BoxRec

Trying to stay on 'topic' - nominees for the IBHOF; both Leonard and Duran are in both Halls; hence, no need to discuss them (here).....

There is an easier answer than telling people what to do....stop talking about it.

If I have offended you (or anyone else), I apologize - my previous statements are "off the record"......

Why would you have offended me? You're quite polite, I just always wonder why anyone says lets stop talking about this instead of just doing it.

You're absolutely correct and I'll let you in on a little secret - I follow your posts above all others (oops, hope no one gets upset) as they have assisted me greatly in my research and writing.

By the way, check out my new article (cross era secrets preview) - and I will appreciate your feedback (if you choose to comment)......

kal.majeed wrote:You're absolutely correct and I'll let you in on a little secret - I follow your posts above all others (oops, hope no one gets upset) as they have assisted me greatly in my research and writing.

By the way, check out my new article (cross era secrets preview) - and I will appreciate your feedback (if you choose to comment)......

I'll read yours if you read mine.

http://boxeomundial.net/boxeo.php?categ ... h&id=31101

Has anyone mentioned Harry Jeffra? He should be in the HOF.

Nice! Honestly, I do not keep that up-to-date with the current boxers and I do mostly historic research; I prefer to wait until a boxer's career is at or near its end and then do an analysis (I simply do not have the time as I do research in numerous fields and not just boxing).

Now, Harry Jeffra (in the World Boxing Hall of Fame); BW-LW; 2-division world titlist; 122 bouts, 94 wins, 28 KO's and 2 stoppage losses (1 avenged and the other in the latter stages of his career); great battles with Escobar, Archibald and Salica; has a single points loss to the never stopped, future prolific trainer Victor Vallee (possible nominee for either Hall as a boxer/trainer); Jeffra is definitely a serious candidate (and Salica and Vallee should be at least considered for the World Boxing Hall of Fame)!

Rover wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:I think Camacho is one of those classic examples of people not being able to give credit to someone they don't like. There wasn't much to like about him, but he was a helluva a fighter. He had a lof of quality wins. He basically took on almost anyone at the top over a long period of time.
Some of his wins were against guys that may not have been at their very best, but they weren't shot.

Limon was only 29 years old and had a great fight against Chacon right before he took on Camacho. No evidence whatsoever before the fight that he was shot. Camacho beat him easily and suddenly Limon was shot. Howard Davis had a lot left when Camacho beat him.
Boza Edwards was still a very good fighter when Camacho beat him.
Not sure how Haugen can be past his prime. He was only 30 and only had 30 fights before he fought Camacho.


Rosario was in his prime has been in the Hall of Fame for a long time and Camacho beat him.

As others mentioned, Camacho also had several wins over not great but solid fighters.

This should be an absolute no-brainer. He could be annoying. He was also a great fighter.

Haugen wasn't that good even in his prime. Possibly should've lost to Miguel Santana (from what I've read--though I never saw it). And Haugen's prime was at lightweight; that's what I was referring to.
Limon had been in tons of wars and was never a great fighter to begin with, but let's just say Camacho gets full credit for that win.
Boza never accomplished anything of note at lightweight; he was noted at super feather.
So that leaves us with...
Ramirez
Rosario
Limon
(I don't think Rosario belongs in the HOF, either, BTW.)As for Davis, he lost every time he stepped up (Camacho, Watt, Rosario--and yes, I think Chapo won that 114-112).

I don't like Floyd, but he clearly belongs. Macho doesn't.

Haugen was just as comfrotable fighting at 140 as 135. It was more of a natural weight for him that Camacho at the time; Camacho's
early career was at 130. No Haugen wasn't a legend, but he was a good fighter. He was in his prime when he fought Camacho.

Boza-Edwards looked good at lightweight. He easily beat Melvin Paul and Charlie Brown who were good lightweights.

You say it leaves us with Ramirez, Rosario, and Limon. As if that isn't much. Those are some pretty nice wins.
I agree that Rosario might not be deserving to be in the Hall of Fame, but it's still a very good win for Camacho.

I think we have to look at what a geniune Hall of Famer is. It's not just how many other Hall of Famers you have beat. Johnny Risko beat 7 Hall of Famers and is not in the Hall of Fame; nor should he be. He lost frequnetly to lesser fighters.
Eder Jofre only beat one Hall of Famer (who wasn't at his best) and yet he is in the Hall of Fame and is probably one of the better Hall of Famers.

You also have to look at how many good-very good fighters they beat, and how rarely they lost to lesser fighters.
Camacho beat many good fighters over the course of his career. Besides Rosario, Limon,Boza-Edwards,Ramirez,Haugen and Davis, he beat many solid fighters like Melvin Paul, Rafael Williams, Freddie Roach,Tony Baltizar etc. Beating one of these guys seem that big of a deal, but he beat a string of them.

Was he overhyped? Sure. That isn't the question. Was as good as say Bernard Hopkins, or De La Hoya? No. But he was better than many fighters who are already in the Hall of Fame and the guys that we mentioning as being borderline.

I think Saad says it best "If he got in one day it wouldn't be an insult like Gatti."

The argument against prior mistakes is a poor one. It's about whether you belong or not, 10 wrongs do not make a right. While I wouldn't vote for Camacho. saying you would is far from disgraceful. Calling him sure fire and a no brainer is where you're crossing the line.

How about the never stopped, 2-division world titlists (and peers) Reggie Johnson and Steve Collins – aside from the Jones Jr. (for Johnson) and McCallum (for Collins) losses almost all other decision losses are SD/MD or within 1 or 2 points on judges’ scorecards.

Collins has been retired for 15 years and Johnson for 4 years – neither (that I know of) have been officially nominated (or even discussed) by either Hall…..

Two underrated fighters, but I would say no on both accounts. As much heat as the fighters get, a lot of that has to do with the vast amount of divisions. There is a crazy amount of true no brainers on the way.

What about Riddick Bowe - I forgot to put him on the "on the bubble" list?

Can a 'no brainer' such as Holyfield be elected with Bowe ignored (even though Holyfield is from an earlier era - 1984 Olympic LHW bronze medalist and Bowe is the 1988 SHW silver medalist)?

Similar scenario with Rodrigo Valdez (and Bennie Briscoe, who is in the World Boxing Hall of Fame)?

I'd vote for Bowe and even more definitively Valdez. My previous post should have included the heat that 'modern' fighters get.

Here is a tricky one - 2-time world SFW champion Rocky Lockridge (4 successful world title defenses); 53 bouts, 44 wins, 36 KO's and stopped only once (by Juan Laporte); not sure how you scored his bouts with HOF's Eusebio Pedroza and Wilfredo Gomez?

Also, does Laporte have to get voted in for Rocky to get in (told you it is tricky)?

Two words---- TIPPY LARKIN

I read all the names that you guys are throwing around, and I pretty sure these guys fought not long ago.Hence your younger age,but Tippy is not on the lips of the boxing crowd sorta "outta sight ,outta mind" situation. Its a shame.
But Larkin (The Garfield Gunner) fought 1930's-1950's, you can look up his record and see who and what he accomplished.
Just reading his record does not does not give his abilities the justice he deserves. His skills were tremendous.
Only one of his fights exist on film vs Billy Graham in 1947, and it is a lose there for every boxing fan not being able to see him in action.
He's been neglected by the IBHOF for too long.

Larkin is abit of an interesting case. He beat quite a few good fighters. On the other hand, when henever he stepped up against the great fighters of his era, he usually got ko'd.
Collins is not quite Hall of Fame worthy and Johnson isn't even close. Riddick Bowe certainly is.
Lockridge is among literally dozens of guys who aren't in who are roughly even. We have already mentioned several of these guys. (There are also opponents like Roger Mayweather and Tony Lopez.) Most won't make it, though a few will probably slip in. Had he got the decision over Pedroza or Gomez, he would have a better chance. As it is, his chances aren't that great.

La Porte while a fine fighter, is simply not Hall of Fame worthy. Despite the ko win over Lockridge, Lockridge had a better overall career.

Tippy Larkin; World Boxing Hall of Famer; FW-WW; world JWW champion; 154 bouts, 137 wins, 60 KO's and 10 stoppage losses (the first to Al Davis - who is first stopped by Fritzie Zivic and is the only boxer to ever stop HOF Tony Canzoneri and the first to stop HOF Bob Montgomery; classic/controversial bouts with Al Tribuani; Davis should at least be in the World Boxing Hall of Fame); Larkin has great battles with Cochrane, Fisher, Bedami, Berg, Fatta, Stolz, Graham and has 3 amazing wins over the never stopped, underrated Willie Joyce.

Al 'Bummy' Davis would need to be first elected to the IBHOF (and I doubt he will) but again, he should at least in the WBHOF.

P.S.

Just saw your post (AA) - agreed on virtually all comments but consider this - there are many who believe that Lockridge is robbed against Pedroza and Gomez (both deserved HOF) plus Rocky has only one stoppage loss (whereas they each have three) - this appears a bit contradictory does it not?

Ambling Alp wrote:

Rover wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:I think Camacho is one of those classic examples of people not being able to give credit to someone they don't like. There wasn't much to like about him, but he was a helluva a fighter. He had a lof of quality wins. He basically took on almost anyone at the top over a long period of time.
Some of his wins were against guys that may not have been at their very best, but they weren't shot.

Limon was only 29 years old and had a great fight against Chacon right before he took on Camacho. No evidence whatsoever before the fight that he was shot. Camacho beat him easily and suddenly Limon was shot. Howard Davis had a lot left when Camacho beat him.
Boza Edwards was still a very good fighter when Camacho beat him.
Not sure how Haugen can be past his prime. He was only 30 and only had 30 fights before he fought Camacho.


Rosario was in his prime has been in the Hall of Fame for a long time and Camacho beat him.

As others mentioned, Camacho also had several wins over not great but solid fighters.

This should be an absolute no-brainer. He could be annoying. He was also a great fighter.

Haugen wasn't that good even in his prime. Possibly should've lost to Miguel Santana (from what I've read--though I never saw it). And Haugen's prime was at lightweight; that's what I was referring to.
Limon had been in tons of wars and was never a great fighter to begin with, but let's just say Camacho gets full credit for that win.
Boza never accomplished anything of note at lightweight; he was noted at super feather.
So that leaves us with...
Ramirez
Rosario
Limon
(I don't think Rosario belongs in the HOF, either, BTW.)As for Davis, he lost every time he stepped up (Camacho, Watt, Rosario--and yes, I think Chapo won that 114-112).

I don't like Floyd, but he clearly belongs. Macho doesn't.

Haugen was just as comfrotable fighting at 140 as 135. It was more of a natural weight for him that Camacho at the time; Camacho's
early career was at 130. No Haugen wasn't a legend, but he was a good fighter. He was in his prime when he fought Camacho.

Boza-Edwards looked good at lightweight. He easily beat Melvin Paul and Charlie Brown who were good lightweights.

You say it leaves us with Ramirez, Rosario, and Limon. As if that isn't much. Those are some pretty nice wins.
I agree that Rosario might not be deserving to be in the Hall of Fame, but it's still a very good win for Camacho.

I think we have to look at what a geniune Hall of Famer is. It's not just how many other Hall of Famers you have beat. Johnny Risko beat 7 Hall of Famers and is not in the Hall of Fame; nor should he be. He lost frequnetly to lesser fighters.
Eder Jofre only beat one Hall of Famer (who wasn't at his best) and yet he is in the Hall of Fame and is probably one of the better Hall of Famers.

You also have to look at how many good-very good fighters they beat, and how rarely they lost to lesser fighters.
Camacho beat many good fighters over the course of his career. Besides Rosario, Limon,Boza-Edwards,Ramirez,Haugen and Davis, he beat many solid fighters like Melvin Paul, Rafael Williams, Freddie Roach,Tony Baltizar etc. Beating one of these guys seem that big of a deal, but he beat a string of them.

Was he overhyped? Sure. That isn't the question. Was as good as say Bernard Hopkins, or De La Hoya? No. But he was better than many fighters who are already in the Hall of Fame and the guys that we mentioning as being borderline.

1. Haugen accomplished nothing at jr. welter besides the defeat of Camacho. I judge fighters' best weights on accomplishments. Camacho had already won a jr. welter belt and defended it twice, so that tells me that he was comfortable at the weight.
2. Same for Boza. Never won a lightweight title; his title was won at jr. lightweight. Hector didn't beat him there.
3. Jofre was the best in his division. That was undisputed, and his reign was lengthy. Camacho won a jr. light belt and made one defense, after which he relinquished it. You could argue that he was the best lightweight in the world after Rosario destroyed Bramble, and I'd agree, but Camacho defended his title later that night and then left the division.
As for the argument that other undeserving candidates are in, I'd say that errors shouldn't be compounded.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:The argument against prior mistakes is a poor one. It's about whether you belong or not, 10 wrongs do not make a right. While I wouldn't vote for Camacho. saying you would is far from disgraceful. Calling him sure fire and a no brainer is where you're crossing the line.

Exactly. I don't think he should be in, but he'd better than Gatti.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Two underrated fighters, but I would say no on both accounts. As much heat as the fighters get, a lot of that has to do with the vast amount of divisions. There is a crazy amount of true no brainers on the way.

Agreed. And it isn't just divisions; it's belts. Johnson won belts at middle and light heavy. He wasn't the middle and light heavy champ.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'd vote for Bowe and even more definitively Valdez. My previous post should have included the heat that 'modern' fighters get.

Don't know about Bowe, as his reign was so short, and his defenses were over Dokes and Ferguson.

kal.majeed wrote:Here is a tricky one - 2-time world SFW champion Rocky Lockridge (4 successful world title defenses); 53 bouts, 44 wins, 36 KO's and stopped only once (by Juan Laporte); not sure how you scored his bouts with HOF's Eusebio Pedroza and Wilfredo Gomez?

Also, does Laporte have to get voted in for Rocky to get in (told you it is tricky)?

No on Lockridge. I thought Pedroza beat him twice and that JCC beat him, though the Gomez decision was pathetic.
Also, he was the champ at 130 once; the second was just a belt he won from Michael.

Rover wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'd vote for Bowe and even more definitively Valdez. My previous post should have included the heat that 'modern' fighters get.

Don't know about Bowe, as his reign was so short, and his defenses were over Dokes and Ferguson.

Modern title reigns are meaningless to me. Bowe beat one of the 30 or 40 best fighters in history, by my estimation, arguably 3 times.

On another note, Lockridge would beat Gatti within an inch of his life.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Rover wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'd vote for Bowe and even more definitively Valdez. My previous post should have included the heat that 'modern' fighters get.

Don't know about Bowe, as his reign was so short, and his defenses were over Dokes and Ferguson.

Modern title reigns are meaningless to me. Bowe beat one of the 30 or 40 best fighters in history, by my estimation, arguably 3 times.

On another note, Lockridge would beat Gatti within an inch of his life.

Agreed on Lockridge. Had the second Bowe/Holyfield fight a draw, so I see your point.