BoxRec Boxing Hall of Fame, Round 3 ballots - CLOSED

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 09 May 2006, 17:12

The Great John L wrote:
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.

I guess you must have.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 09 May 2006, 17:15

pundit wrote:
The Great John L wrote:
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.
I guess you must have.

Thankyou for your educated response. It's always great to learn from someone with such a vast knowledge of the sport. Please continue with your learned posts reagrding the early days of boxing. Oh, sorry I forgot it's only been a sport for the past 40 years or so...

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 09 May 2006, 17:17

The Great John L wrote:
pundit wrote:
The Great John L wrote: 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.
I guess you must have.
Thankyou for your educated response. It's always great to learn from someone with such a vast knowledge of the sport. Please continue with your learned posts reagrding the early days of boxing. Oh, sorry I forgot it's only been a sport for the past 40 years or so...

Always a pleasure.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 09 May 2006, 17:23

Here's a nice summary article on inventions that came to bocxing with James Corbett.

http://www.bookrags.com/history/popcult ... 3-bbbb-01/

-----------------------

James J. Corbett (1866–1933)

James J. "Gentleman Jim" Corbett is more than a boxing legend. He was the first of a new breed of modern-era boxers who approached the sport of boxing methodically. The fast, sleek Corbett believed in training for his fights and in employing speed and strategy rather than uncontrolled power to outmaneuver an opponent.

Through the late nineteenth century, professional boxing was not so much an organized sport as a barbaric fight-to-the-finish free-for-all in which bare-knuckled combatants wrestled and clawed their way to victory. Boxers were more like hooligans who exuded a rough, crude manliness. The sport became more orderly with the institution of the Marquis of Queensberry rules (named after Sir John Sholto Douglas [1844–1900], the eighth Marquis of Queensberry, who helped draft the new boxing rules). Bouts consisted of three-minute rounds featuring minute-long rest periods in between, and to protect their hands, boxers wore five-ounce, padded gloves. On September 7, 1892, the first modern-era heavyweight championship match was held with the Marquis of Queensberry rules in effect. The reigning champion was John L. Sullivan (1858–1918), nicknamed "The Boston Strongboy," an old-style, bare-knuckle boxer. Corbett was the challenger. Their match is the most significant in the sport's history. The smaller, quicker Corbett avoided Sullivan's bullish assaults and wore him down. He knocked out the exhausted champ in the twenty-first round to claim the heavyweight crown—and the modern era of boxing was born.
Unlike other boxers of his time, Corbett hailed from a middle-class family and attended college. While still the champ, he performed on the stage and in vaudeville. He continued doing so after losing his title to Bob Fitzsimmons (1863–1918) in 1897.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 09 May 2006, 17:25

And another

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_J._Corbett

-------------------

James John Corbett, born September 1, 1866 in San Francisco, California, United States – died February 18, 1933 in Bayside, New York, was a heavyweight boxing champion. He was best known as "Gentleman Jim", the man who defeated the great John L Sullivan. He also coached boxing at the Olympic Club in San Francisco.

Dubbed by the media as "Gentleman Jim Corbett," he was college educated and in addition to boxing, pursued a career in acting, performing at a variety of theaters. He has been called the "Father of Modern Boxing" because of his scientific approach and innovations in technique. Some think that he changed prizefighting from a brawl to an art form.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 09 May 2006, 17:30

And another one - taken from boxrec itself.

http://www.boxrec.com/media/index.php/B ... ett:009021

------------------

“Jim Corbett’s advent in pugilism brought as great a change in ring tactics as came about when electric light succeeded gas for illuminating purposes.”

Such is the declaration of Tommy Ryan, long ranked as one of the greatest middleweights that ever lived and certainly one of the most remarkable students and teachers of boxing.

“The ring game owes more to Corbett than it does to any living man,” added Ryan. “And I say that in full knowledge of the fact that John L. Sullivan helped to popularize the ring pastime and that a hundred other great men during the last 40 years have boosted the game from the one time barroom diversion to a clean, scientific and manly exhibition.

-------------

kidlefty · Post by **kidlefty** » 09 May 2006, 17:31

None of that explains why someone WOULDN'T consider John L Sullivan a first-ballot hall of famer. And of course, neither appears to be written by an acutual boxing historian.

EDIT: You added the Tommy Ryan quote next, and while I respect the observations of someone who was there, it's hardly the final word on anything.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 09 May 2006, 17:37

kidlefty wrote:None of that explains why someone WOULDN'T consider John L Sullivan a first-ballot hall of famer. And of course, neither appears to be written by an acutual boxing historian.

EDIT: You added the Tommy Ryan quote next, and while I respect the observations of someone who was there, it's hardly the final word on anything.

Noone said it's the final word, but these citations make pretty clear that the view that modern boxing started with Corbett rather than Sullivan isn't outlandish or absurd and cannot be put away with a "little bit of research".

Sorry that I won't make your sectretary and type things of boxing historian's books, but rather copy and paste from the internet. This is simply the stuff I found within the first 20 secs.

I bugs me when people portray those who disagree with them as retards who can't read nor write properly - in particular when the issue of disagreement is as much debated as in this case and with no direct and limited first-hand evidence to draw on.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 09 May 2006, 19:01

pundit wrote:I bugs me when people portray those who disagree with them as retards who can't read nor write properly - in particular when the issue of disagreement is as much debated as in this case and with no direct and limited first-hand evidence to draw on.

I don't think anyone called you a retard, simply ignorant of facts. The simple fact that Sullivan was the first gloved HW champ, and held the title for many years would qualify him for any boxing HOF in the eyes of any reasonably learned boxing fan. You seem to want make some judgement about his abilities, which is impossible. But the same can be said for many greats in any sport. Should they be excluded because there is no visual proof of their abilities. As I stated before, we should probably limit the entrants to those that have fought in the past 40 years or so. That way we can assure that their fights are available in color.

Bookrags, and a few free internet encyclopedia snips hardly qualify as boxing historians. Perhaps you should try reading a few books about boxing history rather than simply doing a google search to find a few brief summaries. I would suggest John L Sullivan and his America. Of course it will take more than 20 seconds to read.

kidlefty · Post by **kidlefty** » 09 May 2006, 21:00

pundit wrote:I bugs me when people portray those who disagree with them as retards who can't read nor write properly - in particular when the issue of disagreement is as much debated as in this case and with no direct and limited first-hand evidence to draw on.

I'll echo that no one's calling you a retard. But I still contend that nothing you've said so far provides any valid reason why Sullivan, the sport's first true superstar, shouldn't be a first-ballot hall of famer.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 09 May 2006, 21:59

Hwo bout some more ballots ? And vote the McFarland-McLarnin ticket.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 10 May 2006, 09:56

The Great John L wrote:
pundit wrote:I bugs me when people portray those who disagree with them as retards who can't read nor write properly - in particular when the issue of disagreement is as much debated as in this case and with no direct and limited first-hand evidence to draw on.
I don't think anyone called you a retard, simply ignorant of facts. The simple fact that Sullivan was the first gloved HW champ, and held the title for many years would qualify him for any boxing HOF in the eyes of any reasonably learned boxing fan. You seem to want make some judgement about his abilities, which is impossible. But the same can be said for many greats in any sport. Should they be excluded because there is no visual proof of their abilities. As I stated before, we should probably limit the entrants to those that have fought in the past 40 years or so. That way we can assure that their fights are available in color.

Bookrags, and a few free internet encyclopedia snips hardly qualify as boxing historians. Perhaps you should try reading a few books about boxing history rather than simply doing a google search to find a few brief summaries. I would suggest John L Sullivan and his America. Of course it will take more than 20 seconds to read.

The fact that Sullivan put on gloves and coincidentally lived in the era where the first world champ was crowned hardly suffices for a HOF induction, and certianly it doesn't make it comulsory. In particular if the next champ is the one who is credited with turning boxing from a spectacle into a sport. Viewed from this angle Sullivan is really hard at the edge of electability for the HOF - as he was not really a "boxer" in the sense as we understand it today.

Your rants "read some books" etc. I decide to ignore. If you have never heard that modern boxing started with Corbett than I don't know what you've done in the past 40 years - certainly not studied boxing history in a meaningulf way. But I doubt this is the case - it rather seems you're incapable of living with disagreements on issues that are close to your heart.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 10 May 2006, 12:40

pundit wrote:Your rants "read some books" etc. I decide to ignore. If you have never heard that modern boxing started with Corbett than I don't know what you've done in the past 40 years - certainly not studied boxing history in a meaningulf way. But I doubt this is the case - it rather seems you're incapable of living with disagreements on issues that are close to your heart.

You mean study boxing in a meaningful way by doing a 20 second Google search? I never stated that I hadn’t heard of the claims that modern boxing started with Corbett. I simply stated that Sullivan made boxing a sport that was popular with the general public. Prior to Sullivan boxing was an “underground sport”, with very little popular support. In fact, Sullivan was much more popular with the public than Corbett. I’m really not even referring to styles, because no one today has seen Sullivan fight, and most judgments about his style and abilities have been formed on ill informed clichés like those that seem to have influenced your opinion.

Sorry if my rants have offended you, but it gets quite tiresome reading ill informed posts that disparage great fighters from the past. If you must base all of your “research” on Google results, perhaps you should try searching on John L. Sullivan. You might be surprised that there are internet resources that will say that he actually was important and had some fighting ability.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 10 May 2006, 12:42

The Great John L wrote:
pundit wrote:Your rants "read some books" etc. I decide to ignore. If you have never heard that modern boxing started with Corbett than I don't know what you've done in the past 40 years - certainly not studied boxing history in a meaningulf way. But I doubt this is the case - it rather seems you're incapable of living with disagreements on issues that are close to your heart.
You mean study boxing in a meaningful way by doing a 20 second Google search? I never stated that I hadn’t heard of the claims that modern boxing started with Corbett. I simply stated that Sullivan made boxing a sport that was popular with the general public. Prior to Sullivan boxing was an “underground sport”, with very little popular support. In fact, Sullivan was much more popular with the public than Corbett. I’m really not even referring to styles, because no one today has seen Sullivan fight, and most judgments about his style and abilities have been formed on ill informed clichés like those that seem to have influenced your opinion.

Sorry if my rants have offended you, but it gets quite tiresome reading ill informed posts that disparage great fighters from the past. If you must base all of your “research” on Google results, perhaps you should try searching on John L. Sullivan. You might be surprised that there are internet resources that will say that he actually was important and had some fighting ability.

kidlefty · Post by **kidlefty** » 10 May 2006, 12:42

pundit wrote: The fact that Sullivan put on gloves and coincidentally lived in the era where the first world champ was crowned hardly suffices for a HOF induction, and certianly it doesn't make it comulsory. In particular if the next champ is the one who is credited with turning boxing from a spectacle into a sport. Viewed from this angle Sullivan is really hard at the edge of electability for the HOF - as he was not really a "boxer" in the sense as we understand it today.

You know, if you think that's all John L Sullivan was, then you really do have a lot to learn.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 10 May 2006, 12:46

kidlefty wrote:
pundit wrote: The fact that Sullivan put on gloves and coincidentally lived in the era where the first world champ was crowned hardly suffices for a HOF induction, and certianly it doesn't make it comulsory. In particular if the next champ is the one who is credited with turning boxing from a spectacle into a sport. Viewed from this angle Sullivan is really hard at the edge of electability for the HOF - as he was not really a "boxer" in the sense as we understand it today.
You know, if you think that's all John L Sullivan was, then you really do have a lot to learn.

Well, since you keep these deep insights hidden from the outside world I'll probably have few chances profiting from them - after all all that comes from you - especially when confronted with couterarguments - is "shame Sullivan isn't in there - shame shame - should be - people know nothing of boxing - shame".

Your bluff has been called, mate.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 10 May 2006, 13:02

pundit wrote:
kidlefty wrote:
pundit wrote: The fact that Sullivan put on gloves and coincidentally lived in the era where the first world champ was crowned hardly suffices for a HOF induction, and certianly it doesn't make it comulsory. In particular if the next champ is the one who is credited with turning boxing from a spectacle into a sport. Viewed from this angle Sullivan is really hard at the edge of electability for the HOF - as he was not really a "boxer" in the sense as we understand it today.
You know, if you think that's all John L Sullivan was, then you really do have a lot to learn.
Well, since you keep these deep insights hidden from the outside world I'll probably have few chances profiting from them - after all all that comes from you - especially when confronted with couterarguments - is "shame Sullivan isn't in there - shame shame - should be - people know nothing of boxing - shame".

Your bluff has been called, mate.

Damn you are rather simple. Please read my posts again mate since you seem to be quite poor at comprehension. I’ve already suggested that you read “John L. Sullivan and His America”, as it is probably one of the best books about Sullivan and how he affected not just boxing but his place in history. The internet is a great tool, but it is not always the best resource for the history of boxing, which has become a rather fringe sport.

I guess when you are confronted with the possibility of actually having to put some effort into your posts you simply take the easy way out.

pundit · Post by **pundit** » 10 May 2006, 13:08

The Great John L wrote:
pundit wrote:
kidlefty wrote: You know, if you think that's all John L Sullivan was, then you really do have a lot to learn.
Well, since you keep these deep insights hidden from the outside world I'll probably have few chances profiting from them - after all all that comes from you - especially when confronted with couterarguments - is "shame Sullivan isn't in there - shame shame - should be - people know nothing of boxing - shame".

Your bluff has been called, mate.
Damn you are rather simple. Please read my posts again mate since you seem to be quite poor at comprehension. I’ve already suggested that you read “John L. Sullivan and His America”, as it is probably one of the best books about Sullivan and how he affected not just boxing but his place in history. The internet is a great tool, but it is not always the best resource for the history of boxing, which has become a rather fringe sport.

I guess when you are confronted with the possibility of actually having to put some effort into your posts you simply take the easy way out.

So I have to read your favorite book before you're prepared to share your secret insights with me ...

Thanks but no thanks.

kidlefty · Post by **kidlefty** » 10 May 2006, 13:18

"Secret insights"??

What's so secret about knowing that boxing's first superstar was, well, boxing's first superstar?

Don't take it so personally, just consider for a moment the possibility that you just don't know that much about him. If you don't want to learn, that's fine, but characterizing him as some sort of borderline candidate for the HOF is just absurd.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 10 May 2006, 13:34

pundit wrote:So I have to read your favorite book before you're prepared to share your secret insights with me ...

Thanks but no thanks.

Hmmm, yes you are correct. Reading an entire book is probably a bit much. I guess you’ll just have to wait for the movie…

taverner · Post by **taverner** » 10 May 2006, 15:17

Hi

I have just joined so I can take part in this poll - is that OK?

My 25:

Wilfredo Benitez
Miguel Canto
Antonio Cervantes
Jungkoo Chang
George Dixon
Bob Foster
Kid Gavilan
Wilfredo Gomez
Emile Griffith
Fighting Harada
Kid McCoy
Terry McGovern
Jose Napoles
Ruben Olivares
Manuel Ortiz
Eusebio Pedroza
Pascual Perez
Aaron Pryor
Tommy Ryan
Salvador Sanchez
Michael Spinks
Gene Tunney
Barbados Joe Walcott
Ike Williams
Carlos Zarate

kidlefty · Post by **kidlefty** » 10 May 2006, 16:06

taverner wrote:Hi

I have just joined so I can take part in this poll - is that OK?

Absolutely - welcome aboard taverner. All ballots become final on the 25th.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 10 May 2006, 21:09

Just wanted to put in my two cents regarding John L Sullivan.
I have read "John L Sullivan and His America" and thought it was very interesting. I also have a book by Rex Lardner called "The Legendary Champions", which covers heavyweight boxing from Sullivan to Tunney. It's very good as well.

The sport of boxing was certainly more popular by 1892 when Sullivan gave way to Corbett than it was when Sullivan won the title in 1882. (That's right, he was the heavyweight champion for 10 years).

This growth in popularity was mostly because of Sullivan. Though not the slick boxer that Corbett was, Sullivan had decent skills, and of course had great power and was very agrressive. He boxed hundreds of exhibitions (and regular fights) all over the country. This helped promote boxing and Sullivan himself.

Corbett helped to emphasize different facets of boxing such as defense, speed, and various technical skills. He also helped boxing appeal to a wider range of people.
Because of Sullivan, the popularity of boxing went up a couple of rungs on the ladder so to speak; and because of Corbett it went up a couple of more rungs.

Still, I it seems a stretch to call Sullivan the "Babe Ruth" of boxing.
He was never as well known as Ruth. Ruth is still considered by most as the greatest baseball player of all time; Sullivan isn't considered the best heavyweight of alltime.
To me, Sullivan was more like Cap Anson. (The great first baseman of the late 19th century). He was the biggest name of a struggling sport.

Does Sullivan belong in the Boxing Hall of Fame? Certainly.
However, by the rules that we have set up, we can only vote for 25 fighters spanning more than 100 years of boxing.
I just couldn't justify voting Sullivan in ahead of the truly great heavweight champions, such as Jeffries, Johnson, Dempsey, Tunney, Louis, Marciano, Liston,Ali and Frazier in the first two ballots. Of course we also have to put in guys from the other weight classes as well.
He does deserve the benefit of the doubt and should be put in ahead of the mid-level heavyweight champions such as Sharkey, Schmeling, Baer, Patterson and Norton.
Now that we are voting on the 3rd ballot, many of the truly great heavyweights have been put in. Frazier, Jeffries, Liston, and Tunney are the only remaining eligible heavyweights that should be put in before Sullivan. I personally haven't voted for Sullivan in the first two ballots, but am seriously considering him for the 3rd ballot; it's just a matter of if there is enough room for another heavyweight on this ballot.

kidlefty · Post by **kidlefty** » 10 May 2006, 21:55

Thanks for the intelligent, well thought out comments alp.

The Cap Anson comparison is very apt. Makes me wonder if there actually IS a "Babe Ruth of boxing" at all.

We've gotten bogged down in this Sullivan debate, but the bigger travesty might be the exclusion of Jeffries...

generic screen name · Post by **generic screen name** » 10 May 2006, 22:52

I wish I knew more older boxers, I would vote in this.