BoxRec

http://news.boxrec.com/news/2010/harry- ... -hall-fame

Just a shame he wasn't alive when they awarded it

Exactly!^^^ a bloody shame...

The fact that they are also inducting Sly Stallone makes a mockery of the event. Harry does not deserve this.

MachoMan09 wrote:

bennie wrote:The fact that they are also inducting Sly Stallone makes a mockery of the event. Harry does not deserve this.

I disagree, mate. Whilst I personally never really took to the Rocky films, their impact on boxing should not be underestimated. I can remember Robin Reid talking about how the gym was always full the day after Rocky had been on the box. I guarantee that tens of thousands of young lads first got acquainted with our sport through watching Rocky. The 'Italian Stallion' is arguably the most famous boxer in the world after Muhammad Ali. The fact he is a fictional entity is irrelevant, when it comes to determining how influential he has been on the sport's popularity.

I do understand bennie's ire - bennie is old school.

However, thanks for this Macho as it's saved me a post.

Brendan Ingle once told me "You can always tell when a Rocky film has been on the telly on a Friday night. The gym is full on Saturday mornings." Stallone has been far more influential than many of the scribes and broadcasters elevated to the IBHOF.

Well done 'Arry!
RIP

No Creed.

Your last line says it all Ian - excellent (I mean last line of your post). I can see the irk against a Movie actor, but I don't see the difference between an actor who has never laced them up for real in his life promoting the sport, and a scribe who has never laced them up in his life.

Especially someone like Harry Carpenter (and like Ian Darke of this generation) as good as they are, are they "boxing people" or simply TV commentators first and can do a grand job on any sport.

stujones wrote:Your last line says it all Ian - excellent (I mean last line of your post). I can see the irk against a Movie actor, but I don't see the difference between an actor who has never laced them up for real in his life promoting the sport, and a scribe who has never laced them up in his life.

Especially someone like Harry Carpenter (and like Ian Darke of this generation) as good as they are, are they "boxing people" or simply TV commentators first and can do a grand job on any sport.

"Boxing people" - I don't get this phrase. By that reckoning most promoters aren't "boxing people" as they are mainly buisnessmen, entrepreneurs, accountants, that have seen an opportunity in the sport. Don King and Bob Arum two of the biggest promoters the world have ever seen aren't "boxing people" by that token.

OK, it seems strange that an actor should get in the Hall of Fame, but the fact is the HOF is a business, its business is giving out awards, and inevitably they will end up scraping the barrel as time goes by. I have no problem with Sly getting in, for the reasons mentioned in Macho's post. Those films inspired a lot of people to take up boxing, more than any journalist, and arguably even boxer, ever has. Sly is an exception. But when it gets to the stage where the Mark Wahlbergs or Daniel Day Lewises get in just because they've played a boxer in a film, that's when I'll start kicking off. Even De Niro, for all his excellence as LaMotta, no way should he ever be considered. Stallone should be a one off - but something tells me he won't be.

Will Dolph Lundgrens steroid accusations go against him?

Ian Beale retired well over five years ago ...

I suppose the Yanks will be giving John Wayne the Medal of Honour next!

One thankful thing is there will be no more Rocky sequels!!

dbf wrote:

stujones wrote:Your last line says it all Ian - excellent (I mean last line of your post). I can see the irk against a Movie actor, but I don't see the difference between an actor who has never laced them up for real in his life promoting the sport, and a scribe who has never laced them up in his life.

Especially someone like Harry Carpenter (and like Ian Darke of this generation) as good as they are, are they "boxing people" or simply TV commentators first and can do a grand job on any sport.

"Boxing people" - I don't get this phrase. By that reckoning most promoters aren't "boxing people" as they are mainly buisnessmen, entrepreneurs, accountants, that have seen an opportunity in the sport. Don King and Bob Arum two of the biggest promoters the world have ever seen aren't "boxing people" by that token.

Firstly, let me clarify I am for the entry of Harry and Sly. What I meant that, if you compare the background of Reg Gutteridge and Harry Carpenter in terms of boxing they are very different. Reg, if I remember, was always involved in the sport before his career in Journalism. Harry I don't think was.

Similarly, in Rugby where you have Eddie Butler doing the commentary, an international Rugby player. However, on ITV you used to get Bob Symmons who had a completely different background - he worked up from being a "tea boy" at HTV Wales - right man, right place and on the spot training on presenting.

I think the arguement against Stallone's inclusion is that he is a movie star and because he hasn't laced them up for real and done anything in person to influence the sport (it was a character) that he shouldn't be included. However, I would argue that as the WRITER of the Rocky series he has as much right to be there as Harry Carpenter - who is a broadcaster first. We don't even know if Boxing was his passion as he commentated on so many sports, we do know it was Reg's.

I define boxing people as people with hands on experience of the trade and how it works - Not just in the gyms but also in the business meetings. I would even go further and say people with that gut passion to work their arse of for the sport as its their "calling". So it would certainly fit some scribes. But I would stop short of people who just have other skills and sort of make boxing fit with their skills.

For example, Sport Scientists who work alongside boxers I wouldn't necessarily call true boxing people (unless it was boxing was the reason why they embarked on their degree), I'm also sure that given time if the BBC paid Jeremy Clarkson he would make a fantastically witty and informative boxing documentary - does that make him a boxing person.... not for me?

Perhaps I am doing Harry a massive disservice I don't know his background inside out. What I saw Harry as a fantastic broadcaster and would do a grand job no matter what the sport more so than someone fanatical about boxing and determined to just work on boxing.

stujones wrote:

dbf wrote:

stujones wrote:Your last line says it all Ian - excellent (I mean last line of your post). I can see the irk against a Movie actor, but I don't see the difference between an actor who has never laced them up for real in his life promoting the sport, and a scribe who has never laced them up in his life.

Especially someone like Harry Carpenter (and like Ian Darke of this generation) as good as they are, are they "boxing people" or simply TV commentators first and can do a grand job on any sport.

"Boxing people" - I don't get this phrase. By that reckoning most promoters aren't "boxing people" as they are mainly buisnessmen, entrepreneurs, accountants, that have seen an opportunity in the sport. Don King and Bob Arum two of the biggest promoters the world have ever seen aren't "boxing people" by that token.

Firstly, let me clarify I am for the entry of Harry and Sly. What I meant that, if you compare the background of Reg Gutteridge and Harry Carpenter in terms of boxing they are very different. Reg, if I remember, was always involved in the sport before his career in Journalism. Harry I don't think was.

Similarly, in Rugby where you have Eddie Butler doing the commentary, an international Rugby player. However, on ITV you used to get Bob Symmons who had a completely different background - he worked up from being a "tea boy" at HTV Wales - right man, right place and on the spot training on presenting.

I think the arguement against Stallone's inclusion is that he is a movie star and because he hasn't laced them up for real and done anything in person to influence the sport (it was a character) that he shouldn't be included. However, I would argue that as the WRITER of the Rocky series he has as much right to be there as Harry Carpenter - who is a broadcaster first. We don't even know if Boxing was his passion as he commentated on so many sports, we do know it was Reg's.

I define boxing people as people with hands on experience of the trade and how it works - Not just in the gyms but also in the business meetings. I would even go further and say people with that gut passion to work their arse of for the sport as its their "calling". So it would certainly fit some scribes. But I would stop short of people who just have other skills and sort of make boxing fit with their skills.

For example, Sport Scientists who work alongside boxers I wouldn't necessarily call true boxing people (unless it was boxing was the reason why they embarked on their degree), I'm also sure that given time if the BBC paid Jeremy Clarkson he would make a fantastically witty and informative boxing documentary - does that make him a boxing person.... not for me?

Perhaps I am doing Harry a massive disservice I don't know his background inside out. What I saw Harry as a fantastic broadcaster and would do a grand job no matter what the sport more so than someone fanatical about boxing and determined to just work on boxing.

Good points Stu - I wasn't trying to be picky, but I have heard the phrases "proper boxing man" "boxing people" etc and it does annoy me for some reason. Recently someone referred to Adam Smith as a 'proper boxing man" because of his passion for the sport.

Well, he could be a similar case to Harry, he became passionate about the sport after working in it, as opposed to being passionate and wanting to work in it.

Its very hard to draw the line some time - you're right Sports Scientists, nutrionlists etc have the skills needed to play a role in boxing and some of them then start to enjoy the sport, others just see it as a means to an end. Thats why I don't like the phrase.

For me, anyone can like boxing, no matter at what time they come into contact with it and to what degree. "boxing man" just sounds a bit clickly (kind of like the whole sport in general) and seems to suggest that you have to been in the circle to be accepted.

Very good post Stu

Is inclusion voted for by journalists? If so roughly how many and who decides on whether you get a vote? Who decides who gets on the shortlist? How many names are on the shortlist each year? How many names can you vote for on each ballot? Is it 5 from each category who are inducted?

Not sure if anyone has the answers, but I have wondered.

chinny wrote:Is inclusion voted for by journalists? If so roughly how many and who decides on whether you get a vote? Who decides who gets on the shortlist? How many names are on the shortlist each year? How many names can you vote for on each ballot? Is it 5 from each category who are inducted?

Not sure if anyone has the answers, but I have wondered.

I know that some journalists are involved in the nomination process chinny, but I don't know the full mix of the panel, who else might be involved.

chinny wrote:Is inclusion voted for by journalists? If so roughly how many and who decides on whether you get a vote? Who decides who gets on the shortlist? How many names are on the shortlist each year? How many names can you vote for on each ballot? Is it 5 from each category who are inducted?

Not sure if anyone has the answers, but I have wondered.

Some info in the piece at the top. Writers from the Boxing Writers of America Assoc and then a panel of 'boxing historians'.

I saw the shortlist for modern boxers and observers - loads of names on there.