Rating the Hall of Famers

[Ezzard]

As for Griffith, I didn't mean to give the impression that a fighter has to win 4 out of 5 fights against great competition to be labled an "A". I just mentioned that Leonard was able to do that.
I don't see 11 fights that Griffith won that were against "great fighters".
I would only consider 6 of them to be against "great fighters". (Which of course is still impressive.) I would count the 3 wins against Rodriquez,2 against Tiger, and 1 against Benvenuti. 4 of those wins easily could have been scored the other way. I do give Griffith a lot of credit for giving Monzon a close fight at the age of 35.
However, he did lose to Don Fullmer,Denny Moyer,Benny Paret, and Ruben Carter when Griffith was close his prime. Can you imagine Leonard or any of the other Level A fighters losing that often to these kind of of non-great fighters; more importantly they didn't.
Griffith was very evenly matched with level C Hall of Famers like Rodriquez, Benevenuti and Tiger. I think it's fair to rate him as a Level "B".

When talking about a head-to-head match up then who someone loses to and why is vital in forming an opinion. BUT when we look at greatness and achievement I'm not sure why it's so important. Boxing is really the one sport in which this happens. In other sports where we compare great teams we don't really consider the games they lost, just the tournaments and competitions they won.

Tennis players don't get marked down becasue they lost a few games or had a bad year. When people look at how great they were they look at what they achieved and measure it against others.

Losing a fight is bad but coming back and winning is remarkable. If the manner of defeats are all too obvious to pin on one point e.g. stunning one shot KOs (Lewis), lack of mental strength (Tyson), etc... then there's an obvious weakness than might effect the rating but beyond that it seems as if boxers get penalised more than any other sportsmen or teams when assessing greatness.

Griffiths was able to beat many great figters. He proved it despite having to come back from set abcks in his career.

[Ambling Alp]

Ezzard, May be we aren't so far apart on the weight class issue. It seems that you agree with me that fighters naturally grow bigger.
I think that is what happened with Fenech and Griffith.

Fenech gradually grew and moved up in weight. Griffith grew into a middleweight (albiet a small one)
I also think that their is so little difference in size between some weight classes that it's really a non issue anyway. The advantage that a "natural" 122 pound fighter has over a natural 118 pound fighter is very small.

As for why losses seem to count more in boxing than in other sports- In tennis, you are judged by how many tournaments that you won and to a lesser extent how many finals and semifinals you reached.
However, if you aren't consistent, you will lose to lesser players in the earlier round and won't win a lot of tournaments.
Take Marat Safin. At his best, he was capable of beating anyone. He won 2 majors, beating Sampras in the final of one and Federer in the final of another. However, he has lost in early rounds in many tournaments and isn't considered a great player becasue of that. If losses don't count, then you could just say that he beat Sampras and federer and therefore is one of the best of alltime. However, no one says that because he was inconsistent.

Of course boxing isn't set up like other sports. there aren't tournaments. Fighters pretty much fight who they want and how often they want. We have to look at all of their fights (close to their prime) and see how they did.
If losses don't count, why not rate Fritizie Zivic as one of the top 10 fighters ever? He beat many great fighters. However, he also lost often to great, good and mediocre fighters. Losses count. Consistency counts.

I do think that a fighter like Griffith who fought a lot of fights against great competiton, and won some and lost some should be rated higher than another fighter that fought weak competition. Of course he should be rated higher than someone who fought great competition but always lost.

However, he shouldn't be rated as high as the small % of fighters who also fought a lot of great competion, and amost always beat that great competion and seldom if ever lost to less than great competion( as Griffith did a few times).

I don't mean to slam Griffith. He was certainly better than 99.99 % of the fighters who ever lived.

I like debating with you. It's nice to be able to disagree with someone who is civil. I especially like that if you make a point and I counter your point, you won't keep making your point over and over without acknowledging my counter point. I hate it when people keep saying the same thing over and that others have countered without responding to their counterpoint.

Often we do think alike. I rated 200 fighters at 5 different levels and we were on the same page on almost all of them. It would be boring if we agreed all of the time.

I think that we talked about Fenech,Fullmer and Griffith enough. I will let you have the last word.

[Syntax Error]

Excellent thread.

Jack Johnson is level A IMO.

[Ezzard]

Montell Griffin debuted at 175, and Roy Jones debuted at 157 (he later fought as low as 154), but when they fought over the WBC World Light Hevayweight Championship, Jones was the naturally bigger man. Jones was simply better at the dehydration/rehydration game. And don't tell me that Gerald McClellan wasn't the bigger man when he stepped up to 168 from 160 to fight Nigel Benn, who'd been at 168 for three years.

No doubt that the rehydration game makes a difference. I agree with you on both examples...

[Ezzard]

Ezzard, May be we aren't so far apart on the weight class issue. It seems that you agree with me that fighters naturally grow bigger.
I think that is what happened with Fenech and Griffith.

Fenech gradually grew and moved up in weight. Griffith grew into a middleweight (albiet a small one)
I also think that their is so little difference in size between some weight classes that it's really a non issue anyway. The advantage that a "natural" 122 pound fighter has over a natural 118 pound fighter is very small.

As for why losses seem to count more in boxing than in other sports- In tennis, you are judged by how many tournaments that you won and to a lesser extent how many finals and semifinals you reached.
However, if you aren't consistent, you will lose to lesser players in the earlier round and won't win a lot of tournaments.
Take Marat Safin. At his best, he was capable of beating anyone. He won 2 majors, beating Sampras in the final of one and Federer in the final of another. However, he has lost in early rounds in many tournaments and isn't considered a great player becasue of that. If losses don't count, then you could just say that he beat Sampras and federer and therefore is one of the best of alltime. However, no one says that because he was inconsistent.

Of course boxing isn't set up like other sports. there aren't tournaments. Fighters pretty much fight who they want and how often they want. We have to look at all of their fights (close to their prime) and see how they did.
If losses don't count, why not rate Fritizie Zivic as one of the top 10 fighters ever? He beat many great fighters. However, he also lost often to great, good and mediocre fighters. Losses count. Consistency counts.

I do think that a fighter like Griffith who fought a lot of fights against great competiton, and won some and lost some should be rated higher than another fighter that fought weak competition. Of course he should be rated higher than someone who fought great competition but always lost.

However, he shouldn't be rated as high as the small % of fighters who also fought a lot of great competion, and amost always beat that great competion and seldom if ever lost to less than great competion( as Griffith did a few times).

I don't mean to slam Griffith. He was certainly better than 99.99 % of the fighters who ever lived.

I like debating with you. It's nice to be able to disagree with someone who is civil. I especially like that if you make a point and I counter your point, you won't keep making your point over and over without acknowledging my counter point. I hate it when people keep saying the same thing over and that others have countered without responding to their counterpoint.

Often we do think alike. I rated 200 fighters at 5 different levels and we were on the same page on almost all of them. It would be boring if we agreed all of the time.

I think that we talked about Fenech,Fullmer and Griffith enough. I will let you have the last word.

Always a pleasure, Alp...

I am generous in the way I assess fighters' records. I like to give plaudits and not take too much away.

I think boxing suffers from over managed fighters protecting their records so I will overlook losses early on and later on in their career. If a fighter loses a series but wins 1 of the fights and the others are close I tend to give credit for that.

I also give credit for beating guys pre-prime or post-prime (to certain extents). So, Jones beating Hopkins is a good win for him but not really much of a smudge for Hopkins.

In terms of weight I believe that if a guy A who starts at 118 when he is 19, and moves up to 122, and fights a guy B who was 122 at 19 then B has an advantage (most likely) no matter how small.

In most cases a fighters best weight class will be his first. Of course there are lots of examples when this is not so but all I can draw are generalisations.

[Ambling Alp]

Excellent thread.

Jack Johnson is level A IMO.

I almost put Johnson at Level A. It's true that he beat 7 Hall of Famers (Jeffries,Fitzsimmons,Burns,Ketchel, Jeannette, McVey,and Langford.) However, thats a little deceiving. Fitz was ancient, Jeffries was coming off a long layoff, Ketchel was a middleweight, and Jeannette, McVey and Langford hadn't reach their peak at the time that Johnson beat them.

If Johnson would have just defended the title against Langford,Jeannette or McVey, the arguement for him would be a lot stronger.

Still, having only 1 official loss between 1905 and 1926 has to count for something. He had several "nice" wins throughout his career. You certainly could make a case for him.

[Martin Sosa Cameron]

How can I do for to vote this three old time fighters, the greatest LH of South America?



Jose Carattoli, Argentina http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer

Angel Rodriguez, Uruguay http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer

Mauro Mina, Peru http://www.boxrec.com/list_bouts.php?hu ... &cat=boxer



This will be an enormous satisfaction for the South American boxing fans to have this pioneers in the Hall of Fame; there are few South American fighters in the HOF only due the boxing history of this part is not well known.

[Ambling Alp]

Thought it would be interesting to bring this thread back.
I looked at people's comments and made a few adjustments.
(Remember A is the best of the Hall of Famers, E is the worst.)

Michael Spinks went up from Level B to A, Carlos Ortiz from C to B, and Tommy Loughran from C to B as well.
I demoted both Jeff Chandler and Terry Norris from Level C to D.

Since this thread was started 8 more fighters were elected.
Here is how I would rate them:

Larry Holmes-Level B
Holman Williams -Level C
Kid Norfolk-Level D
Eddie Perkins-Level D
Frank Klaus -Level D
Harry Lewis -Level E

Is that about where they belong?
Does anyone have any more comments about what level the other fighters already inducted should be?
(Remember, this isn't about who isn't in and should be. We are just rating the fighters already in.)

We have over 100 years of boxing and more than 200 fighters in many weight classes so there is plenty to consider.

[Ezzard]

I'll go Holmes - A
Williams, Norfolk and perkins as C

I can't comment on the others.

[Crease]

Rocky Marciano should be moved to GROUP A.

The old fellow had a perfect career, if that's not good enough, I don't know what is.

I know some people will say that Group A Candidates won titles in muiltiple weights, but Marciano beat the best Light Heavyweight of his day as well... So, he should be included in there.

[Ambling Alp]

Marciano's career has been argued at nausem. He had a perfect Win-Loss record, but we all know how in boxing that win/loss records can be deceiving.
You would expect the heavyweight cham[pion to be the lightheavyweight champion; he almost always has. Floyd Patterson beat Moore as well and he certainly is no where near Level A.

Ezzard- I put Holmes at B because he seems to belong more with the B heavyweights(Frazier,Foreman,Hohnson,Dempsey,Marciano etc.) than with Level A. Ali and Louis are the heavyweights that made it there. You would pretty much have to think Holmes was a clearcut #3 heavyweight to put him at A and that's a stretch.

I almost put Norfolk at Level C. Level C is supposed to be for the "typical " Hall of Famer, someone who isn't a legend but certainly was great and without question deserving of the Hall of Fame. I have some doubts about him. I do think that he is the best fighter of Level D.

Perkins- I have a lot of doubt about. He was a very good fighter, but it's borderline whether he should be in the Hall of Fame.

I guess we agree that Holman Williams is Level C.

I don't get the Harry Lewis selection at all, so I put him at E. Maybe I am missing something.

[Ezzard]

Marciano's career has been argued at nausem. He had a perfect Win-Loss record, but we all know how in boxing that win/loss records can be deceiving.
You would expect the heavyweight cham[pion to be the lightheavyweight champion; he almost always has. Floyd Patterson beat Moore as well and he certainly is no where near Level A.

Ezzard- I put Holmes at B because he seems to belong more with the B heavyweights(Frazier,Foreman,Hohnson,Dempsey,Marciano etc.) than with Level A. Ali and Louis are the heavyweights that made it there. You would pretty much have to think Holmes was a clearcut #3 heavyweight to put him at A and that's a stretch.

I almost put Norfolk at Level C. Level C is supposed to be for the "typical " Hall of Famer, someone who isn't a legend but certainly was great and without question deserving of the Hall of Fame. I have some doubts about him. I do think that he is the best fighter of Level D.

Perkins- I have a lot of doubt about. He was a very good fighter, but it's borderline whether he should be in the Hall of Fame.

I guess we agree that Holman Williams is Level C.

I don't get the Harry Lewis selection at all, so I put him at E. Maybe I am missing something.

IMo the reservations on Holmes are that there are a number of names that he didn't meet which seems odd for a modern great who reigned for so long. So we miss: Thomas, Page, Coetzee and Dokes (you could add Witherspoon II as well). IMO Holmes might have lost to some of them later in his career when he was older but not in his pomp. Coetzee's right hand might make him the trickiest of them all. As talented as Page, Thomas and Dokes were I don't see them sucking it up and biting down ahrd enough to beat Holmes.

In terms of Larry's skill set I see him as an A class. Mine are Ali, Louis, Johnson and Holmes... Just my take...

Sounds like we're not so far off on Norfolk either.