BoxRec

Thought this should be interesting.

Should fighters' amateur career be considered when it comes to the Hall of Fame?

If so, how much?

It doesn't seem like they get as much credit for an outstanding amateur career but imo an outstanding amateur career is just as special as an outstanding pro career.

A borderline HOF pro career backed up by an outstanding amateur resume should carry a boxer into the IBHOF.

For my part I'd say that the Amateur career should be ignored (maybe with the exception of the Olympics - as they are seen as the ultimate) - every fighter starts from scratch when they enter the professional game, and rightly so in my opinion.

I find it really amazing that Amateurs can be so revered and honoured when they've never heard the sound of the 4th round bell.

I agree with Crease, my initial thought was that Rigo's two gold medals and other amateur achievements will probably help his case one day and I thought that was fair. Otherwise not really, I voted for the 3rd option.

What about great amateur fighters who dont go pro, like Dick Mctaggart or Teo Stevenson-do they ever get inducted? if not I would think they have a case to get in there.

No, they aren't in. However, Laszlo Papp who had a relatively brief pro career is in. Have to believe that he got in for what he did as an amateur. I have never seen if the IBHOF officially considers a fighter's amateur career or not. Their selection process seems to be very secretive.

Ambling Alp II wrote:No, they aren't in. However, Laszlo Papp who had a relatively brief pro career is in. Have to believe that he got in for what he did as an amateur. I have never seen if the IBHOF officially considers a fighter's amateur career or not. Their selection process seems to be very secretive.

When the media reports who has been inducted into the hall of fame, if they had a successful amateur(Olympic medals, multiple tournament wins, etc) they always cover that stuff as they name off their accomplishments that earned them a hall of fame induction.

Yes, but is that actually supposed to be a factor of the voter's when they make their selections? If so, how big of a factor?

If the guy casting the vote is considering it while he decides whether or not to vote for the boxer in question then it matters, regardless of what the "selection process" is supposed to be.

If Dan Rafael is doing the research into the amateur career of a boxer on the ballot he's not doing it so he can then dismiss an outstanding amateur resume as irrelevant.
He wouldn't bother citing it if it didn't matter to him and he has a vote.

I have done a little more searching and have tried to piece together how the process is done. (This information is much more difficult to find than basketball, football, baseball Hall of Fames)

Anyway, it seems that members of the BWAA as well as certain boxing historians can vote. There are more than 100 members of the BWAA, though I don't know how many actually vote. Have not been able to find out how many historians vote. However, I would guess that at least 100 people vote. (Though I suspect the number was lower for the Old-Timers. )

What I am trying to find out about the official rules about consideration of amateur careers in the official is important. If the rules say that amateur careers should not count, that does make a difference how people will vote. The media may cite that the fighter won a Gold Medal, but for all we know the voters were only looking at his pro career.

If it wasn't for Lazslo Papp, I would think that amateur careers doesn't count at all. However, since he is in, why aren't other fighters who were great amateurs but would not have made it based on their pro careers?
It just seems odd.

Ambling Alp II wrote:If it wasn't for Lazslo Papp, I would think that amateur careers doesn't count at all. However, since he is in, why aren't other fighters who were great amateurs but would not have made it based on their pro careers?

I think Papp was special case both as amateur and pro. There were only two other boxers to get golden medal 3 times (Savon and Stevenson), and only Papp turned pro. His pro career was stopped due to political reasons, with Papp still undefeated at that time (and with EBU belt... which now means nothing, but I guess it could be different half century ago).

Ambling Alp II wrote:I have done a little more searching and have tried to piece together how the process is done. (This information is much more difficult to find than basketball, football, baseball Hall of Fames)

Anyway, it seems that members of the BWAA as well as certain boxing historians can vote. There are more than 100 members of the BWAA, though I don't know how many actually vote. Have not been able to find out how many historians vote. However, I would guess that at least 100 people vote. (Though I suspect the number was lower for the Old-Timers. )

What I am trying to find out about the official rules about consideration of amateur careers in the official is important. If the rules say that amateur careers should not count, that does make a difference how people will vote. The media may cite that the fighter won a Gold Medal, but for all we know the voters were only looking at his pro career.

If it wasn't for Lazslo Papp, I would think that amateur careers doesn't count at all. However, since he is in, why aren't other fighters who were great amateurs but would not have made it based on their pro careers?
It just seems odd.

No it doesn't.
How many spectacular college football player with average pro careers make the hall of fame?
How about great juniors players in tennis who follow it with an average professional career?
Any baseball hall of famers that were great college players but had forgettable MLB careers?

It appears more like your looking for something to support your stance that amateur achievements shouldn't be considered than actually looking for a set of rules.
If you did a google search you came across the same stuff I did.

One of the first articles that popped up was this:
http://ringtv.craveonline.com/news/3596 ... ed-and-why

The writer is Lee Groves boxing writer, boxing historian and hall of fame voter since 2001.

Ninth paragraph first sentence:"Each voter has his own criteria as to what traits make the grade."

Eighth paragraph talks writing "mini-biographies" that contain "important information" and are posted on BWAA's website along with being distributed to every eligible member of the organization.

Here are the mini-bios posted on the BWAA's website for the 2015 nominees:
http://www.bwaa.us/2014/10/10/2015-inte ... -nominees/

As you scroll down through the biographies you see that notable amateur achievements(particularly Olympic medals) are cited.
Some just say "Olympian" or "highly decorated amateur". For Fernando Vargas it specifically mentions being the youngest to win the U.S. championships(that's something I wouldn't care about but apparently it's important enough for the BWAA to distribute to voters).
Maske has an impressive amateur resume listed, Bowe's silver medal in 88, Taylor winning gold.

The mini- bios that are put together by the committee are posted on the BWAA website and emailed to the voters contain info about amateur achievements and voters are allowed to use their own judgement. It seems quite obvious that Olympic medals carry the most clout for amateur achievements.

First of all, calm down. I was not really arguing with you.
How many spectacular college football players with average careers get voted into the Hall of Fame? Most don't get voted in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. Most get voted into the College Football Hall of Fame.

That is sort of my point. Is the IBHOF a Boxing Hall of Fame or a Pro Boxing Hall of Fame ?

So, yes it does seem odd about Papp. If amateur careers are supposed to get a lot of weight, then other great amateurs who did not have great pro careers should be in. They aren't.
If they don't count, then Papp should not be in. His pro career alone isn't nearly enough to put him in.
As you mentioned Star Junior tennis players or star college baseball players who didn't have great careers at the highest levels aren't in. Yet Papp is in.
So I thought it was odd that he is in.

I don't have a stance that Amateur careers should not count at all. Not sure why you said that.

No, I did not notice Ninth paragraph first sentence:"Each voter has his own criteria as to what traits make the grade."
Wow. If that is actually in their guidelines, that is pretty pathetic. It seems like they have no guidelines at all.

I read his rationale for his own vote. Wins over other Hall of Famers (regardless of the stage of the HOFers' career) and wins over WBS title holders (all WBS titleholders seem to be treated equally) carry a lot of weight. He cites them frequently. Wow. Quite the ring historian.

He does mention amateur achievements in his little mini Bios. I had not seen that. (That 's actually pretty sad that voters would need that.) It's up to the voters to to decide individually. Again, wow.

It's beginning to make more sense why the voting has often been so made so little sense the last several years.

Ok, I was making assumptions on your stance when you hadn't actually stated one way or the other.
I apologize for that.

It appears how much weight amateur achievements have is up to the individual voter.
I think amateur accomplishment help once a fighter has actually made the hall of fame ballot but amateur achievements alone will not get his name on the ballot.
They don't just stop fighting for five years then their name is placed on the ballot. The ballot has 45 names and the approximately 175 voters can select up to 10.

imo Papp deserves his place in the IBHOF. If I had a vote AND their names actually appeared on the ballot Stevenson and Savon would have a solid chance at getting my vote too, it would depend on the quality of the other 43 names. I would never vote for them over a Bernard Hopkins or Manny Pacquiao.

AHA!
Found it.

http://ringtv.craveonline.com/news/3590 ... ss-changes

There are NO female or amateur categories yet.
Strange considering they have a Stallone category

Papp being in the IBHOF tells us an exceptional amateur career followed by a moderately successful pro career(and fame) can get someone in the IBHOF but he is the exception not the norm.
I have to take back my statement about voting for Stevenson and Savon, there is no category for them to be inducted.

It'll be interesting to see if Rigondeaux makes it. IF he fails to add much to what he has already achieved as a pro and gets into the IBHOF it will be due to his amateur career.

From it's first year (1991) to about 2000, the voting was probably better than any other major Hall of Fame. Then Braddock got elected in 2001, then Willard, and it's been chaos for the most part ever since.

Right now, it is probably the worst Hall of Fame of all the major sports. I have a feeling it's just going to get worse with emphasis on meaningless titles won and meaningless title defenses instead of the quality of the opponents that a fighter competed against and beat.

They are changing the format, not convinced that it's going to help much.

Ambling Alp II wrote:From it's first year (1991) to about 2000, the voting was probably better than any other major Hall of Fame. Then Braddock got elected in 2001, then Willard, and it's been chaos for the most part ever since.

Right now, it is probably the worst Hall of Fame of all the major sports. I have a feeling it's just going to get worse with emphasis on meaningless titles won and meaningless title defenses instead of the quality of the opponents that a fighter competed against and beat.

They are changing the format, not convinced that it's going to help much.

My only real problem with it is not having a minimum percentage of votes to be inducted.
It's just the 3 who get the most votes regardless of percentage.
imo, that's what allows some "less than elite" boxers to get into the hall due to their fame instead of their accomplishments.
It almost certainly allows boxers in a given year to get inducted with...........say 50% of the vote while in another year 50% may not be enough because three retired boxers who are absolute locks by any standard all became eligible.
The standard for induction should be the same every year.

I don't like not having a female or amateur category for the IBHOF but that will probably come in the future.
Plus the current IBHOF facility is a shithole, they need to expand and update the facility before adding categories.
The IBHOF is an embarrassment to the sport it represents.