International Boxing Hall of Fame changes starting in 2020

[scorpio83]

If anyone heard about the changes in the International Boxing Hall of Fame, they would induct women boxers for the first time and changed the requirement of modern boxers by cutting from 5 year retirement to 3 year retirement.


www.ibhof.com/pages/inductionweekend/20 ... _2020.html

By December this year, former middleweight and light heavyweight champion Bernard Hopkin and former 3 weight division champion Shane Mosley, who both last fought in 2016 are now eligible to be inducted for the June 2020 International Boxing Hall of Fame. What do you guys think?

[Ambling Alp II]

I guess I don't care about the women boxers getting in. However, I don't like only waiting 3 years to get. A fighter should be out of the game for a while. If he really was a great, people will remember him. The less time away, the more it will favor the recently retired.

Actually if anything it should be raised to 10 years.

I think you will see several boxers that were only retired for three years get in right away. And this is boxing, so you are going to have times when a guy gets elected, and then comes out of retirement.

[chrisjs1985]

I think the three years thing will perhaps initially help with filtering out some of the recent inductions that had no business, like Mancini, Bowe, this years class and others but eventually could lead to some guys just getting in because they are fresh enough in the memory. Whichever way it's done, it's completely watered down. There's at least 20 guys in that aren't really worthy and I'm sure the next 10 years will bring probably at least 10-15 more undeserving. I just wish it was based more on a % of votes and if nobody got enough then nobody is going in. I understand they have tickets to sell so that won't happen but maybe think of a way to still make the weekend worthwhile so you don't induct guys who aren't near the quality or induct some old timer who's been neglected and who has living family members?

2020 will be my first trip to Canastota. I'll be going for what I anticipate is Juan Manuel Marquez' induction.

[Ambling Alp II]

I'm going to let the Bowe thing slide for now.

I do think you are right that someone should have to have to have a certain % (like 75%) to get in. But as you, I realize that they have to select someone every year. Maybe they could do just one guy.

I'm more interested in why you are saying it would filtering out some guys.

[Senya13]

A hall of fame is exactly that, it doesn't require inductees to be ATG's and it was silly from the start when peple were using it as an argument of greatness of this or that fighter, like boxer A beat 10 people who are in IBHOF, boxer B beat just 1, then boxer A is greater because he beat more people in IBHOF. Dumb argument.

[chrisjs1985]

I'm going to let the Bowe thing slide for now.

I do think you are right that someone should have to have to have a certain % (like 75%) to get in. But as you, I realize that they have to select someone every year. Maybe they could do just one guy.

I'm more interested in why you are saying it would filtering out some guys.

I'm saying, for next summer the three who'll be inducted will be Marquez, Hopkins and Mosley. Three guys that would get in under the 5 year rules. Hopkins and Mosley getting in quickly (from their last bout) prevents guys like Hatton and/or Froch who I think would have been voted in due to how recent their popularity was and their profiles. The closest both those fighters should get is with a ticket. I'd personally have voted Rafael Marquez last year but feel he'll be overlooked for a few years unfortunately. I guess the three years just stops delaying the inevitable with guys like Toney, Jones, Mayweather, Hopkins getting their inductions before the likes of Froch, Hatton, Bradley could undeservedly sneak in.

[Ambling Alp II]

OK, i think I see what you are saying. The next time there are just happens to be some deserving candidates who will get in because of the three years rule. They will take away votes from others who clearly don't deserve it but otherwise may have made it (Meaningless stuff that voters care about such as pretty win/loss record against stiffs, a lot WBS title defenses etc.)

I guess I was thinking in the long run. I think we see guys who probably deserve it at all get in three years; had they had to wait longer they might never have made it.

One thing that is often overlooked in Hall of Fame voting in any sport is windows of opportunity. Some years there are legendary fighters who become eligible for the first time. They get and prevent other guys who have been waiting from getting in. However, then the next few years there aren't any and several guys that weren't exactly legends (occasionally not even really that good) get in.

[chrisjs1985]

OK, i think I see what you are saying. The next time there are just happens to be some deserving candidates who will get in because of the three years rule. They will take away votes from others who clearly don't deserve it but otherwise may have made it (Meaningless stuff that voters care about such as pretty win/loss record against stiffs, a lot WBS title defenses etc.)

I guess I was thinking in the long run. I think we see guys who probably deserve it at all get in three years; had they had to wait longer they might never have made it.

One thing that is often overlooked in Hall of Fame voting in any sport is windows of opportunity. Some years there are legendary fighters who become eligible for the first time. They get and prevent other guys who have been waiting from getting in. However, then the next few years there aren't any and several guys that weren't exactly legends (occasionally not even really that good) get in.

I think it's so watered down now that there won't be that much waiting around for guys who miss on the first ballot (2021 ballot will have Klitschko, Mayweather, Ward, Cotto, Toney for example) and the guys who've been criminally overlooked for years like Gilberto Roman, Lionel Rose, Jose Legra, Bert Lytell, Jack Chase, Chucho Castillo, Rafael Herrera will sadly continue to be overlooked since they are either dead or aren't "modern" or "marketable" enough. At least that 2021 class will carry over into 2022 which means the next three ballots keeps off Froch, Hatton, Chris John etc; guys I think would have gotten in under despite not being anywhere near worthy.

[Hookster]

A hall of fame is exactly that, it doesn't require inductees to be ATG's and it was silly from the start when peple were using it as an argument of greatness of this or that fighter, like boxer A beat 10 people who are in IBHOF, boxer B beat just 1, then boxer A is greater because he beat more people in IBHOF. Dumb argument.

Beating Hall of Famers means something... unless those Hall of Famers were washed up when they got beat. If you are talking about an old-timer... sometimes a guy could be an all-time great and a Hall of Famer but never got a world title shot. Jimmy Bivins, Lloyd Marshall, Charley Burley, Sam Langford, Sam McVea, Joe Jeanette, Harry Wills, etcetera.

Ali beat the following Hall of Famers:

Moore- way past-prime.

Liston x2- Liston went in as the lineal HW champ in their first fight.

Patterson- First two time HW champ. Youngest HW champ when he was champ, remains the youngest "Lineal" HW Champ.

Ernie Terrell

Joe Frazier x2

Jimmy Ellis

Bob Foster- Great LHW Champ but not a great HW

Ken Norton x2- 0-3 in world title fights but still a great fighter. He beat Ali and Young. Lost very close fights to Ali (robbed once) and Holmes. He also stopped Quarry, Bobick, Zanon, Middleton, Stander, Clark, Lovell, Garcia, and Kirkman.

George Foreman

It means something.

[Senya13]

Compare the achievements of the best heavyweights in IBHoF to achievements of the best boxers from lower weights, and they are on different levels, yet heavyweight champions got inducted almost automatically. I've been saying this many times, but Benny Yanger's achievements are comparable to Muhammad Ali's, if not greater, and he's not in IBHoF.

[Ambling Alp II]

I agree with senya's point that just adding wins over Hall of Famers can be deceiving. Saying Benny Yanger's achievements are comparable to Ali is obviously far fetched. Having said that, Yanger along with other fighters from lower weights are more deserving that some heavyweights (i.e Willard, Braddock, Kilrain, you know who)

Hookster does make a good point that when you ofught the guy matters a great deal. You also have to take into account that not all Hall of Famers are the same. For example, a win over Ken Buchanan is not the same as a win over Gene Tunney.

[chrisjs1985]

I agree with senya's point that just adding wins over Hall of Famers can be deceiving. Saying Benny Yanger's achievements are comparable to Ali is obviously far fetched. Having said that, Yanger along with other fighters from lower weights are more deserving that some heavyweights (i.e Willard, Braddock, Kilrain, you know who)

Hookster does make a good point that when you ofught the guy matters a great deal. You also have to take into account that not all Hall of Famers are the same. For example, a win over Ken Buchanan is not the same as a win over Gene Tunney.

Mayweather fan logic is that a win over Gatti = a win over Ali and > a win over Jack Chase, Lionel Rose, Tancy Lee etc;

[Senya13]

I don't know why it's far fetched. Yanger has wins over several former or future champions, Harry Forbes, Young Corbett, George Dixon, Abe Attell, and multiple contenders at different weights. Dixon and Attell were better than any name on Ali's winning resume.

[Ambling Alp II]

I would rate Frazier and Foreman higher. Ali also had Liston, Patterson and Norton, and ton of very good fighters. And Ali didn't have all the losses and draws that Yanger had. Yanger isn't remotely in his league.

[Bundana]

"Benny Yanger's achievements are comparable to Muhammad Ali's, if not greater"

LOL... one of the silliest things I've heard in a long time!

[Senya13]

Frazier and Foreman higher than George Dixon and Abe Attell? A ton of mediocre, overrated heavyweights, not a ton of very good fighters.

[Ambling Alp II]

Please.

[Senya13]

You can probably describe Dixon's and Attell's styles, with your own words, or by quoting some good reports? Maybe you can do that for Benny Yanger? Some information about the fights he lost, pre- and post-fight opinions of local sporting writers? A claim that Frazier and Foreman should be ranked higher than Dixon and Attell would be excusable for a man who just started learning boxing history and goes purely on how much he has heard about this or that fighter on websites or in magazines, where the most famous and well-known names are not necessarily the best there had been.

[Bundana]

"A claim that Frazier and Foreman should be ranked higher than Dixon and Attell would be excusable for a man who just started learning boxing history"

So what you're basically saying… is that those who don't agree with you, simply lack the knowledge to properly evaluate boxers. What a superior, condescending attitude!

[Senya13]

I can refer the same questions to you, can you describe Dixon's, Attell's or Yanger's styles for a start, so I know I'm talking to somebody who researched them and has the expertise to judge their all-time placement?

[Ambling Alp II]

Sometimes people can simply disagree. I think saying Attell and Dixon were better than Frazier and Foreman is debatable, but I don't agree with it.

Where should we put Matty Baldwin, Steve Kinney, Kid Herman, Aurelio Herrera, and Eddie Hanlon among the pantheon of greats? They all have one thing in common.

[Senya13]

Where should we put Leon Spinks and Ken Norton, as well as a couple other heavyweights who were robbed of decisions in their favor around 1976-77, among the pantheon of greats?

[Bundana]

Senya, I know (from another site) that very few have studied the old-timers like you have. Not many can match your knowledge, when it comes to discussing the time period we're dealing with here.

However, when we're talking about old fighters with very little (or no) footage, you rely on old newspaper reports - where you run the risk of brainwashing yourself into believing, that those old boxers were as good (or better) than todays fighters.

But those articles, praising the skills of those early 20th century boxers, were written by reporters who had no idea of what boxing would look like only 40-50 years into the future. They had never seen anyone box like a Louis, Pep and Robinson (or a Mayweather, Pacquiao or Lomachenko from more recent times).

[oogiebe]

Where should we put Leon Spinks and Ken Norton, as well as a couple other heavyweights who were robbed of decisions in their favor around 1976-77, among the pantheon of greats?

Not to change the subject, but I find having Leon and Kenny in the same regard a bit preposterous.

[Senya13]

Not to change the subject, but I find having Leon and Kenny in the same regard a bit preposterous.

The Ring, May 1981
The "worst" heavyweight champions
John Tate (WBA, 1979-80) 19.5
Primo Carnera (1933-34) 14
Marvin Hart (1905-06) 8
Leon Spinks (1978) 8
Ken Norton (WBC, 1978) 4
Ingemar Johansson (1959-60) 3.5
Jimmy Ellis (WBA, 1968-70) 2
Ernie Terrell (WBA, 1965-67) 1
Jess Willard (1915-19) 1