Eddie Mustafa Muhammad HOF?

[Esquire]

With Michael Spinks, Dwight Qawi, Mathew Saad Muhammad and Victor Galindez all in the HOF, does anyone think Eddie might be in consideration? He beat Saad and should have gotten the nod against Galindez (my view) and he was just so smooth and powerful at times.

He won't get in but he sure looked the part most of the time. His losses where he looked uninterested and lazy are what turns people off. But the fighter that beat Marvin Johnson could have given hell to the best of them. What power and combination punching he showed. If only his will to win matched his talent. He was tough, though, and took a pounding when he had to.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Agreed on his talent, he was bad to the bone against Johnson. Accomplishment wise I wouldn't vote for him. But he deserves it more than Gatti or Corrales and they will probably both make it.

[Autobarn]

he wasnt consistent enough for his achievements to merit HOF consideration. superb boxer on his day, though.

[Crease]

No.
He was not consistent enough.

[Autobarn]

he was very, very good at counter punching.

maybe his career might have turned out different - IF he hadn't started swelling up on the eye, midway through that tough championship bout with spinks. he was well winning that fight, with his correct punching, until spinks shut his eye.

but i have a hunch that the problems with weight and discipline (that also plagued james toney, trained in the mid-90s ironically by eddie himself) would have always restricted his potential.

one great win and holding a title in a great era is not enough.

[Ambling Alp]

I think that he definitely belongs. As mentioned, he beat Marvin Johnson who arguably should be in as well. He also beat Saad Muhammad who has been in for 13 years already. He also beat Jerry Martin who would have been a champion in some eras. His had a few losses but they are not embarrassing.

[jaclem2]

...if fritzie zivic is in the hall of fame (is he?) then open the doors and let everybody in.

[jaclem2]

...just checked...foulmaster fritzie isn't...so i'm not enthusiastic over mustafa...though when he was good he was very very good....i go along with those who consider him as being inconsistent.

[King Carlos]

...if fritzie zivic is in the hall of fame (is he?) then open the doors and let everybody in.

What a foolish statement.

[Autobarn]

I think that he definitely belongs. As mentioned, he beat Marvin Johnson who arguably should be in as well. He also beat Saad Muhammad who has been in for 13 years already. He also beat Jerry Martin who would have been a champion in some eras. His had a few losses but they are not embarrassing.

wasn't mustafa (gregory) v saad (franklin) a very controversial fight?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I think that he definitely belongs. As mentioned, he beat Marvin Johnson who arguably should be in as well. He also beat Saad Muhammad who has been in for 13 years already. He also beat Jerry Martin who would have been a champion in some eras. His had a few losses but they are not embarrassing.

wasn't mustafa (gregory) v saad (franklin) a very controversial fight?

I've only seen a couple rounds. It was certainly before either was at their peak. Eddie would have always been a tough match up for Saad because of his chin.

[Ambling Alp]

You could say it was controversial; it was very close and could have gone the other way or been judged a draw. It was in Saad (Franklin's) hometown. It was a pretty interesting fight to watch.

Mustafa (Gregory) had a slight experience advantage; at least in terms of of the the amount of fights and years as a pro. This was Saad's 18th fight and it was Mustaf's 24th. Saad had been a pro a little over 3 years while Eddie was a pro for a little more than 4. Matthew though had more experience against quality opponents to this point though. They were both getting close to their primes so I think the fight is relevant to their careers.

[Ambling Alp]

No.
He was not consistent enough.

I guess I don't buy the notion that he was inconisstent. He did not lose to anyone well below his level and only lost badly a couple of times in very difficult circumstances.
He had a carrer record of 50-8-1.
Take a look at he losses:

#1 was in his 8th fight against a fighter with more experience.
#2 was a split decision loss early in his career against Benny Briscoe.
#3 was a close 15-round decison to Galindez.
#4 was a 12-round decision to James Scott, who was a legitimate contender. The fight was in the prison where Scott was imprisoned.
#5 was to Renaldo Snipes, who was a heavyweight. Mustafa looked bad in this fight but this partly due to gaining 25 pounds. Six months later Snipes almost stopped Larry Holmes for the heavyweight title.
#6 was a 15-round decison to Michael Spinks. He was competitive.
#7 was a 15-round to Kacar for the vacant IBF lightheavyweight title. He was past his best but still barely lost a SD Decision.
#8 was was a TKO stoppage to a journeyman, but he was 36 and way past it by then. That was the only time he was stopped in his career.

Yes, it would have helped his case for HOF if he would have won a couple of these. If he got the decision against Kacar and had got that paper title, I think he makes it hands down and would have been voted in a long time ago. I don't see him as being inconsistent at all.

There are many other fighters in the HOF who had many more bad losses than him. Besides his big wins over Saad, Marvin Johnson, and Jerry Martin, he also beat some decent fighters from his era such as Jerry Celestine, Ricky Parkey, and Rudi Koopmans.

He was at the same level as Galindez and Saad Muhammad who have been both in for many years. Eddie Mustafa Muhammad and Rodrigo Valdez may be the most deserving modern fighters who are not in.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Eddie was definitely inconsistent. He was known for it. You're a slave to results and like to ignore how they happened or when they occurred.

I thought Eddie beat galindez, but it was still frustrating watching him do so little when he was in control. Watch him dismantle Marvin and find that fighter in any of his losses. No doubt he was extremely talented. Even less doubt that he was inconsistent.

But a good shout on Valdez. He should long be in the HOF. Along with Jeffra, Gushinken, Laciar, Yuh & Zapata. Just to name a few.

[Ambling Alp]

Well, yeah, I happen to think that results do count for a lot!
Yes of course how he looked in the fights count. I saw him fight quite a number of times. Except for the Snipes fight I never saw him look bad. Even then he was in over his head at heavyweight.

Well of course he did not dismantle his opponets that he lost to like he did to Marvin Johnson. However, that was due to the factors that I mentioned previously. His opponent and the circumstances were different than when he fought Johnson. 2 losses were very early in his career against more experienced opponents, 2 were when he was past it. 3 others were to Spinks, Galindez, and Snipes. Which leaves you with James Scott as really the fight that he lost that he should have won. Even that was not exactly embarrassing.

Sure, he had some performances that were better than others. So does everyone else.

If he truly was inconsistent, he would have had many more bad losses and/or poor performances where he barely beat a mediocre opponent. He simply did not have very many.

It makes no sense that Galindez and Saad Muhammad have been in the HOF for several years and he isn't.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Galindez and Saad were more accomplished fighters.

[Ambling Alp]

They had longer title reigns, but they were not more accomplished fighter. They had longer title reigns pretty much because Mustafa Muhammad was unlucky that Spinks came onto the scene. Spinks would have ended Galindez and Saad Muhammad's reign as well. There is little reason to think that Mustafa would not defeated anyone that Galindez or Saad beat.

Sadd's biggest win was over Marvin Johnson. Mustafa beat Johnson as well. Saad did beat Sutherland, Lopez, Kates, and Conteh; which is a superior "victim's list than Mustafa; however he had a lot of trouble in most of those fights. There is little reason to think Mustafa would not have beaten those guys.
iWithout the help of the officiating Saad probably loses to Martin, while Mustafa beat Martin much easier.

Galindez also beat Kates and Lopez as well as Ahumada and Fourie. However, get whipped badly by Rossman which has to count against him. Galindez also lost to Johnson whom Mustafa beat.

Head to head, Mustafa barely beat Saad and barely lost to Galindez. If you want to give a slight edge to Galindez or Saad, that's fair enough. However, Mustafa is certainly very close. If they are unquestionable Hall of Famers,then Mustafa Muhammad belongs as well.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I didn't say it was a landslide. You may be right, Eddie might have beaten the guys that they handled. But he didn't fight them and he doesn't get credit for it.

It's pretty simple. Longer reigns + better wins = more accomplished.

[Ambling Alp]

It is pretty arguable that Eddie didn't beat better opposition.

Compare the best 3 opponents they beat:
Mustafa's -1. Saad. 2. Johnson. 3. Martin
Saad- 1. Johnson. 2. Lopez 3. Kates (I'm not counting Saad's "win" over Martin. I like Saad but he didn't deserve that)
Galindez- 1. Mustafa Muhammad. 2 Lopez 3. Kates

I think that Mustafa Muhammad top three are better. As I conceded earlier, Galindez and Saad had more depth; their 4th, 5th etc. best opponents were better than Mustafa Muhammad's. Still, if you have to go down to the 4th and 5th best opponents that they beat before Galindez and Saas finally have the edge, you have to come to conclusion that it is pretty close.

You also have to look at their losses; Mustafa Muhammad had less losses that were to lesser opponents or blow out losses to great opponents.

The length of the title reign shouldn't be a major factor here. Galindez and Saad were lucky to have had these defenses before Spinks came along. They do deserve some credit defending their title against some good fighters, but this should not be the end all be all here. It's a factor but there many other factors.

You yourself said that you thought Mustafa should have got the decision over Galindez. If that would have happened, Galindez would have had shorter title reign and Mustafa may have had a longer one than he did.

There are plenty of examples of champions with several title defenses were not as good as another champion who had far less. For example, Bob Foster had more title defenses at 175 than Moore, Spinks, Loughran, and Conn. Does that automatically make Foster better? It is just one factor.

Galindez, Saad, and Mustafa are about as close as you get.
Too me it boils down to this: If you think Galindez and Saad deserve to have been in the Hall of Fame for this long (I have not heard anyone ever claim that they should not have been) then certainly by now Eddie Mustafa Muhammad should be in. Saad has been in for 13 years now. There have been many guys elected since then not as qualified.

Well anyway, I have said my piece. Don't know if we are covering much new ground anymore about this subject. If you want to have the last word, go ahead.

[jaclem2]

..what the hell.....i just flipped a coin and it came up for eddie...so now my vote says let him in...

[SaadOffTheDeck]

It is pretty arguable that Eddie didn't beat better opposition.

Compare the best 3 opponents they beat:
Mustafa's -1. Saad. 2. Johnson. 3. Martin
Saad- 1. Johnson. 2. Lopez 3. Kates (I'm not counting Saad's "win" over Martin. I like Saad but he didn't deserve that)
Galindez- 1. Mustafa Muhammad. 2 Lopez 3. Kates

I think that Mustafa Muhammad top three are better. As I conceded earlier, Galindez and Saad had more depth; their 4th, 5th etc. best opponents were better than Mustafa Muhammad's. Still, if you have to go down to the 4th and 5th best opponents that they beat before Galindez and Saas finally have the edge, you have to come to conclusion that it is pretty close.

You also have to look at their losses; Mustafa Muhammad had less losses that were to lesser opponents or blow out losses to great opponents.

The length of the title reign shouldn't be a major factor here. Galindez and Saad were lucky to have had these defenses before Spinks came along. They do deserve some credit defending their title against some good fighters, but this should not be the end all be all here. It's a factor but there many other factors.

You yourself said that you thought Mustafa should have got the decision over Galindez. If that would have happened, Galindez would have had shorter title reign and Mustafa may have had a longer one than he did.
There are plenty of examples of champions with several title defenses were not as good as another champion who had far less. For example, Bob Foster had more title defenses at 175 than Moore, Spinks, Loughran, and Conn. Does that automatically make Foster better? It is just one factor.

Galindez, Saad, and Mustafa are about as close as you get.
Too me it boils down to this: If you think Galindez and Saad deserve to have been in the Hall of Fame for this long (I have not heard anyone ever claim that they should not have been) then certainly by now Eddie Mustafa Muhammad should be in. Saad has been in for 13 years now. There have been many guys elected since then not as qualified.

Well anyway, I have said my piece. Don't know if we are covering much new ground anymore about this subject. If you want to have the last word, go ahead.

Matt beat Lopez & johnson twice. He also beat Conteh twice and he was better than Kates. So essentially you're taking 3 Mustafa wins over 6 Saad wins. That's faulty reasoning to me.

I'm not sure what your uproar is at the martin result. But i don't recall martin getting screwed. Though I haven't seen it in a long time. Perhaps the stoppage was premature, but Martin was more than likely on his way to defeat. However you cut it, Kates was better than Martin anyway. So you don't have to go nearly as deep as you're making out.

Saad has a better resume than Eddie. I don't hold late career losses against aging champions. None of them. And I certainly wouldn't start with Saad. He was finished after Qawi, none of that is relevant.

I initially stated that Eddie is more deserving than some who are in and some who will be. But he wouldn't get my vote. Not that I would campaign against him either and you have made a good case.

[jaclem2]

...just browsing back through this one and read king carlos' post that my saying fritzie zivic didn't belong in the hall of fame was a "foolish statement"

carlos, fritzie does NOT belong in the hof and it was not a foolish statement, so you are wrong on both counts. please correct your records accordingly.

[King Carlos]

Conteh I was clearly Franklin's best win. To not include it among his top 3 is ludicrous, in my opinion. Past his best or not, Conteh boxed magnificently that night.

[bluerosekiller]

I believe that Eddie Gregory/Mustafa Muhammad definitely belongs in The HOF.
In an institution that counts Ingemar Johansson & many others of somewhat questionable credentials among it's ranks, Eddie belongs. He was an integral part of one of the very best eras at 175 pounds even though he didn't hold onto his belt for a long period of time.
Eddie was a magnificent boxer/counter puncher with the ability to end the fight with a single shot from either hand. Even though he often chose to do just enough to win rather than going all out for his victories.
Had he had a bit more of an aggressive manner & killer instinct, he could have perhaps been the best of the era.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Pointing out other members that don't belong is the weakest and most frequently used argument for others. I don't know where that started, but it needs to stop.

Mistakes are made in every form of life. People try to rectify them, not repeat them. If you think Eddie belongs, fine. But don't use that you think Ingo doesn't belong as the basis for his induction. That's nonsensical.