Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

[Wee Tommy]

Why do people want fighters who done their beat and were very famous to be kept out of a dingy run down hall in the middle of nowhere?

It’s pathetic.

If doing your best was the only prerequisite for getting in the Hall of Fame then 99.9% of fighters would be eligible. That line of thinking is whats pathetic.

If the dingy run down hall is so dingy and run down why would you care so much if these guys got in?

Give these guys the credit they deserve. That’s what I’m saying. Im sure it means a lot more to the fighters than the guys deriding their careers to be in that Old Hall.

[Onetimeonly]

Why do people want fighters who done their beat and were very famous to be kept out of a dingy run down hall in the middle of nowhere?

It’s pathetic.

If doing your best was the only prerequisite for getting in the Hall of Fame then 99.9% of fighters would be eligible. That line of thinking is whats pathetic.

If the dingy run down hall is so dingy and run down why would you care so much if these guys got in?

Give these guys the credit they deserve. That’s what I’m saying. Im sure it means a lot more to the fighters than the guys deriding their careers to be in that Old Hall.

There's two sides. The guys who are more deserving that have been waiting forever and have to see someone like vitali go in first ballot with zero wins of note. That's what bothers me. Though to your point, I really couldn't care less.

[Wee Tommy]

If doing your best was the only prerequisite for getting in the Hall of Fame then 99.9% of fighters would be eligible. That line of thinking is whats pathetic.

If the dingy run down hall is so dingy and run down why would you care so much if these guys got in?

Give these guys the credit they deserve. That’s what I’m saying. Im sure it means a lot more to the fighters than the guys deriding their careers to be in that Old Hall.

There's two sides. The guys who are more deserving that have been waiting forever and have to see someone like vitali go in first ballot with zero wins of note. That's what bothers me. Though to your point, I really couldn't care less.

I know that side also, I used to gaf but not now. I think it shouldn’t be treated as if it’s sacred, there should be loads more guys in than there is. Stingy old bastards

[f read]

Why do people want fighters who done their beat and were very famous to be kept out of a dingy run down hall in the middle of nowhere?

It’s pathetic.

If doing your best was the only prerequisite for getting in the Hall of Fame then 99.9% of fighters would be eligible. That line of thinking is whats pathetic.

If the dingy run down hall is so dingy and run down why would you care so much if these guys got in?

Agreed and well said.

[klompton]

Why do people want fighters who done their beat and were very famous to be kept out of a dingy run down hall in the middle of nowhere?

It’s pathetic.

If doing your best was the only prerequisite for getting in the Hall of Fame then 99.9% of fighters would be eligible. That line of thinking is whats pathetic.

If the dingy run down hall is so dingy and run down why would you care so much if these guys got in?

Give these guys the credit they deserve. That’s what I’m saying. Im sure it means a lot more to the fighters than the guys deriding their careers to be in that Old Hall.

Theres a huge ocean sized gulf between giving a fighter credit and inducting him into the hall of fame. Ken Norton's claim to fame was giving two greater fighters stylistic problems in losing 3 out of 4 fights against them. Thats literally it. After that his resume drops off dramatically. He is the only heavyweight "champion" (and I cringe applying that honorific to him) I can think of, even in this era of watered down, pointless paper titles that never won a championship fight. He was literally given his title after winning a gift decision over Jimmy Young (for all of those that always cry about him losing the third fight to Ali) and couldnt defend it. When the best, most convincing win on your record outside of his one round swing split decision over Ali is over a shot, coked up Jerry Quarry who took the fight on short notice you dont need to be in the hall of fame. Your resume isnt anywhere deep enough to be inducted over 100 other fighters from various weight divisions who accomplished more and had a lot better scalps on their resume. If we just throwing around inductions into the hall of fame to any tom dick and harry who gave more famous fighters problems then Jimmy Young should have gotten in there long before Norton. He got robbed against Norton, robbed against Ali, dropped and beat Foreman (who obliterated Norton), Beat Ron Lyle twice, drew with Shavers. Young took more risks than Norton and did better head to head against their common opponents. My point isnt that Young should be in the HOF. He shouldnt. But if he doesnt get in then why should Norton by virtue of nothing more than (if we are being honest) beating Ali once and later getting handed a belt without having to earn it??

[Nile4000]

In Mancini's case, I would say no, and I'm a Mancini fan. I think the feel good stroy concerning his father helps his case with many, but I always felt he could have done more. Like a couple of more defenses, a possible unification with Rosario, and fighting certain fighters. The Kim fight may have subconsciously hurt his career, but based on what we got, no.

There were other multi million dollar fights in his future Aaron Pryor was a superfight for Ohio. Hector Camacho that fight happened 5 years to late. You know Mancinis style was only for the short term not the long term. When he retired after the second Bramble fight he was only 23 years of age just shy of his 24th birthday. The fights with Trentonian Kenny Bang Bang Bang Bogner never happened. He sure was exciting however. Howard Davis was another opponent like Bogner who always thought Mancini avoided him. Stylewise that may have been a bad fight for Mancini as was the Bramble fight. I will say the second Bramble fight was very very close and Mancini really fought his heart out and gave it his all. The Kim fight i am sure took something out of him even though after such he fought a great fight against Bobby Chacon.

I would have wanted to see Ray fight against Howard Davis Jr and Gato Gonzalez. Right now, I realize that Ray probably would have beaten Howard, who made a lot of excuses about certain situations, but Gato had a strong serious chance at cleaning Ray clock, especially if they fight outside of Ohio. Robert Elizondo and Andrew Ganigan as well.

[Ambling Alp II]

If doing your best was the only prerequisite for getting in the Hall of Fame then 99.9% of fighters would be eligible. That line of thinking is whats pathetic.

If the dingy run down hall is so dingy and run down why would you care so much if these guys got in?

Give these guys the credit they deserve. That’s what I’m saying. Im sure it means a lot more to the fighters than the guys deriding their careers to be in that Old Hall.

Theres a huge ocean sized gulf between giving a fighter credit and inducting him into the hall of fame. Ken Norton's claim to fame was giving two greater fighters stylistic problems in losing 3 out of 4 fights against them. Thats literally it. After that his resume drops off dramatically. He is the only heavyweight "champion" (and I cringe applying that honorific to him) I can think of, even in this era of watered down, pointless paper titles that never won a championship fight. He was literally given his title after winning a gift decision over Jimmy Young (for all of those that always cry about him losing the third fight to Ali) and couldnt defend it. When the best, most convincing win on your record outside of his one round swing split decision over Ali is over a shot, coked up Jerry Quarry who took the fight on short notice you dont need to be in the hall of fame. Your resume isnt anywhere deep enough to be inducted over 100 other fighters from various weight divisions who accomplished more and had a lot better scalps on their resume. If we just throwing around inductions into the hall of fame to any tom dick and harry who gave more famous fighters problems then Jimmy Young should have gotten in there long before Norton. He got robbed against Norton, robbed against Ali, dropped and beat Foreman (who obliterated Norton), Beat Ron Lyle twice, drew with Shavers. Young took more risks than Norton and did better head to head against their common opponents. My point isnt that Young should be in the HOF. He shouldnt. But if he doesnt get in then why should Norton by virtue of nothing more than (if we are being honest) beating Ali once and later getting handed a belt without having to earn it??

The win over Young was not a gift. It was a very close fight that could have gone either way. It was a great fight and Norton performed very well. Have never heard anyone say that Young was robbed. And no Young was not robbed against Ali. Quarry was not shot. Norton for the most part dominated him. How about the Larry Holmes fight? He gave Holmes all he could handle in a great fight. Norton did a lot more than Young and unlike Young didn't have a ton of losses either. Norton is a legitimate Hall of Famer.

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't think there is much gap between Norton and Young. Lots of Youngs losses occurred when he was past his best and while he officially lost to Norton in a close fight he beat Foreman who beat Norton.

Why is Norton more deserving than someone like George Benton, Henry Hank, or Joey Giambra?

There seems to be a tendency to overrate heavyweights but that division if anything seems lacking in depth relative to many other divisions.

[Ambling Alp II]

Maybe not a huge gap, but there is a gap. Young lost fights early, middle, and late part of his career. Norton beat Ali. Norton gave Holmes all he could handle in a great fight.
Norton is more deserving than Benton, Hank, and Giambra because he was better.

Agree that too many heavyweights are in. However, Norton is not one of them. People should be talking about guys like Kilrain, Willard, Miske, Braddock, Johansson, and he who shall not be named. He was far better than them.

You could make a pretty good argument that he was more deserving than guys like Corbett, Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer, Walcott, and Patterson.
Why Norton is being singled out is baffling.

[f read]

Norton fought in the glory years of the heavyweight division. He fought Ali and Foreman amongst many others. He was Alis most difficult opponent stylewise. Ali went 39 rounds with him and could not figure him out. Holmes also barely won a close decision over him as well. There is no question in my mind if Norton Quarry Shavers and Young fought at a different time in the divisions history they would have been world champions. For how long is another story but the fact is they fought the very best. I also think that Norton defeats Leon Spinks in February 1978 and Ali if they had a fourth fight. In 1978 he had much more left than Ali who was a the end of his time by then.

[Cojimar 1946]

He is more deserving than Braddock or Willard. But I think Walcott and Schmeling had better careers overall. The thing is Norton had a relatively brief prime roughly 5 years and within that brief period would only rank as the 4th to 6th best heavyweight of that era depending on criteria.

[Ambling Alp II]

4th to 6th?
Ali, Frazier, and Foreman, maybe if you count Holmes who reached his prime at the end of Norton's. That would make him 5th at worst.
Much more importantly, you have to consider the quality of the era. You always seem to forget that part.

Norton would have been the best heavyweight in some eras; 2nd or 3rd in others.

Glad you realize that he was better than Willard and Braddock. Again, Norton also much better than Kilrain, Miske, Johannson, and he should not be named.

Schmeling and Walcott? If you use the same argument that you used for Norton, there were better heavyweights in their eras which were weaker. Certainly arguable they were better, but if you think Norton certainly doesn't belong, than these guys have to be iffy at best.

[BoxBuzz]

Ken Norton never won a title fight Mancini had 4 title defenses McGuigan had 2 title defenses and Gatti was most famous for his trilogy with Mickey Ward. What do the members of this board think?

First, the number of title defenses don't mean anything. At all.
Ken Norton deserves to be in there. There of of course many in the HOF that were better. However there are many that are worse as well.
I don't think Mancini and Mcguigan did quite enough, but I guess you can make some sort of argument for them.
Gatti doesn't really have a case. If boxbuzz still was active on this Forum he would say that it's the Boxing Hall of Fame. He was a big draw and was more famous than fighters who were better than him. I never went along with that argument. It's called the Hall of Fame because we have to call it something. Hall of great fighters doesn't really have a ring to it.

Gatti was fun to watch and he was willing to take on anyone. He several exciting fights against good but not great fighters (not just Ward) who were close to his level. He was great for the sport, but simply was not good enough to be the HOF.

Norton by way of his deeds.....he gave Ali and Holmes all they could handle.

Gatti well.....by way of his ability to garner attention. Like Alp said.....Boxbuzz makes the case that it's the "Hall of Fame"
Not the "Hall of Skill" And boxbuzz KNOWS what he's talkin' about.

McGuigan? Hmm......I think he's a harder sell..........but I wouldn't think it impossible for him to garner the support to get there.

[chrisjs1985]

None. Which isn't to diminish their careers, talents, and impact on the sport, but I have a strict definition of what I think a HOF level fighter should be. I'd say there may be 20-25 other guys I wouldn't have given the thumbs up to that are also enshrined.

[Ambling Alp II]

Norton is a rock solid, middle of the road Hall of Famer. There are easily more than 25-30 HOF Famers that he was better than. Probably at least 80.
I don't know what it is that some people have against him. I don't know if they are putting too much stock in his late career (i.e. the Cooney fight) or what.

[Crease]

All four of them - yes.

[Cojimar 1946]

The late career defeats for Norton understandably are of concern because the brutal decisive nature of his losses to Cooney and Shavers strongly suggest he loses to them prime for prime. A fighters durability doesn't just disappear when they hit their mid late 30s. If he was able to beat either of those guys at his best the fights should have been far more competitive.

[Tuan_Jim]

The late career defeats for Norton understandably are of concern because the brutal decisive nature of his losses to Cooney and Shavers strongly suggest he loses to them prime for prime. A fighters durability doesn't just disappear when they hit their mid late 30s. If he was able to beat either of those guys at his best the fights should have been far more competitive.

One of the most inaccurate statements ever written on Boxrec.

[JC]

Norton by way of his deeds.....he gave Ali and Holmes all they could handle.

Gatti well.....by way of his ability to garner attention. Like Alp said.....Boxbuzz makes the case that it's the "Hall of Fame"
Not the "Hall of Skill" And boxbuzz KNOWS what he's talkin' about.

McGuigan? Hmm......I think he's a harder sell..........but I wouldn't think it impossible for him to garner the support to get there.

If you are going by that criteria, McGuigan in his prime was much more famous than Gatti.

He was/still is a household name in both the Uk and Ireland, and had a decent profile in the US amongst boxing fans.

Even after the Ward fights Gatti was mainly known by boxing fans.

[BoxBuzz]

Norton by way of his deeds.....he gave Ali and Holmes all they could handle.

Gatti well.....by way of his ability to garner attention. Like Alp said.....Boxbuzz makes the case that it's the "Hall of Fame"
Not the "Hall of Skill" And boxbuzz KNOWS what he's talkin' about.

McGuigan? Hmm......I think he's a harder sell..........but I wouldn't think it impossible for him to garner the support to get there.

If you are going by that criteria, McGuigan in his prime was much more famous than Gatti.

He was/still is a household name in both the Uk and Ireland, and had a decent profile in the US amongst boxing fans.

Even after the Ward fights Gatti was mainly known by boxing fans.

Ah...I stand corrected, as I was giving a more U.S. centric assessment. Good point.

[Cojimar 1946]

The late career defeats for Norton understandably are of concern because the brutal decisive nature of his losses to Cooney and Shavers strongly suggest he loses to them prime for prime. A fighters durability doesn't just disappear when they hit their mid late 30s. If he was able to beat either of those guys at his best the fights should have been far more competitive.

One of the most inaccurate statements ever written on Boxrec.

Not at all, Norton was in his late 30s. Plenty of guys retain their durability at that stage. Look at Holyfield, Ali, Holmes, Foreman, etc.

Norton was only slightly past his best when he was blown out by Shavers. It seems widely implausible that such a brutal blowout loss is going to have a totally different outcome with a slightly younger Norton. If he was beating Cooney and Shavers prime for prime those fights should have been far more competitive.

[Ambling Alp II]

The late career defeats for Norton understandably are of concern because the brutal decisive nature of his losses to Cooney and Shavers strongly suggest he loses to them prime for prime. A fighters durability doesn't just disappear when they hit their mid late 30s. If he was able to beat either of those guys at his best the fights should have been far more competitive.

One of the most inaccurate statements ever written on Boxrec.

It is absurd that the Cooney fight even gets mentioned. Some people just don't understand the sport.
Even with Shavers, he was 35 years old and facing the hardest puncher in the history of the sport. Not exactly damning evidence against him.
Watch the fights with Ledoux and Cobb, which were between Shavers and Conney. Watch his fights between 1973-1978. There is no comparison.
Many guys are retired by this time. Almost without exception, the rest are far past their best.
Ali I, Ali II, Ali III. Quarry. Bobick. Young. Holmes. More than enough evidence.

[AntonioMartin]

If doing your best was the only prerequisite for getting in the Hall of Fame then 99.9% of fighters would be eligible. That line of thinking is whats pathetic.

If the dingy run down hall is so dingy and run down why would you care so much if these guys got in?

Give these guys the credit they deserve. That’s what I’m saying. Im sure it means a lot more to the fighters than the guys deriding their careers to be in that Old Hall.

There's two sides. The guys who are more deserving that have been waiting forever and have to see someone like vitali go in first ballot with zero wins of note. That's what bothers me. Though to your point, I really couldn't care less.

I think Vitaly is a deserving Hall of Famer but aside from that, what you said is exactly what I mean also...there are many I think deserve to be in and are not.

But it's just my opinion also and the world is wonderfully filled with different opinions, be it what they are..that's democracy at work...

[Cojimar 1946]

The late career defeats for Norton understandably are of concern because the brutal decisive nature of his losses to Cooney and Shavers strongly suggest he loses to them prime for prime. A fighters durability doesn't just disappear when they hit their mid late 30s. If he was able to beat either of those guys at his best the fights should have been far more competitive.

One of the most inaccurate statements ever written on Boxrec.

It is absurd that the Cooney fight even gets mentioned. Some people just don't understand the sport.
Even with Shavers, he was 35 years old and facing the hardest puncher in the history of the sport. Not exactly damning evidence against him.
Watch the fights with Ledoux and Cobb, which were between Shavers and Conney. Watch his fights between 1973-1978. There is no comparison.
Many guys are retired by this time. Almost without exception, the rest are far past their best.
Ali I, Ali II, Ali III. Quarry. Bobick. Young. Holmes. More than enough evidence.

No doubt he was past his prime. But it still certainly doesn't bode well that he lost decisively to Cooney and Shavers at that stage in his career.

Frankly there are plenty of past prime heavyweights I would pick to beat Cooney and Shavers some well past the age of 37.

I don't see Cooney or Shavers scoring quick kayo wins over the 2002 Holyfield who was nearly 40 years old and with far more brutal fights to his credit than Norton had.

[Onetimeonly]

Give these guys the credit they deserve. That’s what I’m saying. Im sure it means a lot more to the fighters than the guys deriding their careers to be in that Old Hall.

There's two sides. The guys who are more deserving that have been waiting forever and have to see someone like vitali go in first ballot with zero wins of note. That's what bothers me. Though to your point, I really couldn't care less.

I think Vitaly is a deserving Hall of Famer but aside from that, what you said is exactly what I mean also...there are many I think deserve to be in and are not.

But it's just my opinion also and the world is wonderfully filled with different opinions, be it what they are..that's democracy at work...

Vitali is easily the least deserving.