BoxRec

I voted for 5 and 4 of them I don't even like

gilgamesh wrote:

expe wrote:Mayweather and Hopkins, Toney, Jones and Vitali are all drug cheats, so they belong in a Hall of Shame, not fame, Mayweather can join them there if it's conclusively proved that he was on drugs during his career. The rest didn't have good enough careers to be in the Hall of Fame IMO.

Mayweather and Hopkins have never once failed a drug test. Assuming they've used PED's doesn't make it so. Vitali never failed a drug test as a Professional either.

Vitali failed as an am, that's enough for some people, me included, to call him a juicer. The other two? I have little doubt either were on some sort of gear at some point, it's easy to mask and far more money to be made hiding such things than detecting such things. I believe juicing is rife in US athletes.

They'll probably all get in, but based on the way I think the HoF should be run. Top to bottom are in order of how deserving they are:

Shoe-ins:
Mayweather - best fighter of his generation and all time p4p top 25, of course he gets in
Hopkins - third best resume of his generation (after May and Pac), p4p top 10 into his late forties
RJJ - had the most impressive prime of any fighter of his generation, arguably the best super middleweight ever

Debatable but yes:
Froch - Never the #1 fighter in his division when Ward was active, but that's no disqualifier. Great career, great opposition
Toney - PED use hurts, but he was a great fighter at his best and should get in on resume alone
Vitali - weak resume, but the best heavyweight post Lennox Lewis, fought in a poor era but that's not his fault
Adamek - Warrior and champion at light heavy and cruiser, made the top 5 as a undersized heavyweight

Debatable but no:
Tarver - PED use hurts, lineal LHW champ and de-throner of the great RJJ, some success at cruiser and heavy
Dawson - LHW champ with a fairly short prime that included some good wins including two over Tarver and one over a drained Adamek

No:
Briggs - Brief heavyweight titlist, also holds a debatable win over an old George Foreman making him a lineal champ. No real stand-out wins.

lillywhite14 wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

expe wrote:Mayweather and Hopkins, Toney, Jones and Vitali are all drug cheats, so they belong in a Hall of Shame, not fame, Mayweather can join them there if it's conclusively proved that he was on drugs during his career. The rest didn't have good enough careers to be in the Hall of Fame IMO.

Mayweather and Hopkins have never once failed a drug test. Assuming they've used PED's doesn't make it so. Vitali never failed a drug test as a Professional either.

Vitali failed as an am, that's enough for some people, me included, to call him a juicer. The other two? I have little doubt either were on some sort of gear at some point, it's easy to mask and far more money to be made hiding such things than detecting such things. I believe juicing is rife in US athletes.

Believing it and proving it are 2 different things though ain't they.

Fact is Vitali, Mayweather and Hopkins have never failed a drug test as a Professional and that's all there is to it.

Professional drug testing is a joke. I wouldn't factor it in at all.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Professional drug testing is a joke. I wouldn't factor it in at all.

Indeed

lillywhite14 wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:

expe wrote:Mayweather and Hopkins, Toney, Jones and Vitali are all drug cheats, so they belong in a Hall of Shame, not fame, Mayweather can join them there if it's conclusively proved that he was on drugs during his career. The rest didn't have good enough careers to be in the Hall of Fame IMO.

Mayweather and Hopkins have never once failed a drug test. Assuming they've used PED's doesn't make it so. Vitali never failed a drug test as a Professional either.

Vitali failed as an am, that's enough for some people, me included, to call him a juicer. The other two? I have little doubt either were on some sort of gear at some point, it's easy to mask and far more money to be made hiding such things than detecting such things. I believe juicing is rife in US athletes.

Wonder what Vitali was up to during that 4 year break he took too.

Thats one of the many deserved downfalls of being caught juicing,people will rightly assume you will or have done again,thats why ive no sympathy for cheats being accused even without concrete proof,you've cheated before why should anyone believe you?

..ideally speaking i wouldn't let anyone who's been caught cheating in..but hey we don't live in a perfect world, do we?

greg wrote:..ideally speaking i wouldn't let anyone who's been caught cheating in..but hey we don't live in a perfect world, do we?

There's really no mitigation for cheating of any kind. Not even living in an imperfect world.
The governing bodies of sport should be bending over backwards to support clean competitors, not giving out powder puff 8 month or two year bans to serious offenders.
Some people suggest doping should be legalised, but imagine telling a healthy, talented, clean competitor that they HAVE to risk their health, and possibly even their life, to even compete in the sport they love. It's insane.
Personally I feel the punishments for doping should be utterly draconian across every sport.

greg wrote:..ideally speaking i wouldn't let anyone who's been caught cheating in..but hey we don't live in a perfect world, do we?

Since testing was virtually nonexistent and you had to go out of your way to get caught, either go off of resumes or ban the entire era. Same stupid thing with baseball, they never even caught anyone but deem Frank thomas clean. Whatever.

jezzamundo wrote:They'll probably all get in, but based on the way I think the HoF should be run. Top to bottom are in order of how deserving they are:

Shoe-ins:
Mayweather - best fighter of his generation and all time p4p top 25, of course he gets in
Hopkins - third best resume of his generation (after May and Pac), p4p top 10 into his late forties
RJJ - had the most impressive prime of any fighter of his generation, arguably the best super middleweight ever

Debatable but yes:
Froch - Never the #1 fighter in his division when Ward was active, but that's no disqualifier. Great career, great opposition
Toney - PED use hurts, but he was a great fighter at his best and should get in on resume alone
Vitali - weak resume, but the best heavyweight post Lennox Lewis, fought in a poor era but that's not his fault
Adamek - Warrior and champion at light heavy and cruiser, made the top 5 as a undersized heavyweight

Debatable but no:
Tarver - PED use hurts, lineal LHW champ and de-throner of the great RJJ, some success at cruiser and heavy
Dawson - LHW champ with a fairly short prime that included some good wins including two over Tarver and one over a drained Adamek

No:
Briggs - Brief heavyweight titlist, also holds a debatable win over an old George Foreman making him a lineal champ. No real stand-out wins.

Not a bad categorization..

I'd probably put Toney in the shoe-in list... Don't see him NOT getting in, despite him embarrassing himself late career.

Froch and Adamek are 50/50 guys for me... buy you don't have a category for that, so I'll go with your selections.

Don't know if I'd call Tarver or Dawson debatable... I suppose everyone is debatable and they are more likely than many, but it's still a No for me.

How does adamek rate over Dawson? He completely schooled him and has better wins past that. Makes no sense to me.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Toney, Jones, Floyd, Froch & Hopkins.

I agree with this.

Vitali K., Toney, Jones, Froch, Floyd, and B-Hop.

I think you could make a strong case for Adamek too though.

punchoutsb wrote:Vitali K., Toney, Jones, Froch, Floyd, and B-Hop.

I think you could make a strong case for Adamek too though.

How?

He was a very popular fighter who won titles in two divisions and challenged for the biggest prize in the game. He beat some decent contenders at heavy in his day, which was quite an accomplishment considering his frame.

If Gatti can get in for beating up guys he outweighed by 20lbs -- albeit in a very entertaining manner -- why not Adamek? I certainly enjoyed his double header against Paul Briggs.

punchoutsb wrote:He was a very popular fighter who won titles in two divisions and challenged for the biggest prize in the game. He beat some decent contenders at heavy in his day, which was quite an accomplishment considering his frame.

Oh, I thought the question was about being deserving. He could get in. That doesn't make much of a case. He certainly didn't beat anyone decent at heavyweight past Cunningham and he lost that fight to most. Good, solid fighter, probably less deserving than even gatti. He and Briggs are the two with no case IMO.