idea how to convice? Unfortunately, most poters probably have no clue about the history of the sport, and especially the true pioneers.
It's just so damn hard to compare John L Sullivan to modern era fighters. Plus, he's best - albeit perhaps unfairly - known for being outclassed by Jim Corbett, and Jim Corbett's quality is disputed too. I personally intend to wait till Corbett is in before voting for Sullivan - unless you give me strong reasons to the contrary.
You’ve just helped to make my point that most posters are clueless. Just ask yourself who had more impact on the history of the sport than John L Sullivan? NO ONE knows for sure how fighters from different eras could perform against each other. So try to think a little deeper. Without him there would most likely have been no Corbett, no Robinson, no Ali.
Using your logic about his loss to Corbett, are you saying that you can’t vote for George Foreman until Jimmy Young gets in? Or no Duran until Lawlor and Lang get elected?
Come on, you know these aren't fair comparisons. Corbett's win over Sullivan was seen by their contemporaries as a historic event, heralded as the victory of skill and technique over brute force; the re-invention of boxing as a mixture between art and science instead of dumb slugging. None of this applies to Duran vs. Lang.
Again you are making my case that people are clueless of history. You’re perception of the importance of the Corbett Sullivan fight is little more than the modern misconception of history. Are you even aware of the fact that Sullivan was the first gloved HW champion, and the sports first true international star? That he brought boxing out of the back alley and into the public mainstream. Do you even have a clue about boxing history?
The Great John L wrote:Again you are making my case that people are clueless of history. You’re perception of the importance of the Corbett Sullivan fight is little more than the modern misconception of history. Are you even aware of the fact that Sullivan was the first gloved HW champion, and the sports first true international star? That he brought boxing out of the back alley and into the public mainstream. Do you even have a clue about boxing history?
pundit wrote:Come on, you know these aren't fair comparisons. Corbett's win over Sullivan was seen by their contemporaries as a historic event, heralded as the victory of skill and technique over brute force; the re-invention of boxing as a mixture between art and science instead of dumb slugging. None of this applies to Duran vs. Lang.
None of it applies to Sullivan - Corbett either. Of course, Land did completely oubox Duran, so maybe it is a good example art and science over "dumb slugging".
kidlefty wrote:To say that John L. Sullivan is "best known" for the Corbett fight is to exhibit a gross lack of knowledge about boxing history.
Fine; not "best known" then but "known among other things".
I'm not making this up - many believe boxing became a sport rather than a spectacle with the emergence of Corbett onl.
Yes, but those "other things" include being the most famous boxer of his era. He was perhaps more responisble than any other single person for boxing becoming one of the most popular spectator events, sporting or otherwise, in the world. And of course, he was one bad ass MF of a fighter.
And, for the record, I've got Sullivan AND Corbett on my ballot until they both get in (... and don't even get me started on Jeffries - what the hell is up with that?).
kidlefty wrote:To say that John L. Sullivan is "best known" for the Corbett fight is to exhibit a gross lack of knowledge about boxing history.
Fine; not "best known" then but "known among other things".
I'm not making this up - many believe boxing became a sport rather than a spectacle with the emergence of Corbett onl.
No one said you made it up. But with just a tiny bit of effort you could leatrn something on your own about the man who made boxing a real sport. Or you could simply repeat the comments of people who are totally ignorant of fact, and probably too lazy to attempt to learn anything.
Oh yes, so Duran is maybe not "best known" for, but is "known among other things" to have lost to Kirkland Laing and Pat Lawlor. So if boxing is still in anyones vocabulary 75 years from now, that may be the legacy of Duran to people who choose to remain ignorant of simple facts.
How about if we just say that only boxers who fought since 1980 can be elected, so no one has to put any effort into learning about any boxers from the past?
kidlefty wrote:To say that John L. Sullivan is "best known" for the Corbett fight is to exhibit a gross lack of knowledge about boxing history.
Fine; not "best known" then but "known among other things".
I'm not making this up - many believe boxing became a sport rather than a spectacle with the emergence of Corbett onl.
No one said you made it up. But with just a tiny bit of effort you could leatrn something on your own about the man who made boxing a real sport. Or you could simply repeat the comments of people who are totally ignorant of fact, and probably too lazy to attempt to learn anything.
Again, a wideheld belief is that boxing made the step to being a sport only with Corbett, not with Sullivan (others put that date even later). And this by no means a belief held that is largely by ignorants, many distinguished boxing historians share it. After all, the other famous Sullivan fights - Kilrain, Charlie Mitchell, Ryan - were still with bare knuckles.
pundit wrote:Again, a wideheld belief is that boxing made the step to being a sport only with Corbett, not with Sullivan (others put that date even later). And this by no means a belief held that is largely by ignorants, many distinguished boxing historians share it.
Really? And who might those distinguished boxing historians be? And where did they make such statements, because I must have missed them in my 40 yrs of following boxing.
