Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Rumsfeld, Jul 8, 2022.
I forgot about the Berg KO - that’s a great mention.
Still working on mine. I too had your #7 Hafey-Moreno - which was a dynamite KO - listed, but then saw one of the rules stating they must be at least fringe contenders. Hafey was ranked #1 in the world but Moreno was more journeyman than anything else, so I ruled that one out. Work in progress.
Correct. That would be in the spirit of what I was gunning for, much like someone else mentioned regarding Roy Jones Jr. KO 1 Art Serwano.
I *WAS* tempted to say that at LEAST 1 of the boxers needed to have been at least a fringe contender (rather than both). Had I gone that route, then both of those fights would be fine.
What does everyone think? I'm willing to be flexible on this, insofar that I don't want to unfairly "exclude" examples like the aforementioned.
Per my discussion with @Saintpat on this subject, my MAIN goal was eliminating fights that were between two total unknowns. Meaning, I didn't want any examples of a 5-25 journeyman KO'ing an 0-1 novice. I'm not sure where the line should be drawn on that, but given the fact that we have a long ways before the deadline - what does everyone think on this?
Should the "rule" boil down to just one boxer being at least fringe level, or both? I'd like to keep things with the spirit as we getting at with Saintpat, but seeing examples like Roy Jones Jr. KO 1 Art Serwano or Art Hafey KO10 Rodolfo Moreno - maybe those should be fair game?
@Jel @salsanchezfan @CharlieFirpo85 @Dynamicpuncher @McGrain @Mike Cannon @ikrasevic @Noel857 @Philly161 @Drew101
Your input is valued. And in the event we do shift the groundrules, all are free to amend. Please let me know.
I'm OK with your original rules, but will go along with the majority.
1. It is necessary to precisely define what a "journeyman" is and what it is not.
"Journeyman" is not the boxer who has had at least one title fight; fight for the belt.
2. IS IT THE FIRST TITLE FIGHT FOR THE BOXER WHO WAS SPECTACULARLY KNOCKED OUT, or did he have a title fight before that.
3. Furthermore, it should be precisely determined from which year the WBO belt becomes valid; valid title.
You mentioned me but didn’t specifically call for my input, but I’ll toss in my two centers:
Hafey for sure fits the bill here but Moreno is a guy with only one fight per boxrec — and ended up 2-8 with 8 KO losses. Maybe he has a couple unrecorded fights scattered here or there that were unrecorded, but to me this wouldn’t fit the bill.
Two fringe contenders? Sure. A contender against a seasoned journeyman who never quote rose to contender level but was at least shown to be somewhat competitive with the best? Why not? But a veteran with a resume like Hafey against a novice? I don’t think it should qualify.
(EDIT for spelling as autocorrect made his name Haley.)
This content is protected
I knew I had already quoted you. And I tend to agree with you here. I merely wanted to open up the conversation once more as the lists roll in.
It’s a good discussion to have, especially to inform those of us who haven’t supplied lists yet. I don’t think I have anyone questionable on the 30 or so I’ve narrowed it down to (maybe some not-terribly-worthy title challengers but if they’re fighting for a championship I assume they pass the test … even a Pablo Baez type.)
The line I was drawing was a minimum standard as fringe contender. In my mind, anyone who ever competed for a major world title would inherently qualify, but one need not have been involved in a title fight to be recognized as a valid fringe contender. I would define a fringe contender as someone who could reasonably be viewed in the Top 20 or so of any given division at any given moment (regardless of whether the fight takes place at the weight where he was once (or eventually) considered such).
While I personally contend that the WBO wasn't a 'major' world title until September 2004, for our purposes here, my offhand guess is that most of their title fights before then probably fit the bill. Or at least no outlandish examples to the contrary are immediately jumping to mind.
Lots of input from posters who have also submitted some very good KOs, for me, thinking it might give the lists more kudos, if both the combatants were world class, or if not, then good contenders at the very least, also maybe ( and most have been ) limit the KOs to world title fights, not much merit in nominating an elite fighter v a " journeyman " in my mind .
Will carve out some time to comply soon, meantime don't think I have seen on anyone's list :
Sanchez - Shibata Anaya - Pinder.
In closing would like to say thanks to Rumsfeld for putting his faith in my ability to enhance this topic, and not a little humbling in the process, thanks buddy, stay safe.
I have no problem with the current rules.Will be posting my list early next week
Yeah just take a ko out of my list/ignore the list @Rumsfeld i only did it for a bit of a giggle I won’t be changing it or anything.
OK. That settles it for me (along with a few pm's I received). The LAST thing I want to do is discourage quality contributors from participating, because the art behind the final product for this sort of thing is that the contributing whole is greater than the sum of its individual parts.
That, along with the fact that this is a difficult enough endeavor in its own right, lead me to believe that I should loosen any restrictions that might either cause confusion and/or discourage quality posters like McGrain from joining the fun.
The restriction was well intended on my part, but I now realize that I was perhaps a bit short sighted in its vagueness (where the idea of what constitutes a "fringe contender"/"journeyman" can be a matter for debate). Beyond that, I have a lot going on the next couple of months, and am not sure I'll have time to be making judgments and/or asking for amendments.
I'll revise the opening post tomorrow. But for the time being, define a Spectacular KO however you want. I'm just omitting guideline #3 out of 4, but the other rules still apply as originally stated. Again, this guideline was probably short sighted on my part for a number of reasons.
For all of you who have already began working on your lists - PLEASE confirm to me that you've read about the looser restrictions.
Apologies for shifting the ground rules mid-game. But between not wanting to discourage posters from participating, not wanting to make things too confusing, and honestly not having a lot of time to really go through anything presently - I think this is the best move for the Survey. Again, sorry to do it this way. I was never quite certain on that point.
@Jel @salsanchezfan @CharlieFirpo85 @Dynamicpuncher @McGrain @Mike Cannon @ikrasevic @Noel857 @Philly161 @Drew101 @Saintpat @scartissue
And anyone whose name I've mentioned that has indicated they are working on a list, please confirm you've seen this. Thanks!!
Original rules before the amendment, for reference.
All good, Rummy!