What is a Hall of Famer?

[Seamus]

I don't think there's any one particular form of criteria for determining who is a Hall of Famer. I tend to look at won loss pct with a strong emphasis on who a fighter has beaten. Also, I actaully may not hold it against a guy if he never won a world title, even if he had gotten a shot at it, because some eras may be much stronger than others.

[keithmoonhangover]

1. How dominant he was at champion. How many titles he won at all levels of competition.
2. Did he beat at least 3 or 4 very good or great fighters.
3. If he was never a world champion, how did he feared with the best fighters and contenders of his era.
4. Longevity
5. Number of fights, including number of quality wins
6. Unbeaten streaks. How many good fighters did he beat in that stretch
7. If he was champion, how many title defenses he made.
8. If not a heavyweight, how many weight classes he became champ and how competitive he was
9. Awards and accomplishments like Fighter of the Year, Comeback Fighter of the Year, etc.
10. Historical impact.

This criteria is complete bollocks.

1,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 don't actually say what you would need to do to qualify.
2. Great or very good fighters. Could you be any more vague?
3. I just don't understand. If he wasn't a world champion, how would he have fared against the best fighters in the division? He's a world champion, so surely he would have beaten them all.
10. Historical impact? Mickey Ward had historical impact. Does that mean he qualifies?

[elmersalsa]

[quoteq="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 qthem all, you have to admit that they a Q re[img]q%20was[/img] were :geek2: 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.[/quote]

I see an Angry Ambling Alp, here.

First, you have not shown me the Ring ratings of the time.
Secondly, every organization got their ratings and whoever they think is the number one challenger, that is their criteria. They do not give a damn what The Ring thinks. Is it corruption by the alphabet organizations? In most cases, yes.
Now, you are saying that the Ring magazine is not perfect. What make you think that they are MORE LEGIT than the WBA or WBC? Nobody's perfect. I sometimes question The Ring ratings, myself.
Third, every world champion has mandatory challenges. If not, the organization strips his title. Pedroza did as told. Went by the rules of the WBA. He didn't even had an American promoter. Why? Because the promoters believed that he wasn't MARKETABLE. Too much risk, and not enough money to make a multimillion dollar fight. You don't think that Pedroza wanted a multi-million dollar fight? Excuse me? Every champion wish to fight for millions. He challenged the great Salvador Sanchez. He challenged the great Azumah Nelson. He even called them out many II SD cds u times. What they did? LOOKED THE OTHER WAY....THAT'S THE TRUTH. If you can't handle it, fine, I could live with that.

Fourth, Pedroza defended the crown ALL OVER THE WORLD. A TRUE MEANING AND DEFINITION OF THE WORD WORLD CHAMPION. The parties of the challenger and the champion NEGOTIATE with the WBA in a bid, where would the fight takes place. If the place of whoever fits best for their best interests comes, they'll conclude with the agreement and the WBA sanctioned it.

Fifth, YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

[Ambling Alp II]

Yeah, pretty much everyone is pissed off at you now elmer, because you have been acting like such an idiot.

I will answer you even though you consistently duck my points.

1. The Boxing Register International Boxing Hall of Fame Book is where I am getting my information about Pedroza's opponents. (Maybe you should read the book.) It lists a fighter's opponents, and notes if the opponent was in Ring Magazines' Top 10 at the time of the fight.

2. Ring is not as biased as the WBC, WBA etc. As I have already mentioned, there are many reasons for the WBS Organizations to be biased. It's in their best interest for fighters fighting for their titles to be ranked highly so that it makes the title fights seem more interesting.
It's in Ring Magazine's best interest to put out credible ratings. I know you can never seem to figure anything out, but try to connect the dots.

3. Pedroza challenged people? Great. That really means a lot. How many times have you heard a guy say he will fight anyone and doesn't? "Calling someone out" means nothing.
Makes no sense for these guys to duck Pedroza. They would have got big $, had a chance at a title, and fought on national TV. Ridiculous to think Sanchez, Gomez, Nelson etc. ducked Pedroza.
Again, I love how at first you were saying that Pedroza beat all the top guys around. When I mentioned several that he did not fight, all of sudden you changed your tune and start saying that everyone was ducking him. I guess in elmer world people always duck the champion.

4. Yes Pedroza defended the title all over the world. (Funny that you never bring that up when talking about Ali).
That is not mentioned in your criteria.

5. You know a line from a movie. Congratulations.

[keithmoonhangover]

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

You don't even know what the truth looks like!!!

As if a fighter fighting all over the world makes any difference what-so-ever. As if it adds on legacy points by magic. What a steaming pile of sh1t.

This is the transcript of a telephone call from Glenn 'Road Warrior' Johnson to the IBHOF.

Johnson: "Yeah, hello, is that the International Hall of Fame?"
IBHOF: "Yes, how can I help?"
Johnson: "Yeah, it's Glenn 'Road Warrior' Johnson here, I was wondering when I was getting inducted?"
IBHOF: "Errr, you're not."
Johnson: ""What do you mean I'm not getting in?"
IBHOF: "Errr, you're not good enough."
Johnson: "Yeah, but I've fought all over the word."
IBHOF: "So?"
Johnson: "So? Have you not heard about the new rule?
IBHOF: "No. What is it?"
Johnson: "I get extra legacy points because I've fought all over the world."
IBHOF: "Oh sorry, my mistake, you're in."

[Ambling Alp II]

1. How dominant he was at champion. How many titles he won at all levels of competition.
2. Did he beat at least 3 or 4 very good or great fighters.
3. If he was never a world champion, how did he feared with the best fighters and contenders of his era.
4. Longevity
5. Number of fights, including number of quality wins
6. Unbeaten streaks. How many good fighters did he beat in that stretch
7. If he was champion, how many title defenses he made.
8. If not a heavyweight, how many weight classes he became champ and how competitive he was
9. Awards and accomplishments like Fighter of the Year, Comeback Fighter of the Year, etc.
10. Historical impact.

This criteria is complete bollocks.

1,4,5,6,7,8 and 9 don't actually say what you would need to do to qualify.
2. Great or very good fighters. Could you be any more vague?
3. I just don't understand. If he wasn't a world champion, how would he have fared against the best fighters in the division? He's a world champion, so surely he would have beaten them all.
10. Historical impact? Mickey Ward had historical impact. Does that mean he qualifies?

I asked him to be more specific and he wouldn't. I used my best judgement and guess what? One of elmers favorites didn't come too well. So he has gone into spin mode yet again.

#3 - I think refers to fighters from long ago who never got a title shot, like Sam Langford or Harry Wills.
Yes #10 (Historical Impact) can mean anything. He can claim anyone he likes made an historical impact and anyone he doesn't did not.

You are always going to have some subjectivity. When I started this thread, I was originally trying to adapt a system that Baseball Historian Bill James used to boxing. It certainly can be tweaked. However, I think it is a lot more credible and specific than elmer's.
And guess what? Many fighters that I like don't do too well. Many guys I don't like do well.
I am trying to take the human bias out of it as much as possible.

[keithmoonhangover]

You are always going to have some subjectivity. When I started this thread, I was originally trying to adapt a system that Baseball Historian Bill James used to boxing. It certainly can be tweaked. However, I think it is a lot more credible and specific than elmer's.
And guess what? Many fighters that I like don't do too well. Many guys I don't like do well.
I am trying to take the human bias out of it as much as possible.

I think the Bill James system is an interesting barometer. I've never really thought of a criteria. I do think it's easier for heavyweights.

1. Did they dominate their era against strong competition? Yes and they're in. No and they're not.

Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Holmes, Tyson, and Lewis all in.

[elmersalsa]

Yeah, pretty much everyone is pissed off at you now elmer, because you have been acting like such an idiot.

I will answer you even though you consistently duck my points.

1. The Boxing Register International Boxing Hall of Fame Book is where I am getting my information about Pedroza's opponents. (Maybe you should read the book.) It lists a fighter's opponents, and notes if the opponent was in Ring Magazines' Top 10 at the time of the fight.

2. Ring is not as biased as the WBC, WBA etc. As I have already mentioned, there are many reasons for the WBS Organizations to be biased. It's in their best interest for fighters fighting for their titles to be ranked highly so that it makes the title fights seem more interesting.
It's in Ring Magazine's best interest to put out credible ratings. I know you can never seem to figure anything out, but try to connect the dots.

3. Pedroza challenged people? Great. That really means a lot. How many times have you heard a guy say he will fight anyone and doesn't? "Calling someone out" means nothing.
Makes no sense for these guys to duck Pedroza. They would have got big $, had a chance at a title, and fought on national TV. Ridiculous to think Sanchez, Gomez, Nelson etc. ducked Pedroza.
Again, I love how at first you were saying that Pedroza beat all the top guys around. When I mentioned several that he did not fight, all of sudden you changed your tune and start saying that everyone was ducking him. I guess in elmer world people always duck the champion.

4. Yes Pedroza defended the title all over the world. (Funny that you never bring that up when talking about Ali).
That is not mentioned in your criteria.

5. You know a line from a movie. Congratulations.

1. What makes The Ring more credible than the WBA or WBC? What about Guantes That, is the Ring more credible than Guantes?

2. That The Ring makes credible as possible? I sometimes question their rankings. Pedroza did as told. Mandatory challengers. Sometimes the challenges were overseas where the money is. That's what every champion wants. More money. Top contenders opted to fight the WBC champion because you think they got something to prove? Nooooooo. It's where they think is best for them. Pedroza was the champion before Sanchez. Why Sanchez didn't challenge him? Nelson did the same and Gomez, too. Not one of them challenged Pedroza? Interesting. Why Ruben Castillo didn't challenge him? It's simple. Not enough cash, and GREATER RISKS. Are you going to tell me that Patrick Ford and Juan LaPorte challenged Pedroza second because it was much easier? And if it was, why they didn't challenged him first on the first place? It was simple. Sanchez was THE STAR, and Pedroza was not. He was NOT MARKETABLE for the masses. Sanchez was already having his eyes on the great Alexis Arguello. But what about Eusebio? Is he not good enough? What was the problem? The PROBLEM WAS TOO MUCH RISK AND NOT ENOUGH DOLLARS. If he wanted ti be recognized as the best of the division, why not unify with Pedroza. Something is FISHY THERE.

3. DID Ali defended the heavyweight crown more than Pedroza in someone's else turf? Pedroza did it magnificently, 10 times. More than any champion in history. That's greatness.

I got my criteria. You got your criteria. Bill James has his criteria. Everybody got a criteria. Mine works for me.

[elmersalsa]

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

You don't even know what the truth looks like!!!

As if a fighter fighting all over the world makes any difference what-so-ever. As if it adds on legacy points by magic. What a steaming pile of sh1t.

This is the transcript of a telephone call from Glenn 'Road Warrior' Johnson to the IBHOF.

Johnson: "Yeah, hello, is that the International Hall of Fame?"
IBHOF: "Yes, how can I help?"
Johnson: "Yeah, it's Glenn 'Road Warrior' Johnson here, I was wondering when I was getting inducted?"
IBHOF: "Errr, you're not."
Johnson: ""What do you mean I'm not getting in?"
IBHOF: "Errr, you're not good enough."
Johnson: "Yeah, but I've fought all over the word."
IBHOF: "So?"
Johnson: "So? Have you not heard about the new rule?
IBHOF: "No. What is it?"
Johnson: "I get extra legacy points because I've fought all over the world."
IBHOF: "Oh sorry, my mistake, you're in."

Glen Johnson was not a great champion in the first place. He is not the great Eusebio Pedroza. Are you and Alp now DOUBLE TEAMING ME?

Be more specific. You don't have a clue of nothing, bro.

[Ambling Alp II]

You are always going to have some subjectivity. When I started this thread, I was originally trying to adapt a system that Baseball Historian Bill James used to boxing. It certainly can be tweaked. However, I think it is a lot more credible and specific than elmer's.
And guess what? Many fighters that I like don't do too well. Many guys I don't like do well.
I am trying to take the human bias out of it as much as possible.

I think the Bill James system is an interesting barometer. I've never really thought of a criteria. I do think it's easier for heavyweights.

1. Did they dominate their era against strong competition? Yes and they're in. No and they're not.

Johnson, Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Ali, Holmes, Tyson, and Lewis all in.

These guys rate highly. No question they are legitimate Hall of Famers.
If you take a look at some lesser champions, it gets interesting.
For example, how about Max Schmeling?

Looking at the criteria again :
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?

Schmeling clearly meets 3,4,6,7,9, 10 and 11. You could make a good case that he deserves #5.
That would give him an 8 out of 12. Not a slam dunk like say Johnson or Louis, but he is a legitimate Hall of Famer.

How about Ingemar Johnasson?
He makes 10 and 11. I guess you could argue that he makes #3 (after the first Paterson fight, before the 2nd) for a short time.
He still only scores a 3. He doesn't really seem to have to have much of a case. Not the worst Hall of Famer, but certainly towards the bottom.