BoxRec

Rover wrote: Margarito had achieved fame before the Mosley scandal--at least in Mexico.
But fair enough, back to my Butterbean example.

I know he had, hell I even liked him back before that whole incident, but still I mean when people think of Luis Resto and why he was banned from the sport, they'd surely think of Margarito these days too I would think as he attempted to do the same thing, and for all we know did in previous bouts.

Margarito had fame for what seemed legitimate reasons, now his entire career is in doubt and you have to take his best wins with a grain of salt. That's on him. (it didn't help Margarito's case at all that he never got a big win after the whole "being caught with illegal handwraps" thing)

They're both Infamous now and always will be.

Rover wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:"Hall of Accomplishment" doesn't have a great ring to it, does it?

Exactly. Luis Resto's a famous boxer. HBO even did a documentary about one of his fights. He doesn't belong in the HOF.

Well, this is getting a bit distorted.I am agreeing that the hall of fame is based on fame. We aren't going to vote Charles Manson into the rock and roll hall of fame because he's well known, they aren't unconditionally inclusive, when someone is infamous, as Gilgamesh pointed out.

I was just making the point that the HOF is based on fame. Not based on accomplishment. Of course, they often come together. But if someone has big fame, without big accomplishment, they'll still get in. We've seen this with Gatti, and other cases.

If people liked Butterbean enough, sure he'd get in. Why are we pretending there's some kind of official integrity to this?

I understand how it "is." I'm saying that it shouldn't be that way--and a lot of more obscure but deserving fighters get jipped like Laciar, Zapata, etc.

Nelson is not in the HOF, is he?

That's not a statement on anything, I'm genuinely wondering.

Bobbyptsd wrote:Nelson is not in the HOF, is he?

That's not a statement on anything, I'm genuinely wondering.

He's in and deservedly so. He came back to fight Fenech after both had been inducted.

Rover wrote:

Bobbyptsd wrote:Nelson is not in the HOF, is he?

That's not a statement on anything, I'm genuinely wondering.

He's in and deservedly so. He came back to fight Fenech after both had been inducted.

I didn't know that, I don't know why I thought he wasn't. I did know about the Fenech fight 10 years later.

Bobbyptsd wrote:

Rover wrote:

Bobbyptsd wrote:Nelson is not in the HOF, is he?

That's not a statement on anything, I'm genuinely wondering.

He's in and deservedly so. He came back to fight Fenech after both had been inducted.

I didn't know that, I don't know why I thought he wasn't. I did know about the Fenech fight 10 years later.

I think it was 14 years after their second fight. Azumah got in in 04, I think.

Bobbyptsd wrote:^That's a good point that's often overlooked. It's the hall of fame, not the hall of accomplishment.

Well on that basis Naz definitely should be in.

polecateddy wrote:

Bobbyptsd wrote:^That's a good point that's often overlooked. It's the hall of fame, not the hall of accomplishment.

Well on that basis Naz definitely should be in.

I'd agree, but the guys who would say it should be based solely on accomplishment may not.

what happens