BoxRec

Tuan_Jim wrote:No, he did not duck him. He deferred him. It did not make fistic or fiscal sense to fight Lennox Lewis in his first title defence, and Bowe and Newman were not going to aid and abet the crooked WBC gangsters efforts to restore power to the frozen out Don King.

Bowe spent the rest of his career pursuing a fight with Lewis. He pursues a fight with Lewis to this day. Had they fought in 93, or 94, or 95, I don't think Lewis would have come out at all well. Bowe was a complete fighter at that point, whereas Lewis was an incomplete fighter - and Bowe's hatred for him was even more violent than his hatred of Gonzalez, another guy who traded off a meaningless amateur win over a teenager.

Aww, bless you. How did it not make fistic sense?

To come off a hellish war with Evander Holyfield and then go straight in with Lennox Lewis?

I'm not sure what else I can write to explain it to you.

Can a mod tell me whether there is a device on here to draw pictures?

Tuan_Jim wrote:To come off a hellish war with Evander Holyfield and then go straight in with Lennox Lewis?

I'm not sure what else I can write to explain it to you.

Can a mod tell me whether there is a device on here to draw pictures?

I've got an idea for a picture, Riddick Bowe avoiding Lennox Lewis, while walking past a list of the best heavyweight champions ever, where Lewis is ranked above him.

OK, lets move on from Bowe to someone else.
Donald Curry was mentioned and is an interesting case.
I think he meets the first 6, but not the last 6. Number 7 is tricky, but if look at the welterweight Hall of Famers, almost all have to be rated higher.

I think for a short time you could argue that he was the best fighter in the world regardless of weight class.
His career seemed to unravel after the first loss.
6 of 12 and seems to be a borderline case.

Ambling Alp II wrote:OK, lets move on from Bowe to someone else.
Donald Curry was mentioned and is an interesting case.
I think he meets the first 6, but not the last 6. Number 7 is tricky, but if look at the welterweight Hall of Famers, almost all have to be rated higher.

I think for a short time you could argue that he was the best fighter in the world regardless of weight class.
His career seemed to unravel after the first loss.
6 of 12 and seems to be a borderline case.

I agree mate. Curry is touch and go for me. He looked invincible until the Honeyghan fight. The way he disposed of McCrory was something special.

Hall of Fames should be limited to the truly great.

All to often, in many circumstances, Hall of Fames become watered down by including the Very Good/Near Great.

That is happened in boxing too, as near as I can tell.

Here is another one: Ken Buchanan.
He meets the criteria for 10 and 11, and I guess you could throw him a bone and give him #3. (I don't think he was "clearly" the best lightweight at any one time, but some people might)

That gives him 3 out of 12. He doesn't seem to have much of a case at a, yet he is in.

Bowe as champion didn't just avoid Lewis, he avoided everyone apart from his rematch with Holyfield, that he had to fight due to stipulations in the contract from the 1st fight.
I happen to think Bowe had the potential to be an all time great, but his results as champion don't prove he was.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Here is another one: Ken Buchanan.
He meets the criteria for 10 and 11, and I guess you could throw him a bone and give him #3. (I don't think he was "clearly" the best lightweight at any one time, but some people might)

That gives him 3 out of 12. He doesn't seem to have much of a case at a, yet he is in.

He's deserving IMO. Probs cos I've met him a few times at my am fights and my dad trained with him when young. He's Scotland's greatest IMO.

Everybody got different criterias. If it were my criterias, Half of the guys in the HOF would not be in. Starting with Barry McGuigan

Tomasino wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Here is another one: Ken Buchanan.
He meets the criteria for 10 and 11, and I guess you could throw him a bone and give him #3. (I don't think he was "clearly" the best lightweight at any one time, but some people might)

That gives him 3 out of 12. He doesn't seem to have much of a case at a, yet he is in.

He's deserving IMO. Probs cos I've met him a few times at my am fights and my dad trained with him when young. He's Scotland's greatest IMO.

Well obviously you have a reason to like him. Obviously he was a very good fighter; just not a great one. I just don't see where if you rationally look at, how he qualifies.
What a lot of people do is use one criteria that favors a guy they like, and use something else to rip a guy that they don't.
This system covers a wide range of areas and gives you a pretty good idea.

Here are a couple of others:
Barry McGuigan- Being generous, I gave him 4 of the 12. (#2, 5, 10 , and 11). Of course he did beat Pedroza and had a couple of other nice wins (Taylor, LaPorte). However, there is really no way he should be in.

Lennox Lewis- I scored him a 9 out of 12. (I gave him 2 through 8, 10, and 12.) He certainly belongs.

Sun Kil Moon 22 fights, beat 7 world or former/future champions, 2 weight champion, former world amatuer champion, 15 fights for world titles going 13-2 in just 22 fights.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

Tomasino wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Here is another one: Ken Buchanan.
He meets the criteria for 10 and 11, and I guess you could throw him a bone and give him #3. (I don't think he was "clearly" the best lightweight at any one time, but some people might)

That gives him 3 out of 12. He doesn't seem to have much of a case at a, yet he is in.

He's deserving IMO. Probs cos I've met him a few times at my am fights and my dad trained with him when young. He's Scotland's greatest IMO.

Well obviously you have a reason to like him. Obviously he was a very good fighter; just not a great one. I just don't see where if you rationally look at, how he qualifies.
What a lot of people do is use one criteria that favors a guy they like, and use something else to rip a guy that they don't.
This system covers a wide range of areas and gives you a pretty good idea.

Here are a couple of others:
Barry McGuigan- Being generous, I gave him 4 of the 12. (#2, 5, 10 , and 11). Of course he did beat Pedroza and had a couple of other nice wins (Taylor, LaPorte). However, there is really no way he should be in.

Lennox Lewis- I scored him a 9 out of 12. (I gave him 2 through 8, 10, and 12.) He certainly belongs.

I did mention Ken not scoring big by the criteria in my first post. Am so glad he is in the hall though!! Meant a lot to him. He was in some great fights. Duran himself said he was one of the toughest at lightweight that he fought.

elmersalsa wrote:Everybody got different criterias. If it were my criterias, Half of the guys in the HOF would not be in. Starting with Barry McGuigan

What is your criteria elmer?

Ambling Alp II wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:Everybody got different criterias. If it were my criterias, Half of the guys in the HOF would not be in. Starting with Barry McGuigan

What is your criteria elmer?

Well, my criteria for boxer in the HOF would be:
1. How dominant he was at champion. How many titles he won at all levels of competition.
2. Did he beat at least 3 or 4 very good or great fighters.
3. If he was never a world champion, how did he feared with the best fighters and contenders of his era.
4. Longevity
5. Number of fights, including number of quality wins
6. Unbeaten streaks. How many good fighters did he beat in that stretch
7. If he was champion, how many title defenses he made.
8. If not a heavyweight, how many weight classes he became champ and how competitive he was
9. Awards and accomplishments like Fighter of the Year, Comeback Fighter of the Year, etc.

I think that's about it in my criteria of selecting HOFs, Ambling Alp

Ah, and 10. Historical Impact.

Let's review each boxer in the IBHOF in alphabetical order and see if that boxer really QUALIFIED in the hall.

Shall we?

Then, somebody like Ambling Alp put the tally of who got in who did not. And then, when we review all the boxers, let's review the ones that are still not voted in in the HOF like Terry Norris, etc, etc, etc.

The problem is that too much of your of your criteria rewards quality and not quantity. Fighters who have great winning streaks against weak competition are going to do well here. In particular #5, #6, and #7. Many fighters not that good at all that had good winning streaks against carefully chosen opponents.
Even a champion can have a lot of title defenses against weak competition that doesn't mean much.


#1 is not good because you are counting all titles as the same. A modern fighter who won one of four WBS belts would fare just as well as someone who fought in an earlier era when there was just title.
It would also favor fighters in a modern times who fought when there more weight classes.

#2 is fine.Have to be a little more clear on what makes an opponent as very good. Maybe some examples.

#3 if OK, but a little vague. You have to put a number value on this if you are going to be objective.

#4 Longevity- Too vague. Does this mean how many years a fighter was active. (If so, how many is necessary.)
This would help a guy who fought way after his prime and penalize someone who retired when they should have.
You could refine this and say a fighter has to beat a certain amount of Top 10 Contenders.

#8 A little vague.- How many weight classes does a fighter have to be champ in? You have to have an amount. Is two enough. Again, this is going to favor modern fighters who could win titles in jr/Super weight classes that the Old Timers could not do.
Really. I think you have to take light heavyweights out of this. Until the 1980s, there was no Cruiserweight Division. Much harder for say a light heavy weight to win the heavyweight title than a lightweight to win the welterweight title.

9. No. A Fighter could be overrated and win a lot of these awards, or underrated and not win as many as he should have. This should not matter at all.

In a nutshell, too much emphasis on the shear amount of wins and amount of titles and not enough on the wins against quality of competition. Also need to somehow factor the amount of embarrassing losses/draws. (Losing in one-sided fashion as well as loss to non-stellar competition.)

Well, that was my criteria. Some winning streaks are DOUBTFUL. Some do not

Let's review every HOF in alphabetical order and see who makes it and who's not.

Don't have time for this now. Will do a few in a couple of weeks.

I will start it off with Muhammad Ali. I know is a no brainer, but Alp or somebody do the tally. He is in or out?

Abe Attell. ...He is in or out?

I think we got two in the HOF bag:
Muhammad Ali
Abe Attell

Did a few guys using elmer's system:
Nino Benvenuti:

1. Yes. He won title on several different levels. Olympic Gold, Italian Middle, EBU Middle, World Jr Middle and World Middle.
2 Yes. 3 or 4 very good opponents. Griffith (twice) Rodriques, Sandro Mazzinghi.
Not Applicable since he was a world champion.
4. Yes. Was a pro for 10 years.
5. Yes. # of Fights and quality wins. Had 90 pro fights. Had several quality wins.
6. Yes. Won 65 straight fights. That is better than almost all Hall of Famers.
7. No. Did have a few title defenses. Not sure if he had enough, so I called it a No.
8. Yes. He won title at both Jr Middleweight and Middleweight.
9. Yes. He was named Ring Magazine Fighter of the Year.

Benvenuti scored a 7 out of 8 with one N/A. That means according to elmer's system, he not only is deserving of being a Hall of Famer, he belongs among the very greatest of All Time.

How about Eusebio Pedroza:
1. No. Didn't win Olympic Gold or National titles. Had a lot of title defenses, but had some close calls when he got lucky with the decisions. Never unified the title.
2. Yes. He did beat a few very good fighters.
3. Not applicable.
4. Yes. He fought for 13 years, then made a comeback where he fought in 2 more.
5. No. Didn't have that many fights (49) and no wins over a Hall of Fame level opponent. (Olivares was past his best by the time Pedroza fought him.)
6. No. He did have a streak of 24-0-1 with a No-Contest. Wasn't sure if that counted as long enough.
7. Yes. He had 19 title defenses.
8. No. Only won a world title at one weight class.
9. No. Doesn't appear to have won a major award.

Pedroza only scored 3 out of 8 with one N/A. According to elmer's system, it looks like he is a borderline Hall of Famer; he probably does not belong.

Alp, if you were in charge of the IBHOF and the buck stopped with you regarding entrants, would you allow convicted drug cheats into the IBHOF.

That is a little tricky when you say "convicted". There are some guys in boxing (as well as other sports) where it is strongly suspected by many people but not actually convicted.
Some failed drug tests and those should not be allowed in. I personally would not vote for others where is strong evidence (in my opinion) but they have never actually been penalized. We all know that various Sports Organizations have often looked the other way.

But yes, I am strongly against the drug cheats; they got an unfair advantage.