How many of these deserve to make the HOF?

[koolkc107]

I chose 5 from the list.

Corrales and Forrest are no brainers to me tho I concede they may be hard sells to some.

Winky and Zab get in if I am voting as well.

And if Carl doesn't get in, then something is wrong with the process.

The others on this list may get in as well, but I felt them lacking in some aspect or another.

[Ricky_]

Froch & Wright are dead certs for me.

Hatton also, but less so, but I'd never argue against his inclusion due to his popularity & style.

A strong case could be made for Corrales & Kessler should be up for lesser consideration too

I'm not overly keen on most of the others & David Haye is a definite no, even though I was a big fan of his once upon a time.

Personally i think Haye is more deserving than Froch. Unlike Froch, Haye was 'the guy' in his class, and unlike Froch, Haye is a multiweight champion.

[JCS]

I don't really understand why Carl Froch is such a definite HOFer in the eyes of many. I can buy that he gets in, but I don't see him as a no-doubter.

The man wasn't ever the #1 in his division.. the only division he ever competed in. You can blame Ward for that, but still.

[crusader]

I had Froch at #1 during the later stages of Ward's inactivity, as I don't believe someone should hold onto their ranking for so long without fighting. At no point did I think he was better than Ward though, so perhaps in that sense it can be seen as a weak #1 ranking.

Regardless, I don't think being the top guy in the division is nearly as important as the quality of opposition someone faced and how they performed. Whether a fighter is a divisional #1 strongly depends on who else is in the division, and some people obviously have to deal with much tougher and deeper opposition than others do. To mention Haye again, he was the consensus number #1 at CW for a bit, but was that more impressive than what Froch accomplished when Haye's best opponents on the way were Enzo, Mormeck, Fragomeni, and Gurov? And if it wasn't then why should it give Haye any sort of advantage when comparing his merits to Froch's?

Froch had one of the toughest contemporary stretches of opposition over several years of his career, scored a bunch of notable wins, won multiple titles for whatever that's worth, avenged one of his two losses, was in consistently in entertaining fights, and won by spectacular KO in front of one of the biggest crowds ever. He rightfully stood out to many fans as the fighter of his day who was most willing to challenge himself and take on the best, and when you factor that reputation in with the other considerations, I think he has a strong argument.

On the downside, he clearly was second best to Ward when the latter was around, he avenged the loss to Kessler (who Joe clearly beat without needing a second try) when MK was arguably past it, and many had him losing to Dirrell. I can see why some people would vote 'no', but I think these sorts of issues are outweighed by the positives.

Incidentally, what do people think so far about Tim Bradley's merits for HOF induction? He's got a fairly deep resume with some good names on it and was involved in what was named by many as Fight of the Year, but it seems to me like he's struggled to get credit since the first Pacquiao bout.

[Perseus]

I had Froch at #1 during the later stages of Ward's inactivity, as I don't believe someone should hold onto their ranking for so long without fighting. At no point did I think he was better than Ward though, so perhaps in that sense it can be seen as a weak #1 ranking.

Regardless, I don't think being the top guy in the division is nearly as important as the quality of opposition someone faced and how they performed. Whether a fighter is a divisional #1 strongly depends on who else is in the division, and some people obviously have to deal with much tougher and deeper opposition than others do. To mention Haye again, he was the consensus number #1 at CW for a bit, but was that more impressive than what Froch accomplished when Haye's best opponents on the way were Enzo, Mormeck, Fragomeni, and Gurov? And if it wasn't then why should it give Haye any sort of advantage when comparing his merits to Froch's?

Froch had one of the toughest contemporary stretches of opposition over several years of his career, scored a bunch of notable wins, won multiple titles for whatever that's worth, avenged one of his two losses, was in consistently in entertaining fights, and won by spectacular KO in front of one of the biggest crowds ever. He rightfully stood out to many fans as the fighter of his day who was most willing to challenge himself and take on the best, and when you factor that reputation in with the other considerations, I think he has a strong argument.

On the downside, he clearly was second best to Ward when the latter was around, he avenged the loss to Kessler (who Joe clearly beat without needing a second try) when MK was arguably past it, and many had him losing to Dirrell. I can see why some people would vote 'no', but I think these sorts of issues are outweighed by the positives.

Incidentally, what do people think so far about Tim Bradley's merits for HOF induction? He's got a fairly deep resume with some good names on it and was involved in what was named by many as Fight of the Year, but it seems to me like he's struggled to get credit since the first Pacquiao bout.

Froch also represented himself in defeat far better than Haye did.
When Carl was outgunned he still gave an honest effort, Haye basically refused to make an honest effort to win then blamed it on a sore toe.

[pugilisticprofessor]

Take out tarver, I would vote yes on Corrales and add in Castillo too

[jamesmcdonnell]

Froch & Wright are dead certs for me.

Hatton also, but less so, but I'd never argue against his inclusion due to his popularity & style.

A strong case could be made for Corrales & Kessler should be up for lesser consideration too

I'm not overly keen on most of the others & David Haye is a definite no, even though I was a big fan of his once upon a time.

Personally i think Haye is more deserving than Froch. Unlike Froch, Haye was 'the guy' in his class, and unlike Froch, Haye is a multiweight champion.

But cruiserweight was a very weak division, and Haye was never anything like the top dog in the heavyweight division, and beat pretty ordinary competition.

[caldo2025]

The Boxing HOF is such a joke. The question should have been how many of these people DO NOT get in the HOF.

I really wish that Boxing held a higher standard and criteria for HOF induction. MLB and the NFL do it right. Only the elite of the elite make it to their respective HOF's. I knew that when Sylvester Stallone got inducted that the honor was a joke.

[johnswan1]

I knew that when Sylvester Stallone got inducted that the honor was a joke.

Stallone, Rocky and boxing will always go hand in hand. Rocky would have been the influence behind many a fighter and fan. Most boxing fans I know embrace the Rocky series, despite the fights being so unrealistic.

[JCS]

I had Froch at #1 during the later stages of Ward's inactivity, as I don't believe someone should hold onto their ranking for so long without fighting. At no point did I think he was better than Ward though, so perhaps in that sense it can be seen as a weak #1 ranking.

Regardless, I don't think being the top guy in the division is nearly as important as the quality of opposition someone faced and how they performed. Whether a fighter is a divisional #1 strongly depends on who else is in the division, and some people obviously have to deal with much tougher and deeper opposition than others do. To mention Haye again, he was the consensus number #1 at CW for a bit, but was that more impressive than what Froch accomplished when Haye's best opponents on the way were Enzo, Mormeck, Fragomeni, and Gurov? And if it wasn't then why should it give Haye any sort of advantage when comparing his merits to Froch's?

Froch had one of the toughest contemporary stretches of opposition over several years of his career, scored a bunch of notable wins, won multiple titles for whatever that's worth, avenged one of his two losses, was in consistently in entertaining fights, and won by spectacular KO in front of one of the biggest crowds ever. He rightfully stood out to many fans as the fighter of his day who was most willing to challenge himself and take on the best, and when you factor that reputation in with the other considerations, I think he has a strong argument.

On the downside, he clearly was second best to Ward when the latter was around, he avenged the loss to Kessler (who Joe clearly beat without needing a second try) when MK was arguably past it, and many had him losing to Dirrell. I can see why some people would vote 'no', but I think these sorts of issues are outweighed by the positives.

Incidentally, what do people think so far about Tim Bradley's merits for HOF induction? He's got a fairly deep resume with some good names on it and was involved in what was named by many as Fight of the Year, but it seems to me like he's struggled to get credit since the first Pacquiao bout.

Fair enough.

There are plenty of factors involved... such as the, well Froch just happened to fight at the same time as (potentially) the #2 ever in the division.... I get it, but it is what it is. He COULD have tried his luck at another division... I mean after all, who wants to be the #2 guy?

Out of the fighters in the poll, I just can't see how Froch has the most votes.. which effectively means, he's at the top of the list in the opinions of the voters. I just can't buy that. I can't put him ahead of Hatton -- who isn't an ultra lock, but is a pretty strong candidate. And Winky.. who is basically in the same boat, but I'm put him a hair above Hatton.

[davie]

Diego Corrales (IBF Super Featherweight, WBO/WBC Lightweight, beat Castillo in one of the greatest fights of all time)
Vernon Forrest (IBF/WBC Welterweight, WBC Light Middleweight, handed Mosley his first and second losses)
Antonio Tarver (WBC/IBF/WBA Light Heavyweight, famously knocked out Roy Jones Jr)
Zab Judah (IBF Light Welterweight, WBA/WBC/IBF Welterweight, two weight champion, unified at Welter)
Ricky Hatton (IBF/WBA Light Welterweight, WBA Welterweight, retired HOFer Kostya Tszyu, lost to prime Mayweather/Pacman)
Winky Wright (WBO/IBF/WBA/WBC Light Middleweight, consensus P4P Top 5 when he ruled the division)
Jermain Taylor (WBC/WBA/WBO/IBF Middleweight, ended Hopkins Middleweight reign and won the rematch)
Mikkel Kessler (WBA/WBC Super Middleweight, won 9 title fights, lost only to Calzaghe/Ward/Froch)
David Haye (WBA/WBC/WBO Cruiserweight, WBA* Heavyweight, unified at Cruiser, beat the giant Valeuv before losing to Wlad)
Carl Froch (WBC/IBF/WBA Super Middleweight, beat Pascal/Taylor/Dirrell/Abraham/Johnson/Bute/Kessler all who held titles either before/after)

*WBA Super title was held by Wlad.

When you put it like that each of them have a reasonable shout and I don't see any standouts there.
Every man on that list could easily points to a good few fighters in the HOF that are less deserving.