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

[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

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

This is going ot be the eternal debate on this topic. What is considered a card? You could probably ask 50 people and get 50 different responses.

For me, a card is part of a set, no one-ofs. It's also something that is issued (or intended to be issued) in a pack of something -- tobacco, gum, candy, soap, hot dogs, or just a pack of the cards.

If we include fighter-issued promotional pieces should we include posters? Or photos? Or any item that simply uses the fighter's image?

I would include Exhibits but not post cards (unless issued as a set) or one-of promotional pieces.

And where did this notion come from that foreign cards don't count as rookies? I've never heard that one before. If that's the case, this is going to be one boring list.

[wake.up.the.echoes]

Originally Posted by HasselhoffsCheeseburger

And where did this notion come from that foreign cards don't count as rookies? I've never heard that one before. If that's the case, this is going to be one boring list.

AND highly inaccurate.

To each, his own. Back into my hole.

Alan

[Exhibitman]

Originally Posted by HasselhoffsCheeseburger

And where did this notion come from that foreign cards don't count as rookies? I've never heard that one before. If that's the case, this is going to be one boring list.

Back in the day when the rookie nonsense was at its height and Beckett was the only game in town, their classification of rookie cards excluded anything that was not available in the USA when issued. All of those cards were deemed "XRC" for "extra rookie cards" and not accorded the same valuation as a 'real' RC. All of the Leaf "RCs" from the 1980s were treated as XRCs, for example.

As for what is a card, that's another debate. One way that I frame it is that anything catalogued in the ACC is a card. That is pretty much my baseline, and it goes from there.

[oldmanvintagecards]

You learn something new everyday. I had no idea that Exhibits from the 1920's had dates on the back. I don't collect exhibits because I lump them in with postcards (which I don't consider cards, but many do). As for Beckett listing only American cards as rookies, they only covered the 4 major North American sports where that would make sense. Boxing cards are not from a purely North American sport, so that designation can not work for this sport. If that designation were to apply across the board then there would never be a cricket, rugby or any other foreign sport rookie because America doesnt make cards for these sports. Beckett only originally had price guides for the 4 North American sports, so it makes perfect sense that a rookie, according to them, could only come from N. America.

As for the argument about what a card is, I kind of go with the eye test. Exhibits look like postcards to me, so that is what I consider them. Sportscasters look like flimsy pieces of paper to me, so I consider them pictures on flimsy pieces of paper (although I do own some). Hemmets Journal "cards" were never meant to be cut in to cards, so I consider the Hemmets Journal Cassius Clay to be a picture cut out. No two people are going to agree on what is or what isn't a card every time, but we can all use our eyes and your logic to judge for yourself...Now it is off to bed for me since I have to be up bright and early to go to a charity bar crawl tomorrow haha.

[RBrown]

Do they have to be a card?

How about a round metal disc..........

[HasselhoffsCheeseburger]

Issued in packs and part of a set... works for me. Rectangle, square, circle, rhombus, whatever.

[miklia]

Originally Posted by HasselhoffsCheeseburger

Issued in packs and part of a set... works for me. Rectangle, square, circle, rhombus, whatever.

My all-time top 50 parallelogram set is not going well.



Thanks for the expert thoughts as always, guys. I'll continue to update the top post as we get more info and push towards consensus here and there. Exhibit cards with stats on back seem to be a no brainer now.