Who Belongs In The Hall Of Fame ?

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 13 Nov 2005, 11:57

But I think Ottke should get in there first!...

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 13 Nov 2005, 12:03

Would anyone object to Arturo Gatti being put into the hall??...what about Micky Ward?...

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 13 Nov 2005, 12:05

Gatti for sure from popular opinion, But Ward would be a very good move from the HOF. He is first class. And he is retired so he is in the running sooner.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 13 Nov 2005, 12:59

Yeah, I think both deserve to be in the hall because of the excitement that they brought to the sport... Gatti has almost kept the sport alive over the past few years....

dnahar32 · Post by **dnahar32** » 13 Nov 2005, 14:05

My perspective on the boxing HOF has changed over the years. At first, I used to wish they were more selective like the football HOF or the writers picks for the baseball HOF.

But in going on message boards and talking to other boxing fans, I've gone the other way. As the older boxing fans pass on and their memories and passions fade, there aren't enough new boxing fans to sustain the same interest for the sport. And when it comes to old-timers, forget any of the newer fans having much knowledge pre-Tyson. They might know a name like Sugar Ray Robinson or Leonard, but that's about it.

If, in conversation, you can slip that a fighter is a HOF it gives the fighter an immediate respect in the eyes of people you are talking to. So, if inducting a lot of popular guys and less-deserved champs means that casual fans might respect them as fighters, I say the induction procedure allowing marginal and borderline fighters in is OK. Canastota having living inductees there every year falls in line with this.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 13 Nov 2005, 16:12

Decagon wrote:Gatti and Ward in the Hall? You might as well let in Caveman Lee and Tex Cobb.

What, Tex Cobb isn't in the Hall of Fame? Blasphemy!

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 13 Nov 2005, 16:19

Well, it is the hall of fame, not the hall of skill. Hard to imagine many with more fame than Gatti.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 13 Nov 2005, 18:22

Rubbish!.. :x .. I don't remember Lee winning about 3 or 4 'fight of the year' awards like Gatti... plus the fact that you mentioned Lee shows he is not forgotten!..

. and too right too, his fights with Locicero and Fletcher were classics!.

8) ..

cybox · Post by **cybox** » 13 Nov 2005, 18:51

some guys who warrent consideration

Donald Curry: The Cobra was regarded as one of the best pound for pound of his era. Retired 34-6 (25) World Welterwiegt champ 83-86 and Junior Middleweight 88-89.

James Buddy McGirt: 73-6 (48) IBF Jr. Welterweight 1988 and WBC Welterweight 1991-1993.

Marvin Johnson, Lloyd Honeyghan, Bruno Arcari,

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 13 Nov 2005, 19:00

Decagon wrote:Before the 1990s, it was rare for a non-title bout to win "Fight of the Year." Rating fights the way Ring magazine does now, Foreman-Young, sure wouldn't have won the award in 1977.

Foremen vs Young was a non-title bout....

I'm surprised that Ali vs Shavers wasn't fight of the year for '77.... it was a better fight, but Foremen vs Young was a huge upset.

RScarf1 · Post by **RScarf1** » 13 Nov 2005, 20:50

I think Marlon Starling belongs in the Hall of Fame. He was the best welterweight champion for about four years, beating all the other great welterweights of that time (Simon Brown, Lloyd Honeyghan, Mark Breland).

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 13 Nov 2005, 21:03

I think it all comes down to finding a standard, not for admission but for what a boxing HoF represents. Is it for the fighters that wins the most titles, earn the most money, are in the most exciting fights, display the most skill, are the most popular, or what? How much should record counts, as by that measure there are a couple Bredhals that are better than Olivares. And longevity favors old time fighters... We all know those arguments.
My view of the matter is probably far too limiting- as one among you once wrote I don't think anybody that fought after 1972 should be let in- but I can't see inducting somebody every year just to be doing it. And, of course, if you let in Pipino Cuevas, for example, then how can Palomino be kept out.
A friend of mine suggests having a section for the "great" fightrers like BLeonard, and SRRobinson, and Armstrong, and so on; and then a section for the really good fighters and another for the tough fighters and still another for whatever other categories there are. But it is utterly wrong to keep inducting guys from more recent times when everybody that participates gets a title when Cocoa Kid, Holman Williams and so many more are not even mentioned. I couldn't brinbg myself to visit such a placer that ignores some of its most skilled practitioners and honors others based on some scale seemingly invented to justify such a ptactice.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 13 Nov 2005, 21:32

Riddick Bowe will be in the Hall of Fame five years after his comeback are over.

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 14 Nov 2005, 06:27

Maybe there should be more sections in the Hall... with fighters recognised for specific acheivements....

barry · Post by **barry** » 14 Nov 2005, 07:04

Although I really enjoyed watching Ward, I couldn't see him being in the HOF, but Gatti is another story...certainly not the most skilled, but few in history can claim the same kind of courage and excitement that Gatti has produced in his career, but to mention Caveman Lee along side of Gatti is comical at best!

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 14 Nov 2005, 07:23

I wasn't saying that Lee should be in the hall and obviously he didn't accomplish what Gatti has, but he should be remembered for some great fights that he was in.... that fight he had with Locicero contained probably the most or at least one of the most violent and exciting rounds I've ever seen.... it was voted round of the year too I think by either Ring or Ko.

Gatti certainly belongs in the hall I think for the excitement he has brought to boxing and his long string of classic fights. Ward did not achieve as much as gatti but persevered over almost 20 years and reached the peak of his career when in his late 30s which is some acheivement and his triology with Gatti should get him into the Hall of fame imo...

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 16 Nov 2005, 02:11

I think that it is nearly impossible to have a well and truly and fairly done boxing HoF because boxing does not lend itself to statistics and easily measureable comparisons. There could be 100s of fighters out there with over 100 wins and less than 30 losses, 50-70 kos and more than a few opponents on their record that are (A) recognizable names (B) guys who fought and fared well against many known opponents or (C) guys that a little research will reveal to be very tough individuals. There are murderous punchers and defensive wizards and clever fighters and never say die warriors. There is name after name on the list of fighters that were ovcerlooked or cheated or just never got what they deserved. And every one of us has our personal favorite (or two) that was the greatest and belongs in the HoF if anybody does.
They can't all be in there. And so what is the line? Saad Muhammad is in at 38-15 or so because he was in some incredibly exciting fights but Ken Overlin who had 127 wins and 20 losses (he beat Charles) isn't and neither is Johnny Romero at 150 and something with 80 odd kos. Mickey Ward gets in then open up for Harold Brazier and Pompey and Frankie Duarte and if Gatti desrves it then Bazooka Limon and Boza Edwards sure do. Where does it end?

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 16 Nov 2005, 11:21

tiredoldngrey wrote:I think that it is nearly impossible to have a well and truly and fairly done boxing HoF because boxing does not lend itself to statistics and easily measureable comparisons. There could be 100s of fighters out there with over 100 wins and less than 30 losses, 50-70 kos and more than a few opponents on their record that are (A) recognizable names (B) guys who fought and fared well against many known opponents or (C) guys that a little research will reveal to be very tough individuals. There are murderous punchers and defensive wizards and clever fighters and never say die warriors. There is name after name on the list of fighters that were ovcerlooked or cheated or just never got what they deserved. And every one of us has our personal favorite (or two) that was the greatest and belongs in the HoF if anybody does.
They can't all be in there. And so what is the line? Saad Muhammad is in at 38-15 or so because he was in some incredibly exciting fights but Ken Overlin who had 127 wins and 20 losses (he beat Charles) isn't and neither is Johnny Romero at 150 and something with 80 odd kos. Mickey Ward gets in then open up for Harold Brazier and Pompey and Frankie Duarte and if Gatti desrves it then Bazooka Limon and Boza Edwards sure do. Where does it end?

Like I said earlier, maybe there should be more sections in the hall... like perhaps a section for fighter who brought an extreme amount of excitment to the game... then fighters such as Limon, Boza, Kelvin Seabrooks, Frank Fletcher would be in... there could also be a section for fighters who caused great upsets ala Buster Douglas, Braddock etc... 8)

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 16 Nov 2005, 11:34

Silkov I like the catagories idea. Fame for Fames sake is one thing, It would be nice if it had sub catagories. I'm sure everyone has ideas on what those subcatagories might be. You'd have a lot of arguements as well.

ShoeShine · Post by **ShoeShine** » 16 Nov 2005, 11:42

Should Meldrick Taylor be in the Hall??

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 16 Nov 2005, 11:54

ShoeShine wrote:Should Meldrick Taylor be in the Hall??

I wouldn't argue with him being in the hall at all... he gave boxing a hell of a lot (too much!) and was in some great fights of course. Talentwise he was maybe a bit of an underacheiever but this was more to do with the hard fights he had and the opponents he was put in against than anything else. His fight with Chavez will always be remembered for good and bad reasons, and for that alone Meldrick deserves recognition I think.

barry · Post by **barry** » 16 Nov 2005, 12:15

Taylor's fault was that he had too much heart and used feeling instead of sense. He could have outboxed most, but he would rather fight!

silkov · Post by **silkov** » 16 Nov 2005, 12:51

Yeah, I think his management put him up the weights too fast as well, and as he went up his lack of power meant that he couldn't hold guys off so much and this led to him taking heavier punishment. I've also always thought that his career would have turned out better if he'd been pulled out after about 9 rounds in the 1st Chavez fight... the punishment he took in the later rounds of that fight ruined his career basically... he was never the same fighter after.... Not that the Norris fight later on helped any.... :x

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 16 Nov 2005, 22:13

I don't think anyone can justify keeping Bruno Arcari out of the Hall of Fame 70-2-1 (38 Ko's) 9-0 record in title fights and unbeaten in his last 61 fights ! His competition may not have been of the highest quality, but to my knowledge he avoided no one, and in fact the great Antonio Cervantes reportedly ducked him.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 16 Nov 2005, 22:26

any chance someone here beleive that primo carnera should be in the HOF? or was his record to shady..he not talented enough..his defeat at the hands of max baer too embarrasing. his win over sharkey too questionable.. orrr is his short reign as heavyweight champ and his defeat over sharkey enough to give him a shot.

my guess would be no, but u never no