Your Boxing Hall of Fame ballot

[Ray Corso]

I took a peek at Donalds record because I thought he did well early and in the middle but really didn't fight alot!

From 1980 to 97 he has only 40 fights, he did have excellant wins;
Marlon Starling (twice)
Adolf Viret
Bruce Finch
Milton McCrory
Nino LaRocca
Lupe Aquino
other than Starling their not exactly super competition but those men were fellows who came to fight & win.
I think he needed to be more active but remember at one time he was the best and the top ten at welter was not really weak.
Donald was a talented boxer who had a good enough punch to get respect from anyone he fought. Not sure about a HoF but again I'm not that big on that award anyways. Ray.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Would have loved to seen SRL vs Curry in the early-mid 80s,,, I always thought that curry had the style to ko SRL,,,,, I could be dead wrong, but i just always felt that way, especially if it was 83-85,,,, I think Curry had as good of shot as anyone to beat SRL

[Humean]

Absolutely.

Booker beat ATG's in Moore and Williams and another HOF'er in Marshall.

All better than anything Calzaghe did in his career.

Lytell beat Williams, Cocoa Kid, Burley and was said to have robbed of a decision against Jake Lamotta along with many other top quality wins over the likes of Basora, Smith etc.

You mean to tell me a fighters with wins of this calibur isn't an obvious choice for the HOF?

Both Lytell and Booker are clear and obvious HOF level fighters and it's frankly a joke they have yet to be inducted.

And both clearly have better resume's than Calzaghe.

I've done a little breakdown on the post above, that's really the small picture and just highlighting their best wins over ATG opposition.

Both did a lot more than I've listed and top quality and ranked opposition.

Lytell was an exceptional boxer, as was Booker.

I mean, Booker beat Archie Moore in his prime. Speaks for itself doesn't it? And it's not like it's a one hit wonder, he has a list of wins over ATG and HOF calibur.

Lytell was truley one of the MW's of his era, has wins over Williams, Burley, Kid and by all accounts was on the wrong end of a bad decision against Lamotta. And this is a small MW we're talking about.

That's a MW resume of Williams, Burley, Kid and Lamotta. Not bad ay?

Moved up to LHW and had a razor close fight with ATG LHW Harold Johsnon and a close fight with Archie Moore, two of the greatest Light Heavyweights to ever lace them up. A guy who never came even close to 170 lbs at this point in time.

How anyone can question their place in the HOF is beyond me.

Calzaghe get's in and these guy's don't? Despite their resumes being obviously superior?

Ok you have argued for the positives but surely by way of balance you have to point out the (potential) negatives? You mention Bert Lytell's wins against the Cocao Kid, Holman Williams and Charley Burley, all of whom if there had been 4 belt holders in their day would likely have had a belt at some point or other but:

1 We have no convincing way of knowing whether he really deserved to beat LaMotta or not. Even if he did deserve it you have to say that with the amount of fights these guys had in this era there is reason to actually give less credit for individual fights, at least in non-title fights, indeed both fighters actually fought other opponents 1 week earlier! What i'm saying is that even if this should have been a win for Lytell it does not necessarily tell an accurate story about the quality of either fighter. After all most fighters, even very top level ones in this era lost quite a few fights here and there.

2. His three wins over the Cocoa Kid were when the Kid was probably in decline, he was a 16, 17, and 18 year pro at the time he was defeated by Lytell, thus there is perhaps some reason to doubt whether those wins deserve the significance you give them.

3. He beat Williams twice but also lost and drew with him.

4. He went 1 and 1 with Burley

5. Lytell also lost 23 fights, just short of a quarter of all his fights and less than half were at the very back end of his career

6. Booker went 1.1.1 with Williams

7. Went 1.0.2 with Moore but was Moore in his prime? I think you could dispute that despite him being in the typical age for a prime fighter because Moore was a guy who seemed to be at his best later in his career.

8. Lost to the Cocao Kid, Zivic and Chase although he did beat Marshall.

The problem with always talking about resume is you stack the deck by begging the question, you can say such and such beat this hall of famer or great fighter and then conclude from this that this fighter is great but the older fighters fought more and they deservedly get rated higher in terms of greatness because of their activity level compared to their modern counterparts. What is surely important is how good these fighters were judged independently. Calzaghe was clearly a great fighter, not because of his resume but because of how good he was even if his resume doesn't stack up well compared to some others. Lytell and Booker may deserve to be in the hall of fame but it is not clear that they definitely do especially when you consider other fighters who have been world champions who are not yet in there including most if not all the names on this ballot.

[IronDanHamza]

Ok you have argued for the positives but surely by way of balance you have to point out the (potential) negatives? You mention Bert Lytell's wins against the Cocao Kid, Holman Williams and Charley Burley, all of whom if there had been 4 belt holders in their day would likely have had a belt at some point or other but:

1 We have no convincing way of knowing whether he really deserved to beat LaMotta or not. Even if he did deserve it you have to say that with the amount of fights these guys had in this era there is reason to actually give less credit for individual fights, at least in non-title fights, indeed both fighters actually fought other opponents 1 week earlier! What i'm saying is that even if this should have been a win for Lytell it does not necessarily tell an accurate story about the quality of either fighter. After all most fighters, even very top level ones in this era lost quite a few fights here and there.

2. His three wins over the Cocoa Kid were when the Kid was probably in decline, he was a 16, 17, and 18 year pro at the time he was defeated by Lytell, thus there is perhaps some reason to doubt whether those wins deserve the significance you give them.

3. He beat Williams twice but also lost and drew with him.

4. He went 1 and 1 with Burley

5. Lytell also lost 23 fights, just short of a quarter of all his fights and less than half were at the very back end of his career

6. Booker went 1.1.1 with Williams

7. Went 1.0.2 with Moore but was Moore in his prime? I think you could dispute that despite him being in the typical age for a prime fighter because Moore was a guy who seemed to be at his best later in his career.

8. Lost to the Cocao Kid, Zivic and Chase although he did beat Marshall.

The problem with always talking about resume is you stack the deck by begging the question, you can say such and such beat this hall of famer or great fighter and then conclude from this that this fighter is great but the older fighters fought more and they deservedly get rated higher in terms of greatness because of their activity level compared to their modern counterparts. What is surely important is how good these fighters were judged independently. Calzaghe was clearly a great fighter, not because of his resume but because of how good he was even if his resume doesn't stack up well compared to some others. Lytell and Booker may deserve to be in the hall of fame but it is not clear that they definitely do especially when you consider other fighters who have been world champions who are not yet in there including most if not all the names on this ballot.

Archie Moore was certainly in his prime in 1944.

And despite Lytell and Booker having a lack of consistency, as most did back then outside of a select few. They make up for it with an obvious and clear superiority in quality of wins.

Saying that he held loss's and draw's to these people mean what? How many times does a fighter sweep a series when fighting an ATG like Moore, Williams, Burley etc? It doesn't happen.

The fact they beat who they beat speaks for itself. After all, that's what's most important.

Anyone who's beaten the caliber of fighters they have, the amont they have, are obvious choices for the HOF.

And no I don't think Calzaghe is clearly a great fighter. Infact as far as I'm concerned it's clear that he's not a great fighter.

His resume is pure garbage, he beat barely any top ranked contenders and feasted on bums or fringe contenders for the majority of his career.

[Ray Corso]

Calzaghe is a HoF'er in England, thats it! The guy knew how to move and had a slippery style and was a well coordinated boxer but he fought no one and he had no pop on his shots. Tired of hearing about his hurt hands I can wrap broken hands and numb them up to make you think your Mike Tyson!

Very good slick fighter in the same catagory as Sergio but neither of them on in the top ten all time middleweights in fact their no where near it! Ray

[Humean]

Archie Moore was certainly in his prime in 1944.

And despite Lytell and Booker having a lack of consistency, as most did back then outside of a select few. They make up for it with an obvious and clear superiority in quality of wins.

Saying that he held loss's and draw's to these people mean what? How many times does a fighter sweep a series when fighting an ATG like Moore, Williams, Burley etc? It doesn't happen.

The fact they beat who they beat speaks for itself. After all, that's what's most important.

Anyone who's beaten the caliber of fighters they have, the amont they have, are obvious choices for the HOF.

And no I don't think Calzaghe is clearly a great fighter. Infact as far as I'm concerned it's clear that he's not a great fighter.

His resume is pure garbage, he beat barely any top ranked contenders and feasted on bums or fringe contenders for the majority of his career.

I don't think it is certain that Moore was in his prime in 1944 at all. The importance of the draws and losses is that you need to acknowledge it when claiming how great fighters are solely by their wins, as it is surely the case that the best way to determine a fighters quality is over a period of time rather than just their best fights. That is more in need when judging fighters from the time periods where these guys fought so very often. I suppose I also doubt whether these top contenders from this era were definitely all time greats, guys like Holman Williams and Charley Burley etc.

I don't know what you have against Calzaghe but what is clear is what you are saying is nonsense. His era was certainly not great at super middleweight but he did defeat Eubank to win the title, he beat Kessler who was the best Super Middleweight around at the time and beat a good amoiunt of the best of the rest of the contenders in the division even though admittedly the standard was not always the best. Even beating Hopkins shouldn't be readily dismissed. Sure he had more than his fair share of bull**** defences against weaker opponents than he should have but he was dominant for a long period of time and was never beaten. A clear great unlike Lytell and Booker.

[Humean]

Calzaghe is a HoF'er in England, thats it! The guy knew how to move and had a slippery style and was a well coordinated boxer but he fought no one and he had no pop on his shots. Tired of hearing about his hurt hands I can wrap broken hands and numb them up to make you think your Mike Tyson!

Very good slick fighter in the same catagory as Sergio but neither of them on in the top ten all time middleweights in fact their no where near it! Ray

You do know that Calzaghe was from Wales and that Wales is not in England? Are you acquainted with the majority of his career where he was stopping most of his opponents? His power was greatly diminished only towards the end of his career. You do realize the long term damage that can occur to the hands with having them broken consistently and fighting with them broken on a regular basis? It is not just a question of pain.

[IronDanHamza]

I don't think it is certain that Moore was in his prime in 1944 at all. The importance of the draws and losses is that you need to acknowledge it when claiming how great fighters are solely by their wins, as it is surely the case that the best way to determine a fighters quality is over a period of time rather than just their best fights. That is more in need when judging fighters from the time periods where these guys fought so very often. I suppose I also doubt whether these top contenders from this era were definitely all time greats, guys like Holman Williams and Charley Burley etc.

I don't know what you have against Calzaghe but what is clear is what you are saying is nonsense. His era was certainly not great at super middleweight but he did defeat Eubank to win the title, he beat Kessler who was the best Super Middleweight around at the time and beat a good amoiunt of the best of the rest of the contenders in the division even though admittedly the standard was not always the best. Even beating Hopkins shouldn't be readily dismissed. Sure he had more than his fair share of bull**** defences against weaker opponents than he should have but he was dominant for a long period of time and was never beaten. A clear great unlike Lytell and Booker.

Holman Williams and Charley Burley are obvious all time great's.

I can understand the notion of the inconsistency. Like most of that era, they had a lot of inconsistency.

Take Emile Griffith who's era's later, look at his inconsistency even through his best years in the 60's, littered with inconsistency but he's still an all time great for the high caliber of fighters he defeated.

Lytell and Booker beat great fighters, on multiple occasions. People who have beaten who they have beaten should be HOF'ers.

As for Calzaghe, the notion that he's "clearly great" as opposed to Lytell and Booker is hilarious to me. The notion he's "clearly great" alone is hilarious to me, in fact.

You say what I'm saying in regards to the ranked contenders he beat is nonsense, I'd say the term "fact" is more fitting.

Joe Calzaghe across his entire career fought 3 fighters who were in the Top 5 ranked fighters in the division being fought in (According to The Ring Magazine), his resume is absolutely awful and he is absolutely not a great fighter.

[Ray Corso]

Whales, England whatever.............Mexico, Southern Calif..........apples oranges..............don't care. The guys he was stopping he could have done that with slapping. Listen if yoiu think he's great thats fine. To me he is a slick boxer who beat everyone his people put in front of him but he didn't fight any great fighters!
No different than Sergio or Mayweather with the exception of Mayweather "catching a few" (Marquez) and weighing them up! HA!!!

Most fighters have damaged hands, its not a big deal if you know how to care for them.
If they were that bad then retire and don't let your fans use it as an excuse!

I w****d hands for 45 years guys with fingers distored, wrists like lace, knuckles pertruding or missing! High spots low spots, when your stuick with a certain amount of gause you can use from state to state you come to me and lets how you would do it? I made my keep working fights, getting some of the best polished, keeping some of the best trial horses safe, closing trouble around eyes, in scalps and busted ears.
yeah I know a little about hands, what do you know? Ray.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Joe calzaghe should get credit for being a 2 division lineal champ,,,,,,,,

people act like the dude was a bum,, and yes he took alot of soft touches, but he has clear wins over undefeated prime kessler, undefeated prime lacy-and he ruined lacy, hopkins, bika, eubanks,,

say what you will about joe, but the facts are-when faced with top level competition, he stepped up and won

he had a great workrate, huge will to win, and made great adjustments,, if he was some bum with a padded record he would never been a 2 division lineal champ

can anybody name another "bum" that was undefeated, unified at 4 belts in one division, and then moved up and beat an ATG for another lineal strap,,,,,, that is not something a bum does,,

if joe was just hype, kessler or lacy or bika or hopkins would have easily beat him,,,,

did joe take some easy fights-- easy, about 85% were hand picked guys, but when it mattered most, he stepped up and dominated, and he was always gave 100%

why joe gets hated on so much is beyond me,,, I think he was a great fighter of his era and since 2000 was probably a top 5 p4p behind floyd, manny, ward