IBHOF - What would you change?

[Scott9945]

The magazine did start with the same conflict of interest though didn't it? Tex Rickard helped finance its inception and he apparently decided the rankings in the early years. With the level of corruption during the 30s, 40s and 50s and the way journalists often were then i wouldn't be surprised if the rankings were far from impartial during those years too although I have no concrete evdience to back that up.

I don't really know that much about the history of Ring Magazine before my lifetime. When I started following boxing Nat Fleischer was the publisher and Rickard was long dead. The boxing media was far different than it is now, so the magazine was helpful with keeping up with results, etc. But it wouldn't shock me in the least if there was corruption then and before. Greed is human nature and business as usual in boxing.

[joeandthebums]

Well we found something that we agree on. The supposed sanctity this publication is credited with is a joke. It has been bought and sold several times over the years and has been tarnished by scandals. Currently it is owned by a boxing promoter, which has to be the ultimate conflict of interest.

Ring Magazine mattered once. But it isn't 1960 anymore.

Yes The Ring is no longer "the bible of boxing."

It had been argued in the past that the ratings were always biased; at one time in particular towards Mike Jacobs connected fighters and later to those based in New York.

[SaturdaysRadio]

I don't know if Ring's always been corrupt, but it's had it's bad periods. The 1976-77 ABC Ratings scandal almost killed it. Even without the scandal Ring was pretty shoddy during the Nat Loubet years.

Though I don't read it anymore, I've heard - via forums, nothing "inside" - some unflattering things about the way Golden Boy is running it now.

It's under Fleischer's stewardship that Ring earned its reputation, but even then I'm sure there was bias. For instance, I recently did some research on early 1970's heavyweight ratings and I found that Ring apparently didn't have much love for Jimmy Ellis. While other mags and the then still reliable WBA & WBC ratings ranked him highly, Ring either ranked him low or not at all. Just an example.

I thought Ring really shined from Oct 79 through '83 or so under Bert Sugar. The writing and production values were top-notch (though I question Ring's refusal to report on Berbick-Ali and Frazier-Cummings). Ratings by committee, in-depth articles, lots of content.

Thanks joeandthebums for attempting to answer my copyright / public domain questions.

[hhascup]

I don't know if any of you are among the voting committee But this is the way they do it starting this past year:

Modern Class - They give us 30 names and we can vote for up to 5 boxers, But ONLY the top 3 will be Inducted. Most of the Approx. 130 voters are members of the BWAA and the rest are several top boxing historians around the World.

Old-Timers - They give us 40 names and we can vote for up to 5 boxers, But ONLY the top 1 will be Inducted (for some reason they voted in 3 this year). Most of the Approx 50 voters are boxing historians around the World.

Non-Participants - They give us 35 names and we can vote for up to 5 , But ONLY the top 3 will be Inducted. Most of the Approx 50 voters are boxing historians around the World.

Observers - They give us 30 names and we can vote for up to 5 , But ONLY the top 2 will be Inducted. Most of the Approx 50 voters are boxing historians around the World.

Pioneers - They will ONLY be Inducting from this Class every 5 years.

[BattlingNelson]

I don't know if any of you are among the voting committee But this is the way they do it starting this past year:

Modern Class - They give us 30 names and we can vote for up to 5 boxers, But ONLY the top 3 will be Inducted. Most of the Approx. 130 voters are members of the BWAA and the rest are several top boxing historians around the World.

Old-Timers - They give us 40 names and we can vote for up to 5 boxers, But ONLY the top 1 will be Inducted (for some reason they voted in 3 this year). Most of the Approx 50 voters are boxing historians around the World.

Non-Participants - They give us 35 names and we can vote for up to 5 , But ONLY the top 3 will be Inducted. Most of the Approx 50 voters are boxing historians around the World.

Observers - They give us 30 names and we can vote for up to 5 , But ONLY the top 2 will be Inducted. Most of the Approx 50 voters are boxing historians around the World.

Pioneers - They will ONLY be Inducting from this Class every 5 years.

Who is giving the voters the names to vote for? There might be a bias there.

Also note that most of the voters are North American writers. Another bias in a socalled International HOF.

[hhascup]

Who is giving the voters the names to vote for? There might be a bias there.

Also note that most of the voters are North American writers. Another bias in a so called International HOF.

Names are submitted every year and a small committee of Don Majeski and Herb Goldman decide who goes on the ballot. The thing I don't like is that no matter how many votes someone gets, they stay on the ballot. We have 30 boxers on the ballot and they pick 3 so another 3 is added the next year. We use to have 45 and we could pick as many as as 10, But only the top 3 got in.

If you go to the following web site which I run, you will see all the members of the BWAA who has a vote for the Modern Class.
http://www.bwaa.us/members/ - This is ONLY for the Modern Class. They also add some of the top Boxing Historians in the sport, that's where I come in.

All the rest of the categories just the Boxing Historians vote. I have the honor of being on all the Committees.

[The Old LefHook]

Your igorance, Humean, is not impressive. Take your eighth grade education and get out of my face, halfwit.