BoxRec

klompton wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 09:30

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 07:43 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?

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 11:12

klompton wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 09:30

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 07:43 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 wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 11:53

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 11:12

klompton wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 09:30

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.

klompton wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 09:30

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 07:43 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?

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 11:12

klompton wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 09:30

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 07:43 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.

f read wrote: ↑01 Feb 2021, 05:13

Nile4000 wrote: ↑31 Jan 2021, 20:40 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.

klompton wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 15:40

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 11:12

klompton wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 09:30

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??

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑31 Jan 2021, 17:31

f read wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 09:40 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.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2021, 10:26 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.

BoxBuzz wrote: ↑19 Feb 2021, 00:58Norton 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.

J-C wrote: ↑23 Feb 2021, 12:27

BoxBuzz wrote: ↑19 Feb 2021, 00:58Norton 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.

Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑23 Feb 2021, 11:34

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2021, 10:26 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.

Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑23 Feb 2021, 11:34

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2021, 10:26 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.

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 11:53

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 11:12

klompton wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 09:30

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.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑23 Feb 2021, 14:45

Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑23 Feb 2021, 11:34

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑23 Feb 2021, 10:26 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 wrote: ↑25 Feb 2021, 04:59

Onetimeonly wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 11:53

Wee Tommy wrote: ↑02 Feb 2021, 11:12

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...