HOF Boxing RC list - the top 100 of all time.

[miklia]

Hi all, it's with sincere thanks that I give gratitude to everyone with their help on this top 50 list, and now I'm having thoughts on how to expand to a new top 100 boxing HOF RC list that includes the previously selected cards as well as other HOFers and iconic boxers. As before, I compiled a tentative 'next 50' list by referencing:

Bert Sugar's 100 greatest boxers of all time
Ring Magazine's Top 80 boxers of the Past 80 Years
Sports Illustrated top 50
Associated Press Fighters of the Century (5 member panel, Dec 1999)
IBHOF inductees

Any boxer on all 5 of the above lists (and not in the previous top 50 all time RC list already compiled) was included below, with the exception of boxers that as far as I could see had no cards anywhere near their playing days (f.ex Eder Jofre). I also tried to include a few more of the modern boxers to make the list a bit more contemporary. The highest ranking players on at least 3 or 4 of the 'top' lists were then cross referenced with the IBHOF list where applicable, bringing me to 50 names. Cards were the earliest true RC that I could find (with massive thanks to Alan's initial efforts due, of course), with the exception of a couple of cases where only one card is known to exist, which more or less makes it uncollectible as a set/list imho:

1886 N167 Old Judge Jem Carney
1886 N167 Old Judge Jack McAuliffe
1887 N184 Jack Dempsey (also N174 Old Judge, A&G N28)
1890 Mayo Barbados Joe Walcott
1901 Ogdens Terry McGovern
1901 Ogdens Philadelphia Jack O'Brien
1902 Ogdens George Dixon
1908 Ogdens Jim Driscoll
1908 Ogdens Abe Attell
1909 E75 American Caramel Battling Nelson
1910 T218 Mecca Young Corbett
1915 Cope Brothers Ted 'Kid' Lewis
1920 W529 Johnee Dundee
1920 W529 Jack Britton
1921 W551 Harry Greb
1921 W551 Pancho Villa
1926 Spalding Champions Tiger Flowers
1928 Greiling Panama Al Brown
1928/29 La Morena/Tab de Ind los Angola Kid Chocolate
1928/29 La Morena/Tab de Ind los Angola Tommy Loughran
1928/29 La Morena/Tab de Ind los Angola Jimmy McLarnin
1935 United Tobacco Barney Ross (before '41 release?)
1940 Spanish Boxing Serie A Billy Conn
1947 Cummings Rocky Graziano
1947 Cummings Ike Williams
1947 Cummings Manuel Ortiz
1951 Ringside Sandy Saddler
1951 Ringside Kid Gavilan
1966 Panini Dick Tiger
1966 Panini Fighting Harada
1967 Panini Emile Griffith
1967 Figuritas Sport Pascualito (Pascual) Perez
1969 Panini Bob Foster
1969 Panini Jose Napoles
1970 Panini Ruben Olivares
1972 Figuritas Starostra Carlos Monzon
1982 Panini Thomas Hearns
1982 Panini Wifred Benitez
1982 Panini Salvador Sanchez
1987 Panini Julio Cesar Chavez
1991 Kayo Roy Jones Jr
1991 Kayo Alexis Arguello
1991 Ringlords Lennox Lewis
1992 Impel Oscar de la Hoya
1996 Ringside Marco Antonio Barrera
1997 Browns Floyd Mayweather Jr.
1998 Japan World Boxing Khaosai Galaxy
1999 Japan World Boxing Manny Pacquiao
1999 Browns Bernard Hopkins
2001 Rookie Review Wladimir Klitschko and Vitaly Klitschko

other potential boxers for inclusion that i could not find cards for or are otherwise perhaps borderline 'top 100' cases, with my suggested strongest candidates in bold for those I could find cards for:

Eder Jofre (no cards?, 1991 AW)
Charley Burley (no cards?)
Aaron Pryor (nothing before 2008?)
Joe Brown (no cards? 1998 Futera Platinum boxing legends)
Miguel Canto (no cards?)
Carmen Basilio (1991 Kayo, 1958 Rekord)
Nonito Donaire (no cards?)
Carlos Zarate (no cards?)
Jimmy Bivins (no cards?)
Peter Jackson (1888 N332 Hess)
Earnie Shavers (1991 AW)
Kostya Tszyu (1994 Browns)
Beau Jack (1948 Leaf)
Maxie Rosenbloom (1930 La Estrella)
Erik Morales (1997 Browns)
Felix Trinidad (1996 Ringlords)
Julian Jackson (1991 Ringlords)
Juan Manuel Marquez (2008 Topps Co-Signers)
Fidel LaBarba (1926 Spalding Champions)
Matthew Saad Muhammad (1982 Panini)

What do you guys think? I'd love to hear your thoughts both on who should / should not be included, and if there are any earlier issues of the players listed above to update this list accordingly. Thanks again, and I'm already looking forward to the debate and discussion.

[oldmanvintagecards]

How is Teofilo Stevenson not included on this list, or the top 50 for that matter? He was one of the most feared boxers of all time.

[Exhibitman]

Any list that excludes exhibit cards and postcards and premiums is deeply flawed, IMO. Just off the top of my head on your list:

Exhibits:
Tiger Flowers: 1923
Al Brown: 1925
Tommy Loughran: 1925
Kid Chocolate: 1928
Conn, Graziano, Wlliams, Ortiz, Saddler, Jack and Gavilan's exhibit cards all predate the sets listed.

Pascualito Perez: 1948 card from his gym and 1965 Argentinean card and a number of discs from Argentina pre-1967.



Carmen Basilio: Exhibit card, various premiums
Carlos Monzon: 1971 supers


Kid Gavilan: 1951 Bread For Energy


Jimmy Bivins: 1940s Exhibit card
Maxie Rosenbloom: 1928 Exhibit
Fidel LaBarba: 1926 Exhibit card

[miklia]

OK, you sold me exhibitman - we're going to have to include some exhibits, because that's just far too many boxers that have much earlier cards. You mentioned several that have an exact date - have these been pinpointed merely through detective work, or are there other markers as well?

Some of those other cards are outstanding. loving the perez and monzon.

Teofilo - great boxer, but his 0-0 professional record doesn't help. are olympic medals enough?

[oldmanvintagecards]

I believe the main reason there are no postcards, exhibits or premiums is that PSA does not grade any boxing exhibits and very little postcards or premiums. It seems the main reason for this list is for the set registry, so it would be counter-productive to.list cards that can't be graded. Also, with most exhibits and postcards it is damn near impossible to get an exact date on most of them, so it becomes very hard to say that it is definitely a boxers first card. personally don't collect exhibits because I consider them to be postcards, which I also do not collect. Like I mentioned before it is almost impossible to date them (one of the reasons why PSA does not grade them). I don't consider postcards to be normal cards, or rookie cards for that matter, but many do and to each their own. For this list it looks like we have to follow what PSA considers a card, or rookie though.

[miklia]

Although that's a big help to have them in a PSA registry, it's not the only factor for me, especially if 20% of the cards in this set have earlier exhibit issues. For the first 50, there were only about 4-5 that had clear exhibit issues that were much earlier, if I remember correctly.

I'm also (perhaps blindly) optimistic that we can get PSA to reconsider about the boxing exhibits with a better pitch and more concrete information. They've actually been flexible and willing to work on a lot of this early boxing stuff despite the fact that it can't be making them any money when you consider the time involved. A professional presentation of all of the exhibit items as a concrete package to be graded that includes a true, researched catalog - as opposed to a random email just saying 'hey PSA, grade boxing exhibits! - would be taken seriously, even if the concept has been rejected before.

[Exhibitman]

Actually all of the boxing exhibits for the 1920s have dated backs with bios and/or stats on them. That is why the sets are readily checklisted and the dates I listed for them are absolutes. Here's an example, a 1926 Loughran:



The fact that PSA does not grade them is an asinine reason not to acknowledge their existence. If the registry is the only consideration then don't call the list a RC list, call it a PSA registry list. I don't know why PSA won't grade them but SGC and BVG will.

As for PCs, they can often be dated precisely based on copyrights and postal usage. Like this Zercher, which was mailed several weeks after Willard took the title:



here's a PC of Dick Tiger that predates the card listed above by at least four years based on the titles listed [and not listed]:



Here's a Jimmy Bivins:



Strictly speaking, the prevalence of foreign cards on the list is problematic. As I recall it, a rookie card had to be available in the USA to be listed as other than an XRC.

1953 Ray Arcel promotional PC featuring Carmen Basilio

[esquiresports]

Should the 1947 Cummings cards count as rookie cards? I like them, but think of them more as cartoon cards. [I am not a boxing card expert and don't know much about these cards' history - basing my thoughts just on the visual]

[Exhibitman]

I just obtained an album of boxing cards from Sweden. It shows Braddock as world champ and Louis as a contender. Also has a card of Barney Ross in it as welterweight champ. It has a card of Jackie Brown as a bantam champ; he lost that title to Benny Lynch in September 1935. It also does not mention the 1936 Louis-Schmeling fight though it does mention the Walker-Schmeling fight, which took place in 1932. The cards are about the size of 1952 Topps baseball cards and are paper-thin. They are very firmly glued down so I cannot tell if they have printed backs. The publisher is known for a 1936 Olympics album.

Based on the content I'd say it is a 1935 issue and has 'rookie' cards of Louis and Ross. Here is the cover

[wake.up.the.echoes]

Adam,
Nice find. Tradera? I hate to put a damper on your enthusiasm as you make the transition into foreign cards (and "rookie" cards to boot), but I believe that album was released in 1936, not 1935. Nevertheless, great early "cards" of Louis and Braddock. Now if I could convince you that the 1964 Simon (and also macrobertson) are Ali's true rookie cards, the I would truly be a happy man.
Alan

[Exhibitman]

Sorry, Alan, never gonna win that one.

I think it was a 1935 issue; the fighters in it and the write-ups don't make sense for 1936. Regardless, the Ross is the earliest thus far.

[wake.up.the.echoes]

Adam,
Give me time.

Maybe I am confusing my albums, but is yours the one that has 32 or so paper-thin cards that covers the period of time between 1908 and 1935? If yes, then it's definitely a 1936 release.

It's this one, right? http://www.sportboken.com/artikel.as...2334&catid=932
Not bad for $50US, if only for the Ross rookie.

[oldmanvintagecards]

Sorry Adam, but Alan is right on this. I saw one of these albums on eBay a little while ago and immediately asked my 2 dealer friends in Sweden about it. They both said that it was 100% from 1936, so I stayed away because that means it wouldn't contain any top Heavyweight Champ Rookie cards. They also said that I probably would not consider them cards because they are more like glossy photos on regular paper, glued in to a photo type album. I have no idea if I would consider them cards or not but both dealers have dealt with me long enough to know the things that I would consider cards and to know the things that I would consider plain old photos.

As for what Alan considers Ali/Clay's rookie card I couldn't agree more. The 1960 Hemmets Journal was never meant to be cut out as a card. You can tell this by the fact that:
1. None were ever cut out before card grading came to be. They were meant to be kept in a two ring binder (look at the binder holes on the side).
2. You can not cut all 4 cards out with enough border for grading, which again proves that they were never meant to be cut out in the first place. If this were from 1968 would these have ever been cut out? Doubtful, but because someone found a picture of Clay published before any of his other cards they thought that they could cut it out, with proper borders, and sell it as his true rookie cards. You can also look at the back and realize that if it were meant to be cut out, then they probably would have made things a little more symmetical and clean looking than what is on the back. If this is a "card" than any magazine cut out that could resemble a "card" has to be a card.

With the 1962 Rekord Journal "card" it comes down to whether you consider magazine cut outs to be cards. I do not because I think this is really a stretch to consider these things cards. I go back to my "Faces in the Crowd" argument. If you consider the Rekord Journal picture cut outs, with Bio's, on regualr magazine paper then you would have to call "Faces in the Crowd" picture Bio's cards as well. "FITC" picture Bio's are pictures of the athlete that are a section of every Sports Illustrated magazine, just like the picture card was a part of every Rekord Magazine. By calling the Rekord Magazine picture bio a "card" it sets a horrible precedent for any magazine picture that is part of a regular section of a magazine/newspaper like "Faces in the Crowd" in SI top be called a card. If you have ever dealt with the Rekord Magazine cut outs they clearly are not cards. They are regular paper cut out pictures. I thought they were cards until I handled one and realized that all they were, were picture cut outs from a magazine. Just because there is a picture bio on the cover of every Rekord Journal magazine that does not make it a card.

The 1964 Simon Chocolates on the other hand meets every definition of a card and predates his Lampo and Panini, which makes it his True Rookie. It was distributed randomly, from a set, with a product (chocolates), just like tobacco cards at the turn of the 20th century. They are also factory cut and are on real card stock. This is the first card that is by all definitions a true undisputed card. It predates all of his other cards, besided the MacRobertson, except the "cards" that are really just magazine cut outs being passed off as cards for money reasons. As for the MacRobertson this can also be considered a rookie of his but if up against the Simon Chocolates I think the Simon wins for a couple reasons:
1. The eyes test- the Simon Chocolates looks like your typical card while the MacRobertson looks like a quiz game card, which it is.
2. Distribution_ The Simon card was distributed randomly from a set while the MacRobertson was distributed in the Quiz Game it went with, therefore it was not random (I think haha)
I have no problem with people considering the MacRobertson his true rookie but have no idea how anyone could consider his 1965 Lampo, which is not from a major card company, like Panini, a rookie card when at least 2 cards predate the Lampo. Some people will still consider the 1966 Panini his rookie because they only collect major manufacturers as rookies, which is all preference.

Those are my thoughts and I am sticking to them hahaha! Except, of course, the Swedish Album being from 1936. That is not a thought but a fact. Sorry Adam.

[Exhibitman]

OK, so it is a 1936; still the earliest Ross item I've found, until I get conclusive proof that the Exhibit card predates all of it. I really like the album, so unless one shows up with the picures unmounted I guess I won't know what's on the back, since I won't be destroying this album.

As for the Clay rookie, I have no stake in this; I don't even own a Rekord Clay. My interest is purely academic, but I cannot see declaring them not to be cards on the basis of any of the arguments made here. What's on the back of the Rekord cards? A biography.



What's around the Rekord cards? An individual border.



The Rekord cards even have stand-alone copyrights on them, which is about as clear a hallmark of intent to have them separated from the magazine as you can get. They were as intended to be cut out and collected as any Bazooka or Post or strip issue. I don't see how you can not classify them as cards. The SI column you reference is a page in a magazine with printing of something else on its back. It was never intended to be cut out or collected; it is not even close to the same thing. A better analogy is this Al Rosen from the back of a Dell comic book:



It actually has a border but has unrelated matter at the bottom. However, it was printed with the phrase "Cut this photo out. Look for different champion pictures in other Dell Comics." I would treat the cut item as a card because the manufacturing shows the intent to have it cut out and collected. Or how about these:



1949 Philadelphia Bulletin. These were part of the Sunday "Fun Book" and were intended to be cut out and collected.

IMO the Rekord cover cards show the same intent.

There are tons of other examples throughout the ACC and Standard Catalog. Not to mention stuff that is even more out there. How about these? 1955 Big League, Inc., classifed as UM8 in the ACC:



Again, collect whatever you want, but you have to admit that your classification is more or less arbitrary given the history of what has been accepted as a card.