Why is Ingo Johansson in the Hall of Fame?

[thistle1]

legitimate contender,
won the world title,
pride of Sweden & Europe for a while.
was he their best, probably not,
is he worthy of HOF recognition?

him and many, many more as far as I understand it!

[Senor Pepe']

Originally Posted by Legend X

I'd like to see more footage of the Clay v Johansson thing from 1961.
I suspect it's been mythologized a bit.
On the small clip I've seen it looks like Johansson is leaning back and slipping Clay's punches too. This goes against the claims that Clay "made a monkey out of Ingo" for the entire duration of the event.
More likely, he looked a lot better than you'd expect from a 4-fight novice.

Legend X

I had a thread on information on the INGO - Cassius Clay sparring session in Miami Beach.

I'll re-post it.

That session, was nothing more than a publicity session for local TV
networks.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by Legend X

Yes, I think RING magazine used to throw in a few Europeans to the top 10s just on some sort of quota basis..

I whole heartedly disagree. With one top ten and one champion it is difficult to include all the major contenders of the year on a month by month basis. Magazines got around this by alternating contenders with those who had been active since last month against other contenders. You had to beat a contender to get in it. The top four was usually a lock, you didn’t break into that unless you beat a fighter within the top 8. Lower than 4 you needed to beat another top tenner to stay in. The European Championship circuit was competitive and lucrative. It was international level. A Euro champ was a 15 round fighter who could beat national champions. There were a lot of registered pro fighters in England, Italy, France and Germany. Euro and national champs fought in soccer stadiums and had often won medals in the Olympics as amateurs - it was a good level.
　
　

Originally Posted by Legend X

Fighters who were undeserving got ranked..

Never happened. You can surf boxrec, all contenders (Euro and American) had to at least beat a one time rated contender to enter the top ten. If a prospect on a good win streak could beat fighters who had dropped out of the top ten he could get in the Ring rattings on a quiet month. To stay in that 10 he absolutely had to keep winning and face a current rated contender. what is true though is there were more American pros of a good standard who could not land a big fight to get into the top ten. There were possibly more titles per registered boxer in europe compared to The USA so a decent Euro pro had more chances of moving up and using a title to land bigger fights. He still had to be decent though and he still had to win big fights to break through.　
　

Originally Posted by Legend X

Unfortunately, some of the better Europeans probably got overlooked..

No. Sometimes there wasn’t room to include more than one or two Europeans even if they were of the level and had beat one time rated contenders so monthly the most recently active world class European would outrank the less active European. If they were world class and beat genuine current rated contenders they were always included at some point within a year.

Originally Posted by Legend X

Ingemar Johansson was obviously the real deal though, as he proved.

He was indeed. As was cooper for beating #2 rated Foley, London for beating #4 rated Pastrano.

[Senor Pepe']

INGO

#1 Country Club Playboy

1958 Ferrari 250 GT Coupe

[IMG]********t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR5aKgxASTeeR3xB6TVxv1QixzkPyaB_xeovBpDAYXKj22--Pyeqw[/IMG]

[Legend X]

Originally Posted by choklab

I whole heartedly disagree. With one top ten and one champion it is difficult to include all the major contenders of the year on a month by month basis. Magazines got around this by alternating contenders with those who had been active since last month against other contenders. You had to beat a contender to get in it. The top four was usually a lock, you didn’t break into that unless you beat a fighter within the top 8. Lower than 4 you needed to beat another top tenner to stay in. The European Championship circuit was competitive and lucrative. It was international level. A Euro champ was a 15 round fighter who could beat national champions. There were a lot of registered pro fighters in England, Italy, France and Germany. Euro and national champs fought in soccer stadiums and had often won medals in the Olympics as amateurs - it was a good level.
　
　

Never happened. You can surf boxrec, all contenders (Euro and American) had to at least beat a one time rated contender to enter the top ten. If a prospect on a good win streak could beat fighters who had dropped out of the top ten he could get in the Ring rattings on a quiet month. To stay in that 10 he absolutely had to keep winning and face a current rated contender. what is true though is there were more American pros of a good standard who could not land a big fight to get into the top ten. There were possibly more titles per registered boxer in europe compared to The USA so a decent Euro pro had more chances of moving up and using a title to land bigger fights. He still had to be decent though and he still had to win big fights to break through.　
　

No. Sometimes there wasn’t room to include more than one or two Europeans even if they were of the level and had beat one time rated contenders so monthly the most recently active world class European would outrank the less active European. If they were world class and beat genuine current rated contenders they were always included at some point within a year.

He was indeed. As was cooper for beating #2 rated Foley, London for beating #4 rated Pastrano.

I think the RING magazine rankings were flawed. And still are.

[lufcrazy]

They're flawed but they're also the best we have.

[The Mongoose]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

P.s. Douglas > carnera.

Atleast douglas spent a while as the best hw. He also owns victories over tyson, mccall, page and some other's I can't remember right now.

What are you talking about?

-He did the media rounds for eight months, grew a huge set of boobs, and got knocked out in his first title defense. Yeah, Doulgas had ok fringe wins, the upstart McCall and the fallen Page.

-Primo held the title for a full year and made two successful defenses. Primo beat Sharkey for the Championship, made a strong defense against Loughran, and also has good contender wins over top 5 King Levinsky and the controversial DQ win over top 3 George Godfrey on his resume(articles seem to support it as a disappointing but genuine win with Godfrey dominating but tiring and going low deliberatley out of frustration). I think Uzcudun is an ok win about on par with Douglas' second tier wins behind Tyson. Uzcudun was the McCall of his day, limited but strong with an unbreakable chin..until he faced Louis.

I think the active defenses over Uzcudun and Loughran, make Primo a much better Champion than Douglas living the good life. Primo also seemed to be a more successful contender, cracking the top 5 with more relevant wins. Just looks to me like he had the better overrall career.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by Legend X

I think the RING magazine rankings were flawed. And still are.

They are better than the alternative. For many years only good fighters made boxing magazine top ten's.

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by The Mongoose

What are you talking about?

-He did the media rounds for eight months, grew a huge set of boobs, and got knocked out in his first title defense. Yeah, Doulgas had ok fringe wins, the upstart McCall and the fallen Page.

-Primo held the title for a full year and made two successful defenses. Primo beat Sharkey for the Championship, made a strong defense against Loughran, and also has good contender wins over top 5 King Levinsky and the controversial DQ win over top 3 George Godfrey on his resume(articles seem to support it as a disappointing but genuine win with Godfrey dominating but tiring and going low deliberatley out of frustration). I think Uzcudun is an ok win about on par with Douglas' second tier wins behind Tyson. Uzcudun was the McCall of his day, limited but strong with an unbreakable chin..until he faced Louis.

I think the active defenses over Uzcudun and Loughran, make Primo a much better Champion than Douglas living the good life. Primo also seemed to be a more successful contender, cracking the top 5 with more relevant wins. Just looks to me like he had the better overrall career.

Douglas knocked out Iron Mike Tyson.

Carnera beat Sharkey, granted, but Sharkey had just received a gift against Schmelling. Carnera was never as good as Schmelling nor Baer during that timescale.

Douglas beat Tyson, McCall, Berbick, Cobb, Page and Jaco. Losing in his prime to Holy, Ferguson and Tucker. I don't think Carnera is as impressive as Buster either on paper or on film.

[The Mongoose]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

Douglas knocked out Iron Mike Tyson.

Carnera beat Sharkey, granted, but Sharkey had just received a gift against Schmelling. Carnera was never as good as Schmelling nor Baer during that timescale.

Douglas beat Tyson, McCall, Berbick, Cobb, Page and Jaco. Losing in his prime to Holy, Ferguson and Tucker.

I don't think Carnera is as impressive as Buster either on paper or on film.

- And I can't agree with that logic. It would be like if someone KOed Bradley and made a successful defense against a top two guy while Pacman got upset in his next two fights. Who are you going to recognize?

-I'm still going with the guy who KOed the Champion and successfully defended twice in 12 months before bravely losing it to Baer, over the guy who won the title, got fat, and lost it in his first defense in one of the most pathetic showings of all time.

-Outside of Tyson, I wouldn't put those fringe wins over victories against genuine still active and top ranked contenders like Louhgran, Godfrey, and Levinsky. Again more on the level of the Uzcudun defense. Primo just has a much more accomplished career to go with his big title win. While Douglas has "splash in the pan" all over him.

-Fair enough. I think Primo was far more consistent. Douglas looked like the greatest boxer on the planet when he beat Tyson, but than again, it was only for one night.

[red cobra]

Originally Posted by lufcrazy

They're flawed but they're also the best we have.

They were the best.

[thistle1]

Originally Posted by choklab

I whole heartedly disagree. With one top ten and one champion it is difficult to include all the major contenders of the year on a month by month basis. Magazines got around this by alternating contenders with those who had been active since last month against other contenders. You had to beat a contender to get in it. The top four was usually a lock, you didn’t break into that unless you beat a fighter within the top 8. Lower than 4 you needed to beat another top tenner to stay in. The European Championship circuit was competitive and lucrative. It was international level. A Euro champ was a 15 round fighter who could beat national champions. There were a lot of registered pro fighters in England, Italy, France and Germany. Euro and national champs fought in soccer stadiums and had often won medals in the Olympics as amateurs - it was a good level.
　
　

Never happened. You can surf boxrec, all contenders (Euro and American) had to at least beat a one time rated contender to enter the top ten. If a prospect on a good win streak could beat fighters who had dropped out of the top ten he could get in the Ring rattings on a quiet month. To stay in that 10 he absolutely had to keep winning and face a current rated contender. what is true though is there were more American pros of a good standard who could not land a big fight to get into the top ten. There were possibly more titles per registered boxer in europe compared to The USA so a decent Euro pro had more chances of moving up and using a title to land bigger fights. He still had to be decent though and he still had to win big fights to break through.　
　

No. Sometimes there wasn’t room to include more than one or two Europeans even if they were of the level and had beat one time rated contenders so monthly the most recently active world class European would outrank the less active European. If they were world class and beat genuine current rated contenders they were always included at some point within a year.

He was indeed. As was cooper for beating #2 rated Foley, London for beating #4 rated Pastrano.

this is one of the most honest and excellent pieces of info I have ever read on a Boxing Site, applause, applause.

they were the real deal forsure.

it has to be said though, Britain, Europe or America there was the odd case(s) of manipulation, fixing and/or ownership (investment).

and this should not surprise in a sport famous for it's Nobility!

[lufcrazy]

Originally Posted by The Mongoose

- And I can't agree with that logic. It would be like if someone KOed Bradley and made a successful defense against a top two guy while Pacman got upset in his next two fights. Who are you going to recognize?

-I'm still going with the guy who KOed the Champion and successfully defended twice in 12 months before bravely losing it to Baer, over the guy who won the title, got fat, and lost it in his first defense in one of the most pathetic showings of all time.

-Outside of Tyson, I wouldn't put those fringe wins over victories against genuine still active and top ranked contenders like Louhgran, Godfrey, and Levinsky. Again more on the level of the Uzcudun defense. Primo just has a much more accomplished career to go with his big title win. While Douglas has "splash in the pan" all over him.

-Fair enough. I think Primo was far more consistent. Douglas looked like the greatest boxer on the planet when he beat Tyson, but than again, it was only for one night.

pacman obviously. I thought he beat Bradley quite clearly.

But Tyson is a massive victory though, do the other's make up for that?

douglas was incosistent, but he still picked up decent victories and spent a period as undisputed champ.

[choklab]

Originally Posted by thistle1

this is one of the most honest and excellent pieces of info I have ever read on a Boxing Site, applause, applause.

they were the real deal forsure.

it has to be said though, Britain, Europe or America there was the odd case(s) of manipulation, fixing and/or ownership (investment).

and this should not surprise in a sport famous for it's Nobility!

Thankyou.

odd cases of manipulation aside I think, as a rule of thumb, it was a good system.

Records, history and documentation provide evidence that for the most part ratings were earned and justified on an overwhelming basis. Always you had to land the right fight but importantly you had to win them.

To say all Europeans got a free pass is wrong. Euro champs landed the right fights as all contenders of all nations did. They won the right fights at the right time just as anyone else did ..then, like everyone else they got the ranking.

[Senor Pepe']

choklab,

You're correct to some extent.

In the case of INGO, he was by far the biggest money fight out there in the early
1960's for Floyd.

And would have been for Sonny Liston or Cassius Clay, if he had decided to continue.