What is a Hall of Famer?

[elmersalsa]

The great Eusebio Pedroza is a no brainer for me. He is in the hall, rightfully so. He is one of the best feathers ever, and a top 100 atg in my book.

The same might be with Nino Benvenutti. He had a hell of a career.

[keithmoonhangover]

That is a little tricky when you say "convicted". There are some guys in boxing (as well as other sports) where it is strongly suspected by many people but not actually convicted.
Some failed drug tests and those should not be allowed in. I personally would not vote for others where is strong evidence (in my opinion) but they have never actually been penalized. We all know that various Sports Organizations have often looked the other way.

But yes, I am strongly against the drug cheats; they got an unfair advantage.

Agreed.

[Ambling Alp II]

The great Eusebio Pedroza is a no brainer for me. He is in the hall, rightfully so. He is one of the best feathers ever, and a top 100 atg in my book.

The same might be with Nino Benvenutti. He had a hell of a career.

But elmer, Pedroza only scores 3 out of 8 on your own criteria!! Going by your own criteria, he probably should not be in the Hall of Fame, much less the Top 100.

You have knocked Benvenuti often in the past. You have said he was a not a great fighter, and have said that he is not in your Top 100. However, going by your own criteria, he scored 7 out of 8, which means he just about has to be in the Top 100.

Going by your own criteria, Benvenuti has to be much better than Pedroza.

[elmersalsa]

The great Eusebio Pedroza is a no brainer for me. He is in the hall, rightfully so. He is one of the best feathers ever, and a top 100 atg in my book.

The same might be with Nino Benvenutti. He had a hell of a career.

But elmer, Pedroza only scores 3 out of 8 on your own criteria!! Going by your own criteria, he probably should not be in the Hall of Fame, much less the Top 100.

You have knocked Benvenuti often in the past. You have said he was a not a great fighter, and have said that he is not in your Top 100. However, going by your own criteria, he scored 7 out of 8, which means he just about has to be in the Top 100.

Going by your own criteria, Benvenuti has to be much better than Pedroza.

Nino Benvenutti a great fighter, but not better than the great Eusebio Pedroza.

We are getting far ahead of the alphabetical order. How about Lou Ambers and Sammy Angott? Do they make the HOF in your view?

[elmersalsa]

The great Eusebio Pedroza is a no brainer for me. He is in the hall, rightfully so. He is one of the best feathers ever, and a top 100 atg in my book.

The same might be with Nino Benvenutti. He had a hell of a career.

But elmer, Pedroza only scores 3 out of 8 on your own criteria!! Going by your own criteria, he probably should not be in the Hall of Fame, much less the Top 100.

You have knocked Benvenuti often in the past. You have said he was a not a great fighter, and have said that he is not in your Top 100. However, going by your own criteria, he scored 7 out of 8, which means he just about has to be in the Top 100.

Going by your own criteria, Benvenuti has to be much better than Pedroza.

I caught you lying again, Alp. Pedroza makes 6 out of 10 in my criteria.

[keithmoonhangover]

The great Eusebio Pedroza is a no brainer for me. He is in the hall, rightfully so. He is one of the best feathers ever, and a top 100 atg in my book.

The same might be with Nino Benvenutti. He had a hell of a career.

But elmer, Pedroza only scores 3 out of 8 on your own criteria!! Going by your own criteria, he probably should not be in the Hall of Fame, much less the Top 100.

You have knocked Benvenuti often in the past. You have said he was a not a great fighter, and have said that he is not in your Top 100. However, going by your own criteria, he scored 7 out of 8, which means he just about has to be in the Top 100.

Going by your own criteria, Benvenuti has to be much better than Pedroza.

I caught you lying again, Alp. Pedroza makes 6 out of 10 in my criteria.

Is 6 out of 10 enough for him to get into the HOF?

[elmersalsa]

Yes, he does. The great Eusebio Pedroza was an incredible fighter. Six out of ten makes it in my view.

[Ambling Alp II]

The great Eusebio Pedroza is a no brainer for me. He is in the hall, rightfully so. He is one of the best feathers ever, and a top 100 atg in my book.

The same might be with Nino Benvenutti. He had a hell of a career.

But elmer, Pedroza only scores 3 out of 8 on your own criteria!! Going by your own criteria, he probably should not be in the Hall of Fame, much less the Top 100.

You have knocked Benvenuti often in the past. You have said he was a not a great fighter, and have said that he is not in your Top 100. However, going by your own criteria, he scored 7 out of 8, which means he just about has to be in the Top 100.

Going by your own criteria, Benvenuti has to be much better than Pedroza.

I caught you lying again, Alp. Pedroza makes 6 out of 10 in my criteria.

Now you are saying that I'm lying? I really resent that comment. You often don't understand what I say, but I don't lie.

You only have 9 parts to your criteria, not 10. One of them is doesn't count (#3)for Pedroza because it involves rating someone who never got a title shot.
So right there is only 8 that he could score on.

I only see 3 parts of your criteria that he achieves. Besides #2, (Beating at least 3 very good opponents) #4, (Longevity) and # 7 (title defenses) which other criteria does he make?

[elmersalsa]

Now you are saying that I'm lying? I really resent that comment. You often don't understand what I say, but I don't lie.

You only have 9 parts to your criteria, not 10. One of them is doesn't count (#3)for Pedroza because it involves rating someone who never got a title shot.
So right there is only 8 that he could score on.

I only see 3 parts of your criteria that he achieves. Besides #2, (Beating at least 3 very good opponents) #4, (Longevity) and # 7 (title defenses) which other criteria does he make?

The great Eusebio Pedroza had a lot to offer. He definitely is a HOF by anyone's standards.

He scored 7 out of 10 in MY CRITERIA:1,2,4,5,6,7 AND 10. And he has the record of most title defenses made in opponent's home turf with 10. He was a TRUE WORLD CHAMPION that defended his crown almost all over the world.

[keithmoonhangover]

I adapted this idea from Bill James criteria for judging if a player should be a Baseball Hall of Famer.
There are 12 different parts of the criteria. If a fighter meets 8 of them, he deserves to be a Hall of Famer. 5-7 he is borderline. Less than 5, probably not.
I test this on several fighters (Hall of Famers and non-Hall of Famers, and it seems to work well.

Here are the 12:

1. Was he ever arguably the best Fighter in the World, regardless of weight class?
2. Was he ever clearly the best of his weight class at any one time?
3. Is he arguably the best fighter not in the Hall of Fame? (Or would be if he is in the Hall of Fame)
4. Is he clearly the best fighter in his best weight class not in the Hall of Fame? (Or would be if he is already in.)
5. In a normal era, would he have been the best in his weight class?
6. Was he better than 20% of the Fighters already in the Hall of Fame?
7. Was he better than 20% of the Fighters in his best weight class already in the Hall of Fame?
8. Was he in in the Top 10 including all weight classes for 5 years or more?
9. Does he have at least 2 wins over Hall of Famers (or Fighters who will certain be in the HOF) near their primes?
10. Does he have 2 losses or less against non-Hall of Famers near his prime?
11. Does he have zero or only one opponent who beat him beaten badly near his prime?
12. Was he a Gold Medalist in the Olympics?

Anyway, I thought this would be interesting if people would name a fighter (whether they are in the HOF or not) and see where he comes out.
I will start with Eddie Mustapha Muhammad. I give him a score of 7. (He met # 3,4,5,6,7,10,11) To me, he did just enough be in the Hall of Fame.

Alp, how would you score James Toney on your system?

Here are my thoughts.

1. No
2. Yes
3. No
4. No.
5. No.
6. No.
7. Yes.
8. No. He didn't avoid defeat enough for that to happen.
9. No.
10. Yes.
11. No RJJ and Montell (And Tiberi in reality)
12. No.

I get three, but maybe I could stretch to 5.

[elmersalsa]

How Eusebio Pedroza made it in my view:
1. How dominant he was at champion?
Very dominant. 20 title defenses in 7 year reign. Outstanding!

2. Did he beat 3 or 4 very good fighters?
Yes, indeed: Juan LaPorte, Rocky Lockridge (twice), Ruben Olivares, Patrick Ford and Jorge Lujan. All mandatory #1 contenders.

4. Longevity? Yes. He fought 50 fights in a 15 year career.

5. Number of fights, including quality wins? Yes. He had 50 fights

6. Unbeaten streaks? How many good fighters he beat in that stretch? Yes, he had 22 straight bouts without a defeat for 9 years: 1976-85 and beat at least 5 good quality opponents.

7. How many title defenses he made as champ? He made 20 in 7 years. That's impressive...Nuff said!

10. Historical Impact? Yes. He is one of the best featherwights ever. A top 10. Don't you agree?

And for world records, The champ with most defenses in opponents home turf with 10. Nobody got more. He was a truly a world champion

[Ambling Alp II]

elmer, elmer, elmer.
First of all, there is no # 10 on your own criteria. You only listed 9 when you listed your criteria!

#1 -You can't say that title defenses alone makes him a dominant champion.
You can't give him credit for #1 and #7 for the same thing (title defenses.)

On your own criteria, you say that there is more too it; the quality of wins. Where are the huge wins in his title defenses? Nobody was a Hall of Famer except for a past it Olivares.
Only 7 of his 20 title defenses were against opponents in the Top 10.
He also had some fights where the judges had to bail him out.

#5 - 50 fights is enough? I asked before how many were needed but you never responded. There a tons of guys who had more than 50. I assumed that someone would have to have a lot more than 50.

#6 22 wins is enough? 22? Really? That seems very low. There are literally thousands lot of fighters who won 22 or more fights in a row who are nowhere near Hall of Fame level.

I guess you could give credit for #5, but that seems to be a stretch. Obviously you can't give him credit for #1 and since there is no #10 you can't give him credit for that one. You really can't give him credit for 22 wins; otherwise you have to do that for everybody.

So you are left with giving Pedroza 3, maybe 4 at best on your own criteria.

[Ambling Alp II]

I adapted this idea from Bill James criteria for judging if a player should be a Baseball Hall of Famer.
There are 12 different parts of the criteria. If a fighter meets 8 of them, he deserves to be a Hall of Famer. 5-7 he is borderline. Less than 5, probably not.
I test this on several fighters (Hall of Famers and non-Hall of Famers, and it seems to work well.

Here are the 12:

1. Was he ever arguably the best Fighter in the World, regardless of weight class?
2. Was he ever clearly the best of his weight class at any one time?
3. Is he arguably the best fighter not in the Hall of Fame? (Or would be if he is in the Hall of Fame)
4. Is he clearly the best fighter in his best weight class not in the Hall of Fame? (Or would be if he is already in.)
5. In a normal era, would he have been the best in his weight class?
6. Was he better than 20% of the Fighters already in the Hall of Fame?
7. Was he better than 20% of the Fighters in his best weight class already in the Hall of Fame?
8. Was he in in the Top 10 including all weight classes for 5 years or more?
9. Does he have at least 2 wins over Hall of Famers (or Fighters who will certain be in the HOF) near their primes?
10. Does he have 2 losses or less against non-Hall of Famers near his prime?
11. Does he have zero or only one opponent who beat him beaten badly near his prime?
12. Was he a Gold Medalist in the Olympics?

Anyway, I thought this would be interesting if people would name a fighter (whether they are in the HOF or not) and see where he comes out.
I will start with Eddie Mustapha Muhammad. I give him a score of 7. (He met # 3,4,5,6,7,10,11) To me, he did just enough be in the Hall of Fame.

Alp, how would you score James Toney on your system?

Here are my thoughts.

1. No
2. Yes
3. No
4. No.
5. No.
6. No.
7. Yes.
8. No. He didn't avoid defeat enough for that to happen.
9. No.
10. Yes.
11. No RJJ and Montell (And Tiberi in reality)
12. No.

I get three, but maybe I could stretch to 5.

I think you could stretch it to 6.
#5 Maybe.
#6 He was better than 20% of the current Hall of Famers.
#11 I think you could argue that both of the losses to Griffin (and I guess the Tiberi "win") were close. The 2nd Griffin fight was closer than the scorecards. So you could argue that he was only beaten badly once (by Jones) in his prime.

So maybe he gets as high as a 6. That would make him a borderline pick.
Of course, he should not be eligible since he was caught using performance enhancing drugs against Ruiz, but I guess that is another story.

The biggest surprise is that he really was not one of the Top 10 Fighters for 10 years. (#8)
If you take a close look, it was really only from 1991-1993 that he was top 10 including all weight classes. If you really an over the top Toney fan, give him maybe 2003 when he beat Jirov. That is still only 4 years.

[elmersalsa]

elmer, elmer, elmer.
First of all, there is no # 10 on your own criteria. You only listed 9 when you listed your criteria!

#1 -You can't say that title defenses alone makes him a dominant champion.
You can't give him credit for #1 and #7 for the same thing (title defenses.)

On your own criteria, you say that there is more too it; the quality of wins. Where are the huge wins in his title defenses? Nobody was a Hall of Famer except for a past it Olivares.
Only 7 of his 20 title defenses were against opponents in the Top 10.
He also had some fights where the judges had to bail him out.

#5 - 50 fights is enough? I asked before how many were needed but you never responded. There a tons of guys who had more than 50. I assumed that someone would have to have a lot more than 50.

#6 22 wins is enough? 22? Really? That seems very low. There are literally thousands lot of fighters who won 22 or more fights in a row who are nowhere near Hall of Fame level.

I guess you could give credit for #5, but that seems to be a stretch. Obviously you can't give him credit for #1 and since there is no #10 you can't give him credit for that one. You really can't give him credit for 22 wins; otherwise you have to do that for everybody.

So you are left with giving Pedroza 3, maybe 4 at best on your own criteria.

There is ten in my criteria. You didn't read the next thread when I wrote Historical impact.

Then, how many title defenses Pedroza needed to be a dominant champion? 50? 60? 100? Ain't 20 title defenses enough?

Not everyone had the same opportunities. YOU COULD ONLY FIGHT WHAT IS AVAILABLE. WHAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU. Pedroza made THE BEST OF IT OF WHAT WAS AVAILABLE. He beat good quality fighters in Juan LaPorte, Rocky Lockridge (twice), Ruben Olivares, Jorge Lujan, and Patrick Ford. They were good challenges and he beat them. Give Pedroza credit for that.

Now, you criticize his unbeaten streaks? Then, how many he had to do? 40? 50? 100? The guy was unbeaten in 22 straight, at the time of his heyday. He beat the best challengers and mandatory defenses in opponents back yards. He did it, ten times, MORE THAN ANYBODY, EVER.

Pedroza was a hell of a champion

[Ambling Alp II]

Sorry, I did not see where you later added #10. I think it is quite a reach to give Pedroza credit for "Historical Impact" but whatever. You never said what Historical Impact means.

Title defenses by themselves don't mean a fighter was dominant.
As for #1 You are already giving him credit for title defenses in #7. For #1 you mentioned How dominant he was at champion. How many titles he won at all levels of competition.
He only had 7 title defenses against fighters in the Top 10. You can't tell me that he could not have found better competition for his other 13 title defenses. Of the 7 title defenses against opponents in the Top 10, he got bailed out by the officials in four of them. (Taylor, LaPorte, and Lockridge twice.) He easily could have been 3-4 in those fights if the officials weren't so generous.
He never gave Taylor or LaPorte a rematch. Instead he fought several nobodies.
He could have fought much, much better overall competition than he did.
You also mentioned yourself how many titles a fighter won at all levels of competition. Pedroza never won a Gold Medal. He never won a title for his country. He never won the South American title. By your own standards, he doesn't make it for Part 1 of the Criteria.

That is not being dominant.

#5 He had 50 fights. Is that enough? You never said. Since you are always saying that Leonard did not have very many fights (he had 40 fights), I thought I guy would have to have much more than 50 to qualify here.

#6 -The unbeaten streaks? I don't know, you never said how many a fighter needs. 22 is not really that much at all. I can name many who weren't that good at all who won 22 fights in a row.


elmer, you have be specific.

What does "Historical Impact" mean?
How many fights does an unbeaten streak have to be? (I would think it have to be a really high number if you think this an important stat. Certainly higher than 22)
And this may be the hardest part for you, you have to try to be unbiased.

[elmersalsa]

First of all, I am UNBIASED. Look at the great Eusebio Pedroza's career. He did very much of what he could. YOU CAN ONLY FIGHT WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU.

You also said that he only fought 7 fighters in the top ten of all his 20 defenses? How do you know that he only fought 7 fighters in the top ten? Do you worked as the WBA world ranking committee of the boxers back then?

And then you said that Juan LaPorte and Rocky Lockridege beat him? Did you really saw those fights, or someone told you?
Bernard Taylor??? He RAN THE WHOLE FIGHT. You don't win by running around. This is boxing, not the Boston Marathon.

He had to fight the #1 contender. And he did it periodically as told. Once you don't defend a world title defense, your title gets stripped.

If 20 defenses is not being dominant, then, what is? Pedroza was one of the most dominant featherweights champions ever. That is historical significance. Not too many champions have 20 title defenses.

[keithmoonhangover]

First of all, I am UNBIASED. Look at the great Eusebio Pedroza's career. He did very much of what he could. YOU CAN ONLY FIGHT WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU.

You also said that he only fought 7 fighters in the top ten of all his 20 defenses? How do you know that he only fought 7 fighters in the top ten? Do you worked as the WBA world ranking committee of the boxers back then?

And then you said that Juan LaPorte and Rocky Lockridege beat him? Did you really saw those fights, or someone told you?
Bernard Taylor??? He RAN THE WHOLE FIGHT. You don't win by running around. This is boxing, not the Boston Marathon.

He had to fight the #1 contender. And he did it periodically as told. Once you don't defend a world title defense, your title gets stripped.

If 20 defenses is not being dominant, then, what is? Pedroza was one of the most dominant featherweights champions ever. That is historical significance. Not too many champions have 20 title defenses.

Does the quality of the boxers opposition mean nothing? Where do you stand on Wladimir Klitschko's opponents? He's a dominant champion.

[Seamus]

I thought Lockridge in the 1st fight, Taylor, and LaPorte, all should have gotten the decision against Pedroza.

[Ambling Alp II]

He was very lucky to win these fights. There is a lot of people who thought he did not deserve them. Even if you think he won them all, you have to admit that they were very close. He certainly did not dominate these guys.

As for elmer's other comments: I agree that you can only fight opponents who are around during your era. Pedroza simply did not do that. Pedroza missed quite a few top guys. He did not fight Sanchez, Lopez, Gomez, Castillo, or Nelson.

How do I know that he only defended 7 Top 10 Challengers? I am going by the Ring Magazine Hall of Fame Record Book. It's a little more reliable than the WBA, or any of the WBS organizations.

No, 20 title defenses (by itself) does not automatically mean you are dominant.
As Keith touched on, who you beat is important. Any decent fighter can always find opponents who have little chance against him.

Did he beat all of the best? Clearly no. Did he almost always win in dominant fashion against the best fighters that he did fight? Clearly no. The best fighters that he did actually defend against (LaPorte, Taylor, and Lickrodge) all gave him very close fights.

Lastly, on elmer's own criteria for #1, he mentioned winning titles on every level as the other factor. Pedroza clearly missed out on this. By his own criteria, he was not dominant. He keeps ignoring this point, as he always does when he is cornered.

What this shows is that elmer is completely biased. He laid out his criteria for the Hall of Fame, (after I asked him) one of his favorite fighters does not meet very much of the criteria, so he goes into spin mode. It's very easy to see through.

[elmersalsa]

I thought Lockridge in the 1st fight, Taylor, and LaPorte, all should have gotten the decision against Pedroza.

Yeah right, watch the fight again. But, then again, it is your opinion. I thought the great Eusebio Pedroza won comfortably.

[elmersalsa]

He was very lucky to win these fights. There is a lot of people who thought he did not deserve them. Even if you think he won them all, you have to admit that they were very close. He certainly did not dominate these guys.

As for elmer's other comments: I agree that you can only fight opponents who are around during your era. Pedroza simply did not do that. Pedroza missed quite a few top guys. He did not fight Sanchez, Lopez, Gomez, Castillo, or Nelson.

How do I know that he only defended 7 Top 10 Challengers? I am going by the Ring Magazine Hall of Fame Record Book. It's a little more reliable than the WBA, or any of the WBS organizations.

No, 20 title defenses (by itself) does not automatically mean you are dominant.
As Keith touched on, who you beat is important. Any decent fighter can always find opponents who have little chance against him.

Did he beat all of the best? Clearly no. Did he almost always win in dominant fashion against the best fighters that he did fight? Clearly no. The best fighters that he did actually defend against (LaPorte, Taylor, and Lickrodge) all gave him very close fights.

Lastly, on elmer's own criteria for #1, he mentioned winning titles on every level as the other factor. Pedroza clearly missed out on this. By his own criteria, he was not dominant. He keeps ignoring this point, as he always does when he is cornered.

What this shows is that elmer is completely biased. He laid out his criteria for the Hall of Fame, (after I asked him) one of his favorite fighters does not meet very much of the criteria, so he goes into spin mode. It's very easy to see through.

I agree that Ambling Alp is a very great competitor like I am. I give him credit.

The Ring Magazine has their own rankings. It is not the WBA nor WBC rankings. I need MORE PROOF that only of 7 out of 20, were top ten challengers. The great Eusebio Pedroza NEVER GOT THE EASY WAY OUT. HE TOOK ALL COMERS, ACCORDING BY HIS WBA MANDATORY CHALLENGES. HE EVEN DID IT, MOST IMPRESSIVELY, ON THE ROAD, 10 TIMES, 10 TIMES in the opponents' home turf. That is hard to do. To defend your crown in someone's turf.
The great Salvador Sanchez, Danny Lopez nor the great Azumah Nelson, did not looked at Pedroza's way. If Pedroza was a weak champion, why they did not unify the titles. Pedroza called them. Not even the great Wilfredo Gomez challenged Pedroza. I wonder why. Was he ducked by those guys? It could be a possibility. He was too hard of a risk, and not a champion liked by the US media. He was not in the superstar radar, but, he was as good as anyone in the 80s decade. It is the same thing that happened to Brian Mitchell at jr. lightweight. Too risky and not much money or marketable for the tv masses. Especially, US masses.
Pedroza is one of the best featherweight fighters ever. He is top 10 in my book. What a champion.

[Idisagree]

Pedroza had a similar career to that of Samuel Serrano. I consider Pedroza better but the fact is he did not wanted to fight any punchers after the Zamora fight. The very next puncher (in his prime) he fought he got KO. He signed to fight an old out of shape over the hill Olivares because he knew Olivares was done and washed up. Pedroza busted Laporte balls because he knew Laporte had an iron chin. He got a gift vs Lockridge in the first fight.

[elmersalsa]

Pedroza had a similar career to that of Samuel Serrano. I consider Pedroza better but the fact is he did not wanted to fight any punchers after the Zamora fight. The very next puncher (in his prime) he fought he got KO. He signed to fight an old out of shape over the hill Olivares because he knew Olivares was done and washed up. Pedroza busted Laporte balls because he knew Laporte had an iron chin. He got a gift vs Lockridge in the first fight.

The very next puncher he got KO'd? Say what???
He got a gift in the Rocky Lockridge fight??? Say what???
He fought an old and out of shape legend because he knew the legend was washed up???

The only true statements in here was that the great Ruben Olivares was washed up. And that Pedroza was better than Samuel Serrano.

Pedroza could fight. He was a complete fighter. Probably, the most complete fighter that I have ever seen in my lifetime.

One question: How many Pedroza's haters are in here?

[Seamus]

Well Pedroza was a very dirty fighter. The first fight with Lockridge was a Split Decision, and the Panamanian judge had Pedroza winning by 10 (wonder what he was smoking) and another had him by 6. I thought Lockridge clearly won because Pedroza hardly did much over the first 8 rds. I also thought LaPorte out pressured and outworked him and landed the better shots, and as for the Taylor fight, you could say Taylor ran alot and avoided contacted, but in the end, I thought he still landed more punches.

Pedroza was tough and did have some impressive wins, but I think WBA protected him from losing decisions.

[Ambling Alp II]

He was very lucky to win these fights. There is a lot of people who thought he did not deserve them. Even if you think he won them all, you have to admit that they were very close. He certainly did not dominate these guys.

As for elmer's other comments: I agree that you can only fight opponents who are around during your era. Pedroza simply did not do that. Pedroza missed quite a few top guys. He did not fight Sanchez, Lopez, Gomez, Castillo, or Nelson.

How do I know that he only defended 7 Top 10 Challengers? I am going by the Ring Magazine Hall of Fame Record Book. It's a little more reliable than the WBA, or any of the WBS organizations.

No, 20 title defenses (by itself) does not automatically mean you are dominant.
As Keith touched on, who you beat is important. Any decent fighter can always find opponents who have little chance against him.

Did he beat all of the best? Clearly no. Did he almost always win in dominant fashion against the best fighters that he did fight? Clearly no. The best fighters that he did actually defend against (LaPorte, Taylor, and Lickrodge) all gave him very close fights.

Lastly, on elmer's own criteria for #1, he mentioned winning titles on every level as the other factor. Pedroza clearly missed out on this. By his own criteria, he was not dominant. He keeps ignoring this point, as he always does when he is cornered.

What this shows is that elmer is completely biased. He laid out his criteria for the Hall of Fame, (after I asked him) one of his favorite fighters does not meet very much of the criteria, so he goes into spin mode. It's very easy to see through.

I agree that Ambling Alp is a very great competitor like I am. I give him credit.

The Ring Magazine has their own rankings. It is not the WBA nor WBC rankings. I need MORE PROOF that only of 7 out of 20, were top ten challengers. The great Eusebio Pedroza NEVER GOT THE EASY WAY OUT. HE TOOK ALL COMERS, ACCORDING BY HIS WBA MANDATORY CHALLENGES. HE EVEN DID IT, MOST IMPRESSIVELY, ON THE ROAD, 10 TIMES, 10 TIMES in the opponents' home turf. That is hard to do. To defend your crown in someone's turf.
The great Salvador Sanchez, Danny Lopez nor the great Azumah Nelson, did not looked at Pedroza's way. If Pedroza was a weak champion, why they did not unify the titles. Pedroza called them. Not even the great Wilfredo Gomez challenged Pedroza. I wonder why. Was he ducked by those guys? It could be a possibility. He was too hard of a risk, and not a champion liked by the US media. He was not in the superstar radar, but, he was as good as anyone in the 80s decade. It is the same thing that happened to Brian Mitchell at jr. lightweight. Too risky and not much money or marketable for the tv masses. Especially, US masses.
Pedroza is one of the best featherweight fighters ever. He is top 10 in my book. What a champion.

I don't consider you a great competitor. You are completely biased, usually ignore the person's points, and don't use logic.
We all disagree on things from time to time, but most others aren't so biased, don't ignore opposing points as often, and usually use more logic.
All you do is come up with random irrelevant information to support a guy you like or rip someone you don't like.

Don't really care how much proof you need. Ring Magazine is not perfect, but it is a lot more legitimate than the WBA or WBC.
Have you really never noticed how silly their ratings often are? They are often rigged. ie a WBA title fight will be set up. Suddenly the unknown challenger is ranked highly so that the fight looks more legitimate than it is. Or a WBC title fight is set up. The WBA will rate that challenger lower so the WBC title fight won't seem as interesting.
The WBC, IBF, WBO has done the same things. They won't even rate the champions of other organizations.

I love first you say Pedroza fought everyone. Then when I point out several top opponents that he never fought, all of a sudden they "never looked his way". Please.
It never occurred to you that Pedroza never "looked their way"?
Not marketable for the US masses? Please. He was on national TV in the United States many times. He got plenty of exposure. You don't think a network would have televised a fight between Pedroza and Sanchez or Gomez? Or Castillo, Nelson or Lopez?

I am not a Pedroza hater. Don't care about him either way. I was just pointing out that on your own criteria he does not look that good. Of course since you are so biased towards him, you have to spin things so that it looks like he fits your criteria better.