The Classic BN24 Hall of Fame: Rules, Opinions, Link to the HoF polling threads

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by McGrain, Sep 18, 2022.

  1. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    99,953
    24,539
    Mar 21, 2007
    My plans for 105, 108, 115, 122, 130, 140, 154, 168 and 200 are already changing. Say we go for fighters retired before Jan 1 2000 - that really doesn't leave much.

    In the end it might be worth grouping them all together and asking the forum to pick out the deserving ones so as not to compromise on quality.
     
    Journeyman92 likes this.
  2. Gazelle Punch

    Gazelle Punch Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,792
    6,933
    Aug 15, 2018
  3. Journeyman92

    Journeyman92 Resident Gadfly Full Member

    7,897
    8,152
    Sep 22, 2021
    I’m in. Whatever that might mean for your results I have no idea. Hopefully @Flea Man has not retreated to the shadow lands he’ll be a great asset in evaluating everyone below feather me thinks.
     
  4. JunlongXiFan

    JunlongXiFan KC ATR: 31-5 SR: 31-5 Full Member

    3,332
    3,341
    Aug 9, 2020
    I will ask you to consider making the retirement period 20 years rather than cutting off the 21st century.
     
  5. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    99,953
    24,539
    Mar 21, 2007
    For what reason?
     
  6. JunlongXiFan

    JunlongXiFan KC ATR: 31-5 SR: 31-5 Full Member

    3,332
    3,341
    Aug 9, 2020
    Because the 21st century is a pretty arbitrary cut off point. 22 years? Why? Nothing major happened in boxing between 1999 and 2000. 20 years is way less arbitrary and will always work.
     
  7. Saintpat

    Saintpat Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    16,342
    12,919
    Jun 26, 2009
    I like the looks and sound of it so far, but … I don’t like the preset limit of X fighters from each division make it after the vote.

    Most halls of fame require some percentage of the total vote to get in — a fighter might finish ninth in his division, if that’s the cutoff, but if that means he got 4 votes whereas the ones above him all got 20 or more then he shouldn’t be in on first ballot.

    I’d suggest everyone who gets 51%+ of the initial vote gets in (or maybe 67%). If that’s four fighters, fine. If that’s 10, that’s OK too. Because some divisions are more stacked than others — the eighth-best flyweight may be less deserving than the 10th-best lightweight for instance.

    And I think there should be a women’s division. Not deep enough to go by weight class but say nominate 3-4 and go for one each year maybe.

    That’s my 2 cents.

    EDIT: There should be some provision for write-in candidates or nominees from the floor after the initial selection for each division is revealed. One could easily overlook someone just by not thinking about it and overlooking them — if Sandy Saddler wasn’t one of the nominees at featherweight for some reason, for instance, I’d consider it a major gaffe.

    Also, what do we do about multi-division guys who were dominant at more than one weight? Can SRR get in at both welter and middle and be a two-time inductee? Or can one by nominated in more than once class? Maybe Roy Jr doesn’t quite make the cut at 160 but would make it at 168 or 175 … does he get three bites at the apple?
     
    Jel likes this.
  8. Jel

    Jel Obsessive list maker Full Member

    6,317
    9,839
    Oct 20, 2017
    For the original 8 weight classes, I’d say start with 7 or 8 and for the inbetween weight classes, start with 5. Add one a year for each weight class. Quality not quantity.
     
  9. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    99,953
    24,539
    Mar 21, 2007
    I think that the numbers are low enough that we'll be safe. But it's a good reason to introduce seven rather than eight guys and I think that settles that for me.

    I don't think there are women that qualify by way of the cut off period tbh. I had a look at a top 15 ATG list of female fighters and not one of them had retired earlier than our provisional cut-off. I think that women's boxing is not mature enough at this time.

    I'll be running the eight original weight divisions from my top fifties at the poundage which have already been interrogated by the forum, so I'm satisfied that this is safe. I am definitely concerned about what i'm doing with the in-between weights and will probably do exactly what you've suggested there. But obviously if I leave Bob Foster off the HW list and someone points that out I won't be "well, too late now!"

    Yes, where a guy is nominated at MW and misses out but is also in the top twenty WW he will get another shot. But he does so by qualifying for two divisional to twenties, so it is deserved. It's earned. At each weight class, the fighter's entire career will be appraised though - so someone who would get two pops would rarely miss out.

    There will obviously be some difficulty and some crack-slipping, that's the way of any big project.
     
  10. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    99,953
    24,539
    Mar 21, 2007
    The in between weight classes are not going to support five entries each I don't think. Take a look at 115 or 168 for me and name the five guys who retired pre-2000 who would make it in? And your barometer for quality is going to be MW:

    Robinson, Greb, Monzon, Ketchel, Hagler, Mike Gibbons, Hopkins.

    Let me know what you think.
     
  11. Jel

    Jel Obsessive list maker Full Member

    6,317
    9,839
    Oct 20, 2017
    I may have misread but I thought you were suggesting the same number for all weight classes. No, you’re right, top 3 would be enough - 115 is probably the skinniest in terms of genuinely great fighters and no completely objective clear no. 1. Galaxy would get a lot of people’s vote but it’s not anywhere near unanimous.
     
  12. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    99,953
    24,539
    Mar 21, 2007
    The way I am thinking of it now is to just come up with a longlist for the in-between weights and any other offshoots and letting the forum hash it out. Maybe even something more along the lines of what Saintpat was describing for the in-betweens. Those weightclassses are shockingly bare of great fighters IMO.

    I think the way I'm going to treat this is on the hoof - so get the seven from eight in and then take some advice on the in-between problem once I've got a proper feel for the problem.
     
  13. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    99,953
    24,539
    Mar 21, 2007
  14. Journeyman92

    Journeyman92 Resident Gadfly Full Member

    7,897
    8,152
    Sep 22, 2021
  15. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    99,953
    24,539
    Mar 21, 2007
    I'm not sure you've read (or understood). There will be a big intake at the start as described in the OP. 7x8 fighters. Armstrong, Robinson and Duran will (almost certainly) be inducted there. Then the in-between guys. Then that's the original intake settled (might have a wildcard vote though).

    What i'm after deciding now is, how many fighters in the annual intake.

    Your answer is 3, yeah?