Fighters you are astounded are considered ATGs?

Hamed, good but not ATG in my opinion.

 

I’m not sure I understand the justification for Yaqui Lopez being in the world boxing hall of fame. This isn’t to say that many people consider him an “ ATG “ per say, but his win list doesn’t seem to cut it for me unless there’s something I’m missing.

 

I'm a big Zivic fan; we are both Croatian, and he was my father's favorite when he was growing up in Pittsburgh during the 30s, and he sparred with Zivic during WW2. That being said, I tend to agree with you.
I've read in a couple different places that Zivic liked money and he wasn't adverse to doing business to get more of it. It was implied that, if a local promoter was trying to build a fighter into a draw in his area, Fritzie would maybe not exert himself fully if he was paid well. That might explain some of the decision losses on his record, and he had a lot of split and majority decision losses, and why they never seemed to affect his reputation.

 

I think that can actually be more conducive to the fact that the level of Top Quality fighters in certain era's was simply just that good.

Zivic is an ATG.

 

His career, and in particular his rightful standing, is certainly difficult to properly comprehend. I must admit, him throwing fights for money is a logical explanation of a career that otherwise defies logic. However, taking his career at face value, as I feel I must when ranking him, I see him as a fighter who has some great wins, but was too inconsistent, and lost too many to non-great fighters during his prime, to be a true ATG, imho.

 

You'll get no argument from me there!

 

He certainly lost to, and beat, some truly great fighters.

However, whilst I stand to be correct & don't pretend to be an expert on all of the below, I don't consider that:

Laddi Tonielli
George Salvadore
Joey Ferrando
Tommy Bland
Kenny LaSalle
Milt Aron
Johnny Barbara
Freddie Cochrane
Reuben Shank
Sheik Rangel
Tommy Roman

were great fighters, or even all that good, tbh. Fritzie lost to them all in or around his prime years, as well as many other fighters who I do consider to be good, but certainly not close to great. Let's just say, that at best, I find Zivic's "greatness" hard to appraise.

 

yes I understand and did so from the start, but the point is the way people rate or equate Great tends to group a lot of fighters to the realms of mediocre, which is not only in many a case wrong, but also in many a case insulting to great & compitent competitors, who would & could upset, surprise and/or gallantly come up short in some fights.

I understand, but I see less difference 'among' top fighters than sometimes gets branded around.

I think there are dozens & dozens of elite fighters and literally hundreds of Great fighters too, these men didn't spend years & dozens of fights at, or among the Top only to be relegated too something less namely because history only exploits the winners, so to speak.

 

It’s not just who he beat but when he beat them:
Benitez was 38-0-1, Duran 72-1 and Hearns 32-0 for a combined record of 142-1-1 when Leonard beat them. Benitez was already a two-division champ as was Duran. He met them when they were all at their respective peaks.

People talk about Hagler’s age and that he’d only fought twice in the previous two years but fail to mention Leonard had only fought once in the previous five years and was the one stepping up in weight. It was a great comeback whoever you think deserved the decision (personally, I think Leonard edged it).

My only criticism of Leonard is we didn’t see more of him, but with the detached retina it’s probably unfair.

 

I think we differ in our interpretation and application of the word "great".

I share your deep respect for the fortitude and dedication of fighters who have achieved far less than Zivic did and certainly did not intend any disrespect.

 

I don't think Robinson thought Zivic taught him anything but how to foul and get away with it.
"Everything I done he done better"Fritzie Zivic.

 

Each has his own interpretation of the word,for me it is grossly over used.

 

The World Hall of Fame is really more of a collection of great fighters with the bias toward West Coast of the United States, If you look at it in that context, it is understandable that he is in that Hall of Fame. Maybe it is not justified in an absolute sense, but there is probably a feeling on the West Coast that Brophy's IBHOF is biased in other ways. I really don't take either one of them too seriously so I don't lose any sleep over them.

Anyway, what's wrong with giving old warriors like Lopez and al Hostak and their families an opportunity to feel good about themselves?