BoxRec

Obviously Jess Willard and Ingemar Johansson are the names that first come to mind, along with sentimental favorite James J Braddock, and now I'd also throw in George Godfrey. But there are also some big names who if compared with fighters who were active in just the same time period they fought, are in my opinion most undeserving. For instance, how can anyone justify electing Sonny Liston back in 1991, while still ignoring contemporary fighters of his who have superior ring accomplishments like Horacio Accavallo, Hiroyuki Ebihara, Johnny Famechon and Paddy DeMarco ?

I use Liston as a prime example simply because so many guys on this forum think he's an alltime great, and while I do believe there are other more undeserving Hall of Famers than Liston, I do believe there's a long list of fighters out there who haven't yet made it while being more deserving.

So my question is, if we employ the same standards for fighters in all weight classes instead of the ridiculous bias shown to heavyweights, which heavyweights still deserve to be in the HOF.

Decagon wrote:Everyone who holds the World Heavyweight Championship (the legit one, not any WBC/WBA/IBF/WBO/Ring magazine bullshit) should be in the International Boxing Hall of Fame. The World Heavyweight Championship is the greatest championship in the history of sports, and the man who holds it demands more money and more fame than almost any other athlete in the world. Not only do Ingemar Johanssen and Jess Willard deserve to be in the Hall, but Primo Carnera does, too.

The IBHOF was created so that we can remember boxers for who they really were; it's there to make sure that some of the old fighters aren't forgotten. While I wouldn't think of ranking Carnera as one of the 50 greatest heavyweights of all time, I think that people shouldn't just think of him as a lumbering pro wrestler who the mob installed as the World Heavyweight Championship. Watch both fights between Jack Sharkey and Primo Carnera. Sure, Jack won their first bout, but look at the trouble he had getting inside against Carnera, who owned a very good jab.

The IBHOF should be there for us to remember the good things too, like Carnera's jab. People talk about how fearsomely powerful Liston's and Foreman's respective jabs were, but what about Carnera's? In his famous fight with Ernie Schaaf, the knockout blow that almost caused the Super Dreadnaught Division to be created was a simple jab. A jab sent Schaaf to the canvas for good. Yes, the fight with Max Baer also shortened Schaaf's life, but go back and watch some of those old Carnera fights. He had a great jab, and I'm not embarrassed to say so.

Well, maybe a little. It's hard to praise men like Willard and Carnera, when they don't seem so great on film, but that shouldn't make it taboo.

Actually I was reading an old Ring Magazine where Jack Sharkey gave an interview where he vehemetly denied taking a dive against Canera. Part of Sharkey's argument was how Canera had this massive jab that he used with great affect, and how much it had improved since their first fight.

I don't think he took a dive....because I don't think his pride would let him "fake" it....however I do suspect that he walked into the worst of the storm hopin Carnera could find the spot.....and Carnera did. With Jack's help IMHO.

Sharkey wasn't a bad guy but I don't think he had all that strong of a psyche.

I have read many articles on Carnera by respected boxing writers ,where they say he had decent boxing skills and was better than perceived .They all say however he didnt punch his weight and some of his fights were fixed. Personally I fought he showed admiral bravery getting up from an absoulute hammering at the hands of Max Baer.It must have been painful and humilliating to take such a whacking,many fighters would have stayed down.I know he said in the end he didnt want to carry on but who could blame him.

Jack Sharkey's another example. Of course he was better than his record, but Rocky Kansas, Newsboy Brown, Pete Sanstol and Bushy Graham fought at the same time and were way better PFP, yet he's in the HOF and they're not. Maybe if there was a rival IBHOF set up in Tokyo or Bangkok we'd have a more respectable election process not so biased in favor of heavyweights.

Carnera's first few fights were fixes. He was the attraction of an Italian circus as a 'strongman/wrestler' and at being a little over 6'5" and weighing 270 pounds, a boxing promoter thought that he could make a killing off this giant that he found. So in order to make Carnera look better than he was he paid off Carnera's first 12 opponents (supposedly).

Carnera had no knowledge of these transactions and he eventually managed to pick up some good tools. He knew how to use his size well, though I must admit he was one clumsy bastard. He couldn't fight backing up too good, was a bad infighter and was slow; but he would lean down on his opponents (most were much smaller men, so that Carnera's height could be exaggerated) and with his chopping rights and lefts, eventually drop his more skilled opponents.

Kinda like a bigger, stronger version of John Ruiz, least in my opinion.

I remember reading how there was investigations as to whether Carnera's fight with Sharkey was fixed and that when Ernie Schaaf died in his bout with Carnera the press immediately said that it wasn't Carnera that killed him but from previous punishment from Max Baer. It upset Carnera greatly so and he was said to have wept and said 'I killed a man with these hands' (in reference to people saying his bouts were fixed).

I say he was better than Willard, but possibly there has never been a Heavyweight who has had that much early hype and publicity, as well as being spoon fed more stiffs in prepartation than anyone else, for the bigger and better men.

I remember an argument was once made that Michael Moorer was a possible future HOF inductee, but outside of being the first south paw champion and a win over Holyfield, I don't see how that would warrant him for the HOF, especially when there were contenders back in older times who fought more better fighters and beat better competition than what Moorer done (Jerry Quarry, Shavers, Norton as examples).

<<<<<i>>>>

...but you forgot one

Primo was the Valuev of the 1930s. not just based on his size, but in that his early fights were against Ero-stiffs, his being over hyped, and the fact that the day he meets a fighter that fights him to win, rather then trying not to lose, with the punch to get the job done...the scam is over.

I think it's a really simple answer. Any man who has held the heavyweight
championship of the world, deserves his place in the HOF. He deserves his place among the greatest athletes ever. The title has been for so long the most prestigious title in world sport. As for the last 10-12 years, I'm not too sure because of the way the whole scene has become, quite farcical to be honest. So for those who legitimately held the title, HOF no doubt about it!!!!

That argument means that, had he won just 3 more fights, maybe even 2 if you don't recognise the WBO, that Vitali Klitschko would definitely deserve to be in the HOF. All he would need to do would be to get past Byrd, Ruiz (both past there best at the time) and possibly Brewster, fights he'd definitely be favored in, and he'd deserve to be in with just a 38-2 or 37-2 record. I often defend Vitali, but not here.

Obsession with the boring heavyweight division is pretty much just an American thing. When Chavez was at his peak, no one in Mexico gave a damn who the heavyweight champion was, or Panamanians when Duran at his best, or even Australians when Fenech was dominant. It's just got like weightlifting, amateur wrestling, etc, the Superheavyweights are merely the largest competitors, but if you want to see the best and most skilled athletes you watch the lower weight divisions.