BoxRec

The first class of the BoxRec Forum Boxing Hall of Fame is:

Muhammad Ali
Henry Armstrong
Ezzard Charles
Harry Greb
Joe Louis
Rocky Marciano
Carlos Monzon
Archie Moore
Willie Pep
Sugar Ray Robinson


Each of these great champions were named on at least 75% of the ballots.

Congratulations to our first class of immortals.

Twenty ballots were submitted in our inaugural Hall of Fame vote; fighters needed at least 15 votes to gain enshrinement.

Here is the final vote tally:

Joe Louis 20
Ray Robinson 20
Muhammad Ali 19
Archie Moore 19
Carlos Monzon 17
Henry Armstrong 16
Ezzard Charles 16
Willie Pep 16
Harry Greb 15
Rocky Marciano 15

Jack Dempsey 14
Marvin Hagler 14
Jack Johnson 14
Eder Jorfe 13
Sam Langford 13
Benny Leonard 12
Sandy Saddler 12
Salvador Sanchez 12
Jimmy Wilde 12
Alexis Arguello 11
Gene Tunney 11
Joe Gans 10
Stanley Ketchell 9
Mickey Walker 9
Robert Fitzsimmons 8
Jose Napoles 7
Carlos Zarate 7
John L. Sullivan 6
Wilfred Benitez 5
Joe Frazier 5
Emile Griffith 5
James J. Jeffries 5
Jake LaMotta 5
Barney Ross 5
Michael Spinks 5
Panama Al Brown 4
Billy Conn 4
Wilfredo Gomez 4
Carmen Basilio 3
Tony Canzoneri 3
James J. Corbett 3
Bob Foster 3
Terry McGovern 3
Phila. Jack O'Brien 3
Ruben Olivares 3
Tommy Ryan 3
Barbados Joe Walcott 3
Jim Braddock 2
Nonpareil J. Dempsey 2
George Dixon 2
Kid Gavilan 2
Carlos Ortiz 2
Eusebio Pedroza 2
Pascual Perez 2
Ike Williams 2
Abe Attell 1
Max Baer 1
Jimmy Barry 1
Jack Blackburn 1
Jack Britton 1
Charley Burley 1
Kid Chocolate 1
Lee Darcy 1
Jeff Fenech 1
Fighting Harada 1
Joe Jennette 1
Johnny Kilbane 1
Nicolino Locche 1
Tommy Loughran 1
Kid McCoy 1
Jimmy McLarnin 1
Packy McPharland 1
Aaron Pryor 1
Jack Root 1
Lionel Rose 1
Gustav Scholz 1
Jersey Joe Walcott 1

Our next vote will begin on or before February 1. Watch for the new ballot thread in the coming days.

A special thanks to everyone who voted in the January election:

kidlefty, rory mccloskey, ferroz, ezzard, lenny albert, decagon, the great john l, boxbuzz, expug, seamus, iceman21287, brocktonblockbuster49, ambling alp, dr_devious, sockdollanger, elmersalsa, martin sosa cameron, borinken25, vagabundo55, thunderfromdownunder.

Discuss.

A bit surprised that Armstrong didn't get 20 votes. Also no Langford in this vote, no Dempsey and no Johnson, though all were close.

I'm sure they'll all get in next month. After the first couple of votes it should get really interesting.

I was really surprised that Ketchell only got 9 votes and that John L. Sullivan only got 6!

How can there not be some of the most important, most influential of boxers to be first elected? John L. Sullivan, Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis...those four are standard Hall-of-Fame members, regardless of anyone’s opinion of their popularity today, or what anyone today may think of their career in the ring as they were probably four of the most important figures ever to grace the sport of boxing. They should be immediately in any HOF, regardless of votes. What they meant to the sport, what they accomplished and how they transcended the sport are so important that to leave them out would immediately put into question the credibility of any such lists!

Also, and I know that I will sound like a prick here, but it shouldn’t be called “BoxRec Boxing Hall of Fame,” maybe “BoxRec Forum Boxing Hall of Fame” as I only see one, or two editors who voted and don’t see John Sheppard’s name anywhere among the voters, so to call it the “BoxRec Boxing Hall of Fame” would be wrong because it’s not and I don’t think BoxRec would want the list represented as the opinion of BoxRec, because it’s not. That’s my view, but I would certainly ask John Sheppard if it was alright to use the name in said manner before doing it!

Good point on the name, I just changed it.

I wish you'd have submitted a ballot barry. If we had more voters, I'm sure Sullivan, Dempsey and Johnson would have gotten in, as they should have.

I like the list though. About the only name that I may have disagreed with at the moment would have been Carlos Monzon and probably Ezzard Charles (Who I really like), which they both certainly are Hall of Famers, but maybe a little later on.

Charles was on my ballot, Monzon was not.

While it is true that we will probably have to play catch-up with some of the old-timers, I still think we can assemble a better HOF than the one in Canastota.

barry wrote:How can there not be some of the most important, most influential of boxers to be first elected? John L. Sullivan, Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey and Joe Louis...those four are standard Hall-of-Fame members, regardless of anyone’s opinion of their popularity today, or what anyone today may think of their career in the ring as they were probably four of the most important figures ever to grace the sport of boxing. They should be immediately in any HOF, regardless of votes. What they meant to the sport, what they accomplished and how they transcended the sport are so important that to leave them out would immediately put into question the credibility of any such lists!

I think in some ways you are right but, at the same time, it's quite interesting to see who people vote for today. These people will all eventually get in within the next vote or 2 anyway. I think it's facinating to see how people have approached it.

I do think a stipulation should eb palced on a minimum number of voters. You need at least 10-15 people to vote otherwise it's not really a fair shake.

I'm hoping that 20 is the low for the first half-dozen or so elections. I'm banking on this first class sparking more interest and leading to a big spike in February.

It would be great to get like 100, well-versed voters, but a lot of people just don't like to vote on some things. For instance, I only voted on a few of the weight classes in the IBRO's All-Time Greatest Fighters Lists as I just do not feel like I know enough about some of the fighters of certain weight classes to vote as it would be very unfair to the fighters of the weight class to give a half-ass list of a certain weight class that I need to do a lot more studying on. I only voted on the Heavyweight, Light Heavyweight, Lightweight and Featherweight and I'll vote on the Bantam class, but there are several top fighters in the other classes that I need to research more before trying to put together what I feel would be an accurate list. But that's just me.

For the record, I think the International Boxing Hall of Fame is great! No, just kidding, I don't care much at all for that Hall. I heard a great quote from former Giant's linebacker Harry Carson about being snubbed so many times when in reality he should have been elected a long time ago. He said to hell with the Hall of Fame and if he was voted in now he wouldn't accept...he said he certainly did not need some writers opinionated vote to determine his worth of career or fame. He could not have been more right and the way that some of the voters for the International Boxing Hall of Fame vote, it certainly makes me wonder if they have researched any boxing. Some of the voters are top historians who are very, very knowledgable, but then there are some that just seem to have no clue with some of the people that have been elected and others that have not. I would like to see a list of all of the voters to see who all they are...I know several, but those guys I would certainly trust their opinions...it's the others that I would be curious about.

Yeah, 100 would be sweet. I would be overjoyed if this little exercise inspired someone to put together a serious group of experts to really do it right. Is it too late to steal back our history from Canastota?

barry wrote:It would be great to get like 100, well-versed voters, but a lot of people just don't like to vote on some things. For instance, I only voted on a few of the weight classes in the IBRO's All-Time Greatest Fighters Lists as I just do not feel like I know enough about some of the fighters of certain weight classes to vote as it would be very unfair to the fighters of the weight class to give a half-ass list of a certain weight class that I need to do a lot more studying on. I only voted on the Heavyweight, Light Heavyweight, Lightweight and Featherweight and I'll vote on the Bantam class, but there are several top fighters in the other classes that I need to research more before trying to put together what I feel would be an accurate list. But that's just me.

Barry, the longer these things go on for the more important it is that people have your integrity. You don't have to know much about boxing to have voted for Ali, Armstrong, Louis, Robinson, Greb... The problem comes later on when undeserving people get in... sometimes I look at the inductees and wonder what the point of a HOF is if everyone is going to be voted in.

I'm just as shocked as Barry that Sullivan, Johnson and Dempsey did not get inducted this month.

What's even more shocking is that Sullivan only got 6 votes. I mean, Sullivan is pretty much the Babe Ruth of boxing. How 14 out of 20 voters don't think he should get in with the first class is disturbing to me.

I kind of feel personally responsible now for the other 2, Dempsey and Johnson, not getting in as they only missed the cut by 1 vote and I voted for neither of them. Apparently I was being naive by assuming they would get in regardless of my vote. I voted for "The Nonpareil" and Jack Root in their stead because I wanted to represent some of the 19th century/early 20th century greats that should be in the HOF, but would not get enough votes to get in. I was right in that aspect, as I was the only one to vote for Root and only one other voted for the nonpareil.

However, I now realize that no matter how much a lock someone seems to be, that it's not always the case. So, look for Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey on my next ballot, as well as Root (or George Gardiner...I haven't decided yet) and The Nonpareil.

I think it can be said that all or most of these fighters will be inducted next month.

Jack Dempsey 14
Marvin Hagler 14
Jack Johnson 14
Eder Jofre 13
Sam Langford 13
Benny Leonard 12
Sandy Saddler 12
Salvador Sanchez 12
Jimmy Wilde 12

I don't think Saddler, Sanchez or Wilde are locks but everyone else would seem to be a lock for enshrinement next month IMO.

barry wrote:For the record, I think the International Boxing Hall of Fame is great! No, just kidding, I don't care much at all for that Hall. I heard a great quote from former Giant's linebacker Harry Carson about being snubbed so many times when in reality he should have been elected a long time ago. He said to hell with the Hall of Fame and if he was voted in now he wouldn't accept...he said he certainly did not need some writers opinionated vote to determine his worth of career or fame. He could not have been more right and the way that some of the voters for the International Boxing Hall of Fame vote, it certainly makes me wonder if they have researched any boxing. Some of the voters are top historians who are very, very knowledgable, but then there are some that just seem to have no clue with some of the people that have been elected and others that have not. I would like to see a list of all of the voters to see who all they are...I know several, but those guys I would certainly trust their opinions...it's the others that I would be curious about.

Hey Barry do you think you could put the list of BoxRec Forum HOFers as a sticky so it's easier for everyone to keep track of who's already inducted and who's not? And it would just be easier to look at the list and discuss as well.

Just goes to show, don't throw away a single vote, every one counts.

Dempsey and Johnson would have gotten in if barry had submitted a ballot, or if you had included them, or if they were included instead of the non-boxers on one of the ballots or the non-eligibles on another.

The lack of support for John L. however, is shocking. He should have been on all 20 ballots.

iceman21287 wrote: Hey Barry do you think you could put the list of BoxRec Forum HOFers as a sticky so it's easier for everyone to keep track of who's already inducted and who's not? And it would just be easier to look at the list and discuss as well.

I'd like to start a seperate thread to list the Hall of Famers all together. Each month I could add to it so that we have one place to have them all listed seperate from the month-to-month election threads.

If BoxRec is willing to do a sticky, I'll start a new thread for that.

kidlefty wrote:Just goes to show, don't throw away a single vote, every one counts.

Dempsey and Johnson would have gotten in if barry had submitted a ballot, or if you had included them, or if they were included instead of the non-boxers on one of the ballots or the non-eligibles on another.

The lack of support for John L. however, is shocking. He should have been on all 20 ballots.

Well, I don't really consider my votes to be throw away votes, because they both deserve to be in the HOF, but it is true that they aren't as deserving as the other two.

I guess it would be akin to, using a baseball example (that would never actually happen ), voting for Jim Rice instead of Tony Gwynn because you felt as though Rice wasn't getting the attention he deserved, and then finding out that Gwynn missed the Hall by one vote.

Of course that would never happen because Gwynn will make the hall with probably around 85% of the vote at least, and because the baseball writers can vote for 10 HOFers, and there aren't 10 HOFers to vote for every year...so every writer could vote for both. Just trying to use a baseball analogy of how I feel I used my votes. It wasn't like I was voting for Andy Van Slyke

I was not surprised by the lack of support for most of the early fighters, because I read most of the posts to this forum, and most posters simply don't know anything about, or they have very little respect for the old timers.

As I mentioned in the ballot thread, to be fair you'd probably have to have something like the BB HOF has for pioneers of the game. They have a seperate group of voters who vote on the old timers, because most people today either don't know of, or have very little regard for the early participants of the sport. And I think the same thing is even more true here.

I certianly wouldn't be surprised to see many oldtimers not getting the votes they deserved, but John L. Sullivan? That would be like having a baseball HOF without Babe Ruth. I mean really, SIX votes? That's shocking to me. We're not talking about an obscure, forgotten fighter here, we're talking about the first modern heavyweight champion.

Did people not vote for him because they underestimate his importance or because they simply don't know who he is? I'm not sure which I'd rather hear, they both would be extremely disapointing.

kidlefty wrote:I certianly wouldn't be surprised to see many oldtimers not getting the votes they deserved, but John L. Sullivan? That would be like having a baseball HOF without Babe Ruth. I mean really, SIX votes? That's shocking to me. We're not talking about an obscure, forgotten fighter here, we're talking about the first modern heavyweight champion.

Did people not vote for him because they underestimate his importance or because they simply don't know who he is? I'm not sure which I'd rather hear, they both would be extremely disapointing.

I would say because they underestimate his importance. I think that most have probably heard the name, but really don't know anything about him except that he fought a long time ago and he drank alot. Read the threads on this forum carefully and you'll see a surprising lack of acknowledgement and many times a total lack of respect for early fighters. The same is true of all modern sports fans. For example, most BB fans have heard of Babe Ruth but don't truly appreciate the impact he had not just on BB but the country. And really early BB players are virtually unknwon to all but the BB historian. From reading this and other forums, the same seems to hold true about boxing as well.

The Great John L wrote:

kidlefty wrote:I certianly wouldn't be surprised to see many oldtimers not getting the votes they deserved, but John L. Sullivan? That would be like having a baseball HOF without Babe Ruth. I mean really, SIX votes? That's shocking to me. We're not talking about an obscure, forgotten fighter here, we're talking about the first modern heavyweight champion.

Did people not vote for him because they underestimate his importance or because they simply don't know who he is? I'm not sure which I'd rather hear, they both would be extremely disapointing.

I would say because they underestimate his importance. I think that most have probably heard the name, but really don't know anything about him except that he fought a long time ago and he drank alot. Read the threads on this forum carefully and you'll see a surprising lack of acknowledgement and many times a total lack of respect for early fighters. The same is true of all modern sports fans. For example, most BB fans have heard of Babe Ruth but don't truly appreciate the impact he had not just on BB but the country. And really early BB players are virtually unknwon to all but the BB historian. From reading this and other forums, the same seems to hold true about boxing as well.

I do agree with you about Babe Ruth. However, even though most modern fans don't truly understand his importance, they still know enough to know that he was one of the greatest players of all-time and would put him in the hall of fame. The reason old-timers (not Cap Anson old-timers but the 20th century old-timers) in baseball are remembered far better than the old-timers of boxing is that baseball, more than any other sport, and especially far more than boxing, is based on statistics. A fan can look and see that Babe Ruth had 714 career home runs, or that he hit 60 home runs in a season, or that he led the league in ERA one year in Boston. A fan can see that Ty Cobb had over 4000 career hits (4191 I think off the top of my head) or that Cy Young had 511 wins or that Walter Johnson had 417 wins. For boxing, as we all know, a fan can't just look at a statistic to know how well that boxer stacked up to other boxers of his era. Because of that, it's harder for a modern boxing fan that hasn't done research on the early period to know who were really the great fighters of that era than it is for a modern baseball fan.

As for 19th century baseball players (1876-1900 approx.), I respect the players of that era, especially guys like Anson and Jim Galvin (who threw 1292.2 innings and won 92 games in a 2 year period), but the fact is that the rules of the game in the 19th century were so different than the modern rules, which really were set around 1901, that I can't blame fans for not knowing much about that time period. Jim Galvin's era of baseball is essentially the same as the London Prize Ring era of boxing.