BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Controversial wrote:It has to be remembered what the criteria is for getting into the IBHOF. It isn't about whose the best or ATGs. From their website "Our mission is to honor and preserve boxing's rich heritage, chronicle the achievements of those who excelled and provide an educational experience for our many visitors"

Thats why there are refs, promoters, trainers, journalists and even Sylvester Stallone is in there.

For a boxer to get in there I would have thought they would need to be either an ATG or at least someone who dominated their division, or was too good for their own good and avoided like the plague. For me Bowe didn't do enough and personally I think Hamed is more deserving than him. Its a fine line deciding who gets in and will always cause debate.

Bowe beat a prime Evander Holyfield. Who did Hamed beat that was remotely as good?

But that's all Bowe has. As I said it isn't only about who beat who but an entire career. For me Hamed made numerous defences, was a box office draw, exciting to watch, controversial and created a buzz. Plus he beat some good fighters, ok no ATG greats but some good fighters. He made some wins look very easy. In its entirety his career trumps Bowes two wins over Holyfield in my opinion. I can understand why some people might disagree but that's my opinion.

Such skewed thinking. How can anyone possibly conflate the title reigns of Bowe and Hamed? Bowe is marked down for losing the undisputed title to the number 2 elite heavyweight in the world - in a fight sandwiched by wins over said - while Hamed is actually marked up for making a long series of paper title defences against nobody elite! And then finally losing in lopsided manner to another carefully selected opponent who turned out to be elite at feather!

Who is Hamed's equivalent of Evander Holyfield?

MAB....and MAB mopped the floor with him. lol

However, the guy was a lightening rod of entertainment to the fight fans.

He was "famous".

And it is that for which the "Hall" is named. ......so he deserves it. Albeit by the back door.

P.S.
And for my money....his potential..... that I believe he squandered.....but potential alone is not enough to get yourself in by either door.

Controversial wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Controversial wrote:It has to be remembered what the criteria is for getting into the IBHOF. It isn't about whose the best or ATGs. From their website "Our mission is to honor and preserve boxing's rich heritage, chronicle the achievements of those who excelled and provide an educational experience for our many visitors"

Thats why there are refs, promoters, trainers, journalists and even Sylvester Stallone is in there.

For a boxer to get in there I would have thought they would need to be either an ATG or at least someone who dominated their division, or was too good for their own good and avoided like the plague. For me Bowe didn't do enough and personally I think Hamed is more deserving than him. Its a fine line deciding who gets in and will always cause debate.

Bowe beat a prime Evander Holyfield. Who did Hamed beat that was remotely as good?

But that's all Bowe has. As I said it isn't only about who beat who but an entire career. For me Hamed made numerous defences, was a box office draw, exciting to watch, controversial and created a buzz. Plus he beat some good fighters, ok no ATG greats but some good fighters. He made some wins look very easy. In its entirety his career trumps Bowes two wins over Holyfield in my opinion. I can understand why some people might disagree but that's my opinion.

Bowe was also a box office draw, exciting to watch, controversial and created a buzz. And none of those things should mean anything as to whether someone should get into the Hall of Fame.

Numerous WBS title defenses shouldn't get you in if the competition wasn't strong. Bowe beat other guys who were just as good if not better than Hamed's victims.
Bowe beat a great fighter at his best because he was good enough. Hamed couldn't beat a great fighter because he wasn't good enough.

klompton wrote:Its just remarkable to me that a guy can get in based literally on two wins. Two freaking wins over the same fighter. Its nuts. Nate Bolden beat Tony Zale twice and Lamotta once, why not let him in? Soldier Bartfield beat Jack Britton 2x, Kid Graves, Mike Gibbons, Harry Greb, Kid Lewis 2x, Bryan Downey, and Billy Papke. Why isnt he in? Im not suggesting for a second those guys should be in but thats the same criteria that is used to validate Bowe. Good lord, Bartfield's best wins piss all over Bowes and nobody would argue for his induction. Its just silly. Hamed is even worse. He beat nobody and lost to the only halfway threatening guy he ever fought and he only chose that fight because he thought the guy was shot AND the guy was coming up in weight.

It's not just about having a huge win. It's also about being consistent; you have to beat the guys that aren't great as well.

Bolden and Barfield (and others of course) have some big wins. However, they each lost many times to very ordinary fighters. Bowe did not.

Bowe beat the guys you expect him to, and proved that he could beat a great fighter. A great fighter does both.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

klompton wrote:Its just remarkable to me that a guy can get in based literally on two wins. Two freaking wins over the same fighter. Its nuts. Nate Bolden beat Tony Zale twice and Lamotta once, why not let him in? Soldier Bartfield beat Jack Britton 2x, Kid Graves, Mike Gibbons, Harry Greb, Kid Lewis 2x, Bryan Downey, and Billy Papke. Why isnt he in? Im not suggesting for a second those guys should be in but thats the same criteria that is used to validate Bowe. Good lord, Bartfield's best wins piss all over Bowes and nobody would argue for his induction. Its just silly. Hamed is even worse. He beat nobody and lost to the only halfway threatening guy he ever fought and he only chose that fight because he thought the guy was shot AND the guy was coming up in weight.

It's not just about having a huge win. It's also about being consistent; you have to beat the guys that aren't great as well.

Bolden and Barfield (and others of course) have some big wins. However, they each lost many times to very ordinary fighters. Bowe did not.

Bowe beat the guys you expect him to, and proved that he could beat a great fighter. A great fighter does both.

They were also fighting under much more difficult conditions. Had they had the luxury of only having to fight only 45 bouts over a career, most of which were against weak competition, their records would likely look more consistent. But frankly its not about consistency because if thats the case guys like Fritzie Zivic wouldnt be in. What its really about is that guys like Bowe and Hamed are alive and can actually show up to the induction, attract fans, and spend half the day in the back room signing a bunch of junk for the Brophy's to sell off and fill their coffers with. Ask Larry Holmes how the Brophys operate. The Hall of Fame isnt anywhere near a hallowed hall, its a money making scheme.

I think ever since Gatti (and hell lets be honest, even some years before that) the IBHOF became more a "fame" induction than a merit induction.... not to say these guys weren't good or great, no one gets close to a title or wins a title without being good or great... but these guys were more famous, than they were great.

Well of course it's a business. It's a physical place. They need to bring in customers; they have to induct somebody. Not arguing that.

Yes guys like Bolden and Bartield fought in an era where you fought more had you had to take fights at short notice etc. However, come on; look at their records. They simply lost way to much. There were other fighters in their era who were much more consistent.

Again, how many guys go 43-1 against Bowe's competition?

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Bowe was also a box office draw, exciting to watch, controversial and created a buzz. And none of those things should mean anything as to whether someone should get into the Hall of Fame.

Numerous WBS title defenses shouldn't get you in if the competition wasn't strong. Bowe beat other guys who were just as good if not better than Hamed's victims.
Bowe beat a great fighter at his best because he was good enough. Hamed couldn't beat a great fighter because he wasn't good enough.

I don't believe that Bowe drew the same excitement or drama like Hamed did. Holyfield aside Bowe's opposition was poor, just 2 title defences against Dokes and Ferguson of all people. He was also later a WBO champ just like Hamed. Remember the great MAB fought Hamed for the IBO title, not one of the major belts. Bowe was a very good fighter but as HW champ he took too many easy options and for me is only memorable for the Holyfield fights. Hameds opposition I think gets unfairly ridiculed, he fought some good guys, champ at 21 and beat Medina, Johnson, Kelley, McCullough, 9 of them were former champs and JMM rejected an offer to fight him. He beat all these guys in title defences which normally makes for a tougher fight as challengers normally whip themselves into great shape and are more 'up' for a fight than maybe they would be in a regular non-title fight.

Ambling Alp II wrote: Yes guys like Bolden and Bartield fought in an era where you fought more had you had to take fights at short notice etc. However, come on; look at their records. They simply lost way to much. There were other fighters in their era who were much more consistent.

Again, thats simply not illustrated in the Hall. Besides, what does consistency even mean. There are plenty of guys who were "consistent" by sporting glossy win/loss ratios against weak competition. Zivic is in the hall and has 65 losses spread out over every phase of his career. He was inconsistent. Period. Yet hes in. It has nothing to do with consistency. I dont think anyone disputes that Bowe has a shallow record. And Ive never heard of consistency being used as criteria for induction. That would be especially laughable when applied to a guy who essentially fought for 7 years, and only managed 45 fights (including his two meaningless comebacks) half of which were throwaways. The guy has exactly 2 ATG wins. It has to be easily one of the weakest records in the Hall and you cant tell me it wasnt motivated by the fact that Bowe was A. a HW and B. Alive to sign autographs.

When I point out consistency, I am pointing out a major factor in rating a fighter. I am not saying that the Hall of Fame always considers that. Of course there are many guys in the Hall of Fame who should not be there. I guess you could argue that Zivic is a unique case because there are so many really good fighters that he beat. I certainly believe he was better than Bolden and Bartifield However, I would have no problem if he wasn't in.

Controversial wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Bowe was also a box office draw, exciting to watch, controversial and created a buzz. And none of those things should mean anything as to whether someone should get into the Hall of Fame.

Numerous WBS title defenses shouldn't get you in if the competition wasn't strong. Bowe beat other guys who were just as good if not better than Hamed's victims.
Bowe beat a great fighter at his best because he was good enough. Hamed couldn't beat a great fighter because he wasn't good enough.

I don't believe that Bowe drew the same excitement or drama like Hamed did. Holyfield aside Bowe's opposition was poor, just 2 title defences against Dokes and Ferguson of all people. He was also later a WBO champ just like Hamed. Remember the great MAB fought Hamed for the IBO title, not one of the major belts. Bowe was a very good fighter but as HW champ he took too many easy options and for me is only memorable for the Holyfield fights. Hameds opposition I think gets unfairly ridiculed, he fought some good guys, champ at 21 and beat Medina, Johnson, Kelley, McCullough, 9 of them were former champs and JMM rejected an offer to fight him. He beat all these guys in title defences which normally makes for a tougher fight as challengers normally whip themselves into great shape and are more 'up' for a fight than maybe they would be in a regular non-title fight.

I think Bowe did draw the excitement that Hamed did, and again it has no bearing if either should be in the Hall of Fame or not.

I don't care if a fight was for the WBO title, the IBO title, any other WBS title or no title at all. You can be a "champion" of these and not be that good at all.
Don't care about the number of title defenses against fighters ordinary fighters. No one should.

There was nothing special at all about Medina, Johnson, Kelly or McCullough. The only time you hear about these guys is when someone is trying to prop up Hamed. They all lost several times to other fighters who weren't great. Those wins are no more impressive than beating Tubbs, Hide, Seldon, Donald etc.

Bowe proved he could beat a great fighter. Hamed never did. Bowe was better. It's that simple.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Controversial wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:
Bowe was also a box office draw, exciting to watch, controversial and created a buzz. And none of those things should mean anything as to whether someone should get into the Hall of Fame.

Numerous WBS title defenses shouldn't get you in if the competition wasn't strong. Bowe beat other guys who were just as good if not better than Hamed's victims.
Bowe beat a great fighter at his best because he was good enough. Hamed couldn't beat a great fighter because he wasn't good enough.

I don't believe that Bowe drew the same excitement or drama like Hamed did. Holyfield aside Bowe's opposition was poor, just 2 title defences against Dokes and Ferguson of all people. He was also later a WBO champ just like Hamed. Remember the great MAB fought Hamed for the IBO title, not one of the major belts. Bowe was a very good fighter but as HW champ he took too many easy options and for me is only memorable for the Holyfield fights. Hameds opposition I think gets unfairly ridiculed, he fought some good guys, champ at 21 and beat Medina, Johnson, Kelley, McCullough, 9 of them were former champs and JMM rejected an offer to fight him. He beat all these guys in title defences which normally makes for a tougher fight as challengers normally whip themselves into great shape and are more 'up' for a fight than maybe they would be in a regular non-title fight.

I think Bowe did draw the excitement that Hamed did, and again it has no bearing if either should be in the Hall of Fame or not.

I don't care if a fight was for the WBO title, the IBO title, any other WBS title or no title at all. You can be a "champion" of these and not be that good at all.
Don't care about the number of title defenses against fighters ordinary fighters. No one should.

There was nothing special at all about Medina, Johnson, Kelly or McCullough. The only time you hear about these guys is when someone is trying to prop up Hamed. They all lost several times to other fighters who weren't great. Those wins are no more impressive than beating Tubbs, Hide, Seldon, Donald etc.

Bowe proved he could beat a great fighter. Hamed never did. Bowe was better. It's that simple.

At least on this we can agree.

Hameds career was all hype, loud noise, smoke and mirrors (literally). He feasted on smaller fighters moving up and has beens and didnt always good doing it even though he should have. The guy never learned to box and it showed when he met someone who had a solid grounding in fundamentals and even then that guy was cherry picked because he was thought to be vulnerable. Hamed had just gotten to the point where he could have started to make a case for being HOF worthy and he failed miserably. But again, he will probably show up and when he does the Brophy's can cash in on him.

Let me ask you this, who are some guys that you consider to be borderline Hall of Famers who are in ? I am assuming that you agree with fighters like Robinson, Langford, Greb, Ali etc.
I am assuming that you strongly disagree with a guys like Mancini, Gatti, Willard, etc.
Where is the bar for you? ie if a fighter was clearly better than this guy, then he should be in. If clearly not, he should not be?

Give me some names of say 5-10 borderline guys.