Future Hall of Famers discussion

[Mr140]

I think Tunney was a novice when he first fought Gerb and later went on to show he was better. As for the peds i think a lot of fighters are on them and neither Mosley, Jones and Holyfield never tested for them in a fight.

[marbleheadmaui]

Is Shane's resume better than Tyson's or Kostya's? I dunno. How much of it did he do clean?

I had John instead of Casamayor as Casa was long past it, but let's do it your way. 2-2-1. I can STILL find dozens of guys we'd NEVER consider with resumes superior to that. FAR superior to that.

I just think we all tend to be prisoners of the moment with the last thing we've seen. Taking a step back to consider the alternatives requires work. I struggle to see for example how a guy 2-2-1 against great fighters (and that gives him the benefit of every doubt) can be a lock while guys with winning records against great fighters, and twice as many matches against them aren't even considered.

As for Greb? Go watch the footage of the men he beat. Tunney, Walker, Loughran for starters. It tells you what you need to know.

I've watched footage of all those guys now & I personally believe Tunney is one of the best fighters of all time, certainly in my top 10. But, I haven't seen Greb. I don't know that he convincingly beat any of those guys or if it was controversial. He gets the benefit of the doubt that modern guys don't get. I've no doubt he's a hall of famer, but I can't place him among the best having never seen him.

I think Shane's resume is better than both & there is an argument that he wasn't clean, but we just won't know. If he's excluded on the grounds of PEDs fair enough, but on his resume? I don't think so.

Aside from Marquez's record against great fighters, it also has to be taken into account that he has fought around a dozen ranked guys in all of the 3 divisions.

God, I knew you'd find something to nitpick with my locks

Harry Greb DESTROYED Gene Tunney in their first fight. Tunney's face was described as "hamburger meat" and Tunney himself is perhaps the best written source on Greb's greatness. But you can also read accounts by Grantland Rice, referee Kid McPartland, Mel Heimer, the NYT and others.

My issue with Shane, as opposed to say Evander and Roy Jones (two other guys implicated in PED's) is that Shane is marginal in any case. Take away his wins over Oscar and he's a no-brainer no.

Again on Marquez, I can find dozens of guys who have beaten more than a dozen ranked guys (apples to apples) and have better records against greats who we'd never consider.

Look, He's one of my very favorite guys to watch because I am convinced he's a mediocre talent who has done it all with an amazing amount of work and desire. I LOVE guys like that. I will not complain much when he goes in...But a lock?

Admit it, you'd have been extremely disappointed if I just went along

Hey, you just wait till VD gets in here & sees what you've written

I can't see JMM not being in there & I can state right now, I won't be convinced otherwise.

I'm convinced that Shane will get in, but despite him being one of my favourites (& he was the fave up until I found out about the HGH), I'll agree he does have some holes. His bypassing of 140 doesn't bother me, nor does him avoiding Mayweather in the late 90s as he was clearly outgrowing Lightweight. However, I still fail to understand why didn't fight Mayweather when he was repeatedly a fight with him from 2005-7. Saying he had a toothache to then sign a fight with Cotto just never made sense to me . Maybe they always knew it was a bad style match-up. I suppose in the long-term it worked out better, no way was it as a rich a fight at that time.

For me he gets in for his time at Lightweight, he has lineal title wins at 147 almost a decade apart. I ignore the lineal belt at 154 because he had it for one fight & by his own admission was on PEDs.

I agree Greb was great, you might remember I ranked him as an ATG. However, my point was I couldn't place him among the top 10/20/50 fighters of all time because I haven't seen him with my own eyes. I've not even talked to someone who has seen him. I know the press of the time loved him, but let's remember that the press of every era have a tendency for hyperbole.

Yeah but Gene Tunney didn't

Wait, that's it... where's the long analysis & decimation of my views? I'm disappointed in you Marble.

I agree he was great. But I like many others can't rank a guy who I've not seen.

I CAN be brief...but not right now

Let me ask you a question. When you study histories in other areas, politics, military etc are you uncomfortable making judgements about the speaking abilities of Washington or Cicero or Lincoln because you don't have them on film? How about Napoleon or Alexander or even Patton? We don't have their battlefield triumphs on film either.

This is something I wonder about when I read your view.

I think perhaps I have too much time on my hands.

[Mr140]

Also Jaz did you leave out Dela Hoya, Clazaghe and Trinadad on purpose or just forgot them.

[C-Lo]

I think De La Hoya is definitely getting in. I didn't see his name on any list.

[JazMerkin]

I CAN be brief...but not right now

Let me ask you a question. When you study histories in other areas, politics, military etc are you uncomfortable making judgements about the speaking abilities of Washington or Cicero or Lincoln because you don't have them on film? How about Napoleon or Alexander or even Patton? We don't have their battlefield triumphs on film either.

This is something I wonder about when I read your view.

I think perhaps I have too much time on my hands.

Don't we both?

I can't say with regards to the military as it's not an area I'm that knowledgeable about, but I'm certainly uncomfortable making a comparison between say public speakers who I've seen & heard with contrast to those such as Cicero or Lincoln. Obviously as with Greb, I take it as read that they were great at it, but I couldn't rank them (if I was into that ) having not heard them. I can make judgements on them as politicians through their policy decisions, so that doesn't bother me.

[JazMerkin]

Also Jaz did you leave out Dela Hoya, Clazaghe and Trinadad on purpose or just forgot them.

They're all retired, so yes it was on purpose. All the guys I put down are still technically active fighters (yes even Hatton).

[Mr140]

Alright my bad i read it wrong i guess you have covered pretty much everyone though.

[marbleheadmaui]

I think Tunney was a novice when he first fought Gerb and later went on to show he was better. As for the peds i think a lot of fighters are on them and neither Mosley, Jones and Holyfield never tested for them in a fight.

Tunney a NOVICE whe he first fought Greb? He was the American 175 champion and had already won over forty fights. He was hardly a novice.

Remember too this is AFTER Greb has lost use of one eye and that three of their remaining four fights were brutally close. Tunney wasn't better in my view, he was bigger.

Jones DID fail a test in the Richard Hall fight.

[Mars_ax]

Just wanted to add some general info about the IBHOF.

Inductees to the Hall of Fame are named in five categories:

* Modern (Last bout no earlier than 1943)

* Old-Timer (Last bout no earlier than 1893; no later than 1942)

* Pioneer (Last bout in or prior to 1892),

* Non- Participant (Those who have made contributions to the sport
apart from roles as boxers or observers. Based upon a candidates achievements and contributions in their particular field)

* Observer (Print and media journalists, publishers, writers,
historians, photographers and artists)


How Hall of Famers are chosen:
By members of the Boxing Writers Association of America and an international panel of boxing historians who cast votes. Voters from Japan, England, Canada, Mexico, South Africa, Germany, Puerto Rico and the United States are also among those who participate in the election process.

Boxing Hall of Fame-Home