The 2011 inductees into the HOF will be announced at 1 PM Tomorr

thanks man:good

 

Voters being members of the BWAA and/or members of the IBRO does not lift their opinion over any other informed opinion. Their opinion "matters" more but in some cases -it probably shouldn't. Your list isn't above criticism -and neither is mine- but I know of at least one of the writers who publically voted for Ottke and denied Overlin, Abrams, and Cocoa Kid among others. That opinion can't possibly be informed. And he isn't alone.

 

There will be other years, and the weight of your passionate scholarly opinion is ascendant as your reputation for being a source historian of the first order grows.

As you're long since well aware, I'm not a fan of the post championship distance era. However, it is a fact that Tyson, Stallone, Chavez and to a lesser extent, Tszyu are living inductees known to more casual fans (and in the cases of Stallone and Tyson, obviously the mainstream public). Maybe due to the fact I've not your fiery passion for the issue (although I'm hardly the diplomatic gentleman Henry is either), I'm more sanguine about the concession to popular orientation. If the publicity brought forth by the likes of Tyson and Stallone causes more light to be shed on Root, Shade and Moore as a consequence, then I can accept that. This will be a major event where the case for those still excluded can be advanced. One bite of the elephant at a time.

The IBHOF is not advantaged as it would have been in the late 1970s or early 1980s, let alone when boxing was a NY Times banner headline sport in the US. Today, it's a niche interest in the English speaking world, and they need all the publicity they can get. (Getting the self destructive and seemingly now extinguished Tyson in while he's still alive I think could be a matter of some urgency. Granted, Mike could live for decades more at his age, but his could also be the profile of an early demise.)

Now's the time to start preparing the case for 2012, and Abrams, Overlin, Cocoa, Ceferino, Elbows, Kilrain, etc... (Again, I'd be taking a hard look at the dwindling Ring HOF list of those not in the IBHOF, as I suspect many voters may be using that as a starting reference point. For example, does Lesnevich belong in Canastota or not, and why? How Fleischer is regarded by voters can impact this, whether he's disdained, or respected as a witness and acquaintance of those still excluded from the IBHOF.)

 

Don't mind me -my fingers, so to speak, often go to war before the editor between my ears tempers them. That first post had (just a little) more passion than I intended ("unmitigated disgrace" was an overstatement. Mea culpa, though it is really, really, annoying that Ottke is on and Booker is not).

The boxing establishment needs to be challenged at times. If we can raise a hand for forgotten greats, then we should. Injecting a little passion into it will make it that much harder to ignore.

Stallone. I think Stallone is overdue. That man came just in time to expand the fan-base as Ali faded. However -who voted for him? As a matter of fact --Who voted for whom? What's with the secret ballots? I am not sure that the "concession" is due to popular orientation so much as voters' bias towards recognizable names but I'd have less of an issue if the ballots were not secret. It would promote healthy and at times passionate discourse. Fire purifies.

.....
As usual, a great post, Duo, with compelling argument.

 

**** and vinegar is needed to keep this place from getting dull. This is about pugilism and the history of it, not chess or golf. As far as I'm concerned, there's nothing wrong about the fire you generated over this.

Hell, my best received posts here were typed when I had my dander up, specifically over the demise of the championship distance. Surely, you remember this!:fire:

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1431324&postcount=14

You mean passion like this? (And you're worried about the editor between your ears!):firedevi::

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showpost.php?p=52775&postcount=26

Stoney, you're absolutely correct. The boxing establishment does need to be challenged, not merely at times, but at all times. This happened to be one of your times to be the wolf among the sheep, always necessary to keep the flock alert and thinking. Even the respected, admired and esteemed Deacon Hascup must be challenged and engaged, lest he be deemed infallible (where he already has been in matters of trivia) and canonized. (Actually, here I worship at the sage altar of JohnGarfield, while Henry is merely a prophet, not wizened enough for more exalted status.)

Now this has become a secondary debate over the class of 2011. Here's a case where the input of those who remember when he began that series of films is invaluable. Cinema audiences erupted in cheers when Rocky floored Apollo for the first time, as they did when Roy Schieder bellowed "Smile you sonuvabitch!" and detonated the shark in Jaws (and to a lesser extent cheered when the Death Star exploded in Star Wars, at least in the theater where I saw it). Stallone made boxing compelling viewing for moviegoers who weren't even sports fans.

The idea of open ballots demands some contemplation though, and might induce a slippery slope backlash. The pressure to go with popular opinion could intensify, at the expense of the Jack Roots, who "we the living" (with all due respect to Ayn Rand) are now charged with preserving the memory of. At least for the moment, I still believe forums like these are suitable for supplying opinions which can influence and persuade. In 1989, the ribbon cutting ceremony for the IBHOF took place.

Back then, obscure but knowledgeable fans and scholars of the sport didn't have a voice. The Nat Fleischers, Stanley Westons, Steve Farhoods, Bert Sugars, Al Bernsteins, Alex Wallaus, and ESPN however competent or incompetent, informative or misleading they may have been, were the gatekeepers, with a virtual monopoly on who deserved recognition, how the history of the sport was recorded, and so forth. Cyberspace has changed all that. Historical footage is no longer the exclusive domain of private collectors. Was Carnera as hopelessly incompetent as Gallico alleged and Sugar repeated? Were Jerry Quarry's only four fights the defeats to Ali and Frazier?

Nobody could have scotched your series on The Gods of War or Jack Chase in this day and age. Being able to get yourself hired to write for The Ring or Boxing Illustrated is no longer a prerequisite for being able to have your work read by a world wide audience. (Even "Flash" Gordon had nationally televised commercials for Tonight's Boxing Program in his newsletter heyday.) Internet anonymity means we can say whatever the hell we want without worrying about crooked fight fixing gangsters putting out a hit on us. (I seem to recall that Flash getting bashed is what coerced Gordon out of commission.)

.....

Hmmm...thanks, but reading those old posts makes me pine for my novelty days here, when I had lower standards and was trying to offend people with volatile tirades.:ldevil Raised expectations can be a *****. (I suspect you already understand this all too well with the articles you've been releasing over the last year or so.) I'd sometime like to be able to revert to the offensive fun Duo, but I can't seem to work up the energy to generate those outbursts anymore. (Maybe after I get my case of life long severe sleep apnea successfully treated, I'll regain the capacity to regurgitate some of that former indignant and incendiary spew.)ukke:cus

 

Duo, you're the me I would be if I didn't go to church. I live vicariously through you sometimes, so please, indulge that indignation -righteous or not.

My memories of that post about Hopkins kicked in at the second sentence. I was this close to stopping strangers on the street to read it to them. It has lost none of its luster in three and a half years. The other post I missed til now. It's just as beautiful.

If JohnGarfield dropped a hanky, I'd fight you for it. (No one better question our masculinity.)

Stallone is a friend of boxing. Remember that last scene of Rocky where Adrian (Talia Shire -who happens to look exactly like my mom) climbs under the ropes and Rocco, exhausted, eye busted, just went the distance with Creed, says "Adrian, where's yah hat?" I get ...emotional... at that. (No one better question my toughness.)

Lucid points.

Whether fun or formidable, Duo's stuff is so good, you got to read it twice...

 

Those who were not to happy with Tszyu getting in on first Ballot.

Well i thought honestly he deserved it.

Some would argue he is all time number 3 or 4 at 140. That alone gets you in right.

Plus lets not forget that he is of Russian decent and resides in Australia.
Bringing more scope to the broader picture.

Plus he held a World Title belt for about close to ten years at that weight.

Plus the first man to Inify the division something not even the great JC Chavez could do.

So did he deserve it as much as Tyson and Chavez I say personally YES.

 

JWW was the deepest division in boxing at the time.

I wonder how many raised objections when Ricardo Lopez was inducted as 1st ballot?

When Tszyu ruled the deepest division in boxing Lopez ruled by far the weakest and most shallow weight class in all of boxing.

 

Thats it and the bigger picture is he is really the first Russian i think voted into the HOF.
Now outside of boxing and for the community has done both more than Tyson and Chavez put together.
That only goes as a plus in my books.

 

Not much, aside from a smart-allecky tongue in cheek ribbing of you and the fact that Stoney "petulantly" confronted some of your majority views.

And you should be voting there. You're impeccably qualified, having more objective knowledge and less of an ax to grind than most. (In fact, no apparent agenda as far as I can readily discern beyond honoring the sport itself.)

Nobody questions your integrity, at least among the posters whose opinions I've read here. (If anybody took a serious swipe at you, we piranhas would instantly chew the fool into skeletal remains. I've seen it happen to ignorant kids who tried giving JohnGarfield grief.)

What time you can take to spend with us is always greatly appreciated, as what you do is very much public knowledge. We know how busy you are, and the depth of your commitment to what you do.

Now this may be the true issue with respect to why Stonehands was proposing open balloting. What truly qualifies one to vote in these elections? Should there be a boxing history literacy litmus test of knowledge about old timers? (Who did Armstrong defeat to win his three crowns?) Fortunately, you give no appearance of having an agenda. (Of course the more power you have, sometimes the less you use it.) Perhaps what qualifies one as a boxing historian for the Old-Timer Committee needs to be codified somehow.

Man, I dunno. As with open balloting, this could prove a slippery slope. The logistics of trying to physically assembling all of them at one time gives me a headache to think about. Maybe as Winston Churchill once said, the current system is the worst one there is, except for all the others.

An assembly scenario could lead to "smoke filled back room" charges (especially if Sugar is in there, puffing away and putting his attorney debating skills to use).

Tim Dahlberg is citing the election of Stallone as proof the bar for induction isn't set all that high. Why? Just because Stallone is a show business celebrity? The man created fans of boxing. I'd like to see Dahlberg articulate why with more than just a snobbishly dismissive huff.

Scathing criticism is unavoidable, no matter who gets inducted or left out. As far as I'm concerned, this is a better class than some. It's not as if this is the boxing equivalent of the much derided College Football BCS (where the case for a playoff system seems so irresistible, yet continues getting staved off).

Keep in mind that my posts are essentially reactive (I have never created a thread) keyboard thinking on the fly, never the result of days of careful deliberation, retyping, editing and polishing for copyrighted publication. I'm no kind of writer. (The idea of ever attempting to compose for pay horrifies me, having to meet deadlines, satisfy reader demands, and somehow producing something worthy of financial compensation.)

 

V.Xpert article of FACTS. :thumbsup

Tyson was a v.Predictable one-trick pony And Bummy Douglas EXPOSED him. :deal

Tyson was never nothing more then a Crude-Small-Slugger, a Midget clone of Big George Foreman, without teh v.top-level of size, strength, chin And power. :deal

My boy Foreman could afford to have weak-defense [sorry George it true] And look for one-big HAYMAKER to teh chin VS Prime ATG's Prime Frazier And Prime Kenny Norton. BUT Tyson was too-small to do his style to win even VS a unknown journeyman BUM. :deal

 

What's the classic forum's opinion on Root and Shade? Can't say I know much about them, but there isn't much in Shade's record that impresses me.