BoxRec

I adapted this idea from Bill James criteria for judging if a player should be a Baseball Hall of Famer.
There are 12 different parts of the criteria. If a fighter meets 8 of them, he deserves to be a Hall of Famer. 5-7 he is borderline. Less than 5, probably not.
I test this on several fighters (Hall of Famers and non-Hall of Famers, and it seems to work well.

Here are the 12:

1. Was he ever arguably the best Fighter in the World, regardless of weight class?
2. Was he ever clearly the best of his weight class at any one time?
3. Is he arguably the best fighter not in the Hall of Fame? (Or would be if he is in the Hall of Fame)
4. Is he clearly the best fighter in his best weight class not in the Hall of Fame? (Or would be if he is already in.)
5. In a normal era, would he have been the best in his weight class?
6. Was he better than 20% of the Fighters already in the Hall of Fame?
7. Was he better than 20% of the Fighters in his best weight class already in the Hall of Fame?
8. Was he in in the Top 10 including all weight classes for 5 years or more?
9. Does he have at least 2 wins over Hall of Famers (or Fighters who will certain be in the HOF) near their primes?
10. Does he have 2 losses or less against non-Hall of Famers near his prime?
11. Does he have zero or only one opponent who beat him beaten badly near his prime?
12. Was he a Gold Medalist in the Olympics?

Anyway, I thought this would be interesting if people would name a fighter (whether they are in the HOF or not) and see where he comes out.
I will start with Eddie Mustapha Muhammad. I give him a score of 7. (He met # 3,4,5,6,7,10,11) To me, he did just enough be in the Hall of Fame.

Don't think I've ever seen anyone with a higher opinion of Eddie Mustafa Muhammad. Don't think he makes my top 20 most deserving. But you're entitled to your opinion.

Ken Buchanan doesn't score high but I believe he deserves his place in the hall. I'm a fan of Mustafha Muhammad too.

I think it's a good list, mine would probably be slightly looser, but same general idea.

If I were the IBHOF, a lot of guys that are in would have not been in it. It depends on their criteria. But, then again, you could only fight what is in front of you. You just cannot go into the hof just because you fought hofs alone.

DaveyMac wrote:I think it's a good list, mine would probably be slightly looser, but same general idea.

Yeah, you certainly can tweak it. However, it covers a wide range o areas. A fighter is compared to fighters of his era, ( #1 and #2) to fighters of his weight class throughout history,(#5) to fighters already in the Hall of Fame. (#3, #4, #6 and #7) Major wins are taken into consideration,(#9) as well as bad losses (#10 and #11). Consistency (#5) and Amateur career (#12).

Obviously, any good system that you use is going to be subjective. However, I think there should be a consistent system. Rather than just saying one guy should or not be in just because with no reason.

Or people cherry pick something positive about a guy they like and say that is why that guy should be in. Or cherrypick something negative about a guy that they don't like and say that is why that guy should not be in.

This covers a wide range of areas. I just people to pick really anybody and see how he comes out in regard to these 12 questions.

I will throw out a few more guys at random. How does Ray Mancini do? Donald Curry? John Conteh? Nigel Benn? Floyd Patterson?

Too late to start tossing guys out. Let them have their moment of glory in their declining years. Maybe they weren't champions but most gave it their all and put their lives on the line in the ring. I think only boxers should vote.

Riddick Bowe.

1. Was he ever arguably the best Fighter in the World, regardless of weight class? NO
2. Was he ever clearly the best of his weight class at any one time? NO BECAUSE HE DUCKED LEWIS.
3. Is he arguably the best fighter not in the Hall of Fame? (Or would be if he is in the Hall of Fame) NO
4. Is he clearly the best fighter in his best weight class not in the Hall of Fame? (Or would be if he is already in.) MAYBE
5. In a normal era, would he have been the best in his weight class? NO
6. Was he better than 20% of the Fighters already in the Hall of Fame? NO
7. Was he better than 20% of the Fighters in his best weight class already in the Hall of Fame? MAYBE
8. Was he in in the Top 10 including all weight classes for 5 years or more? NO
9. Does he have at least 2 wins over Hall of Famers (or Fighters who will certain be in the HOF) near their primes? NO
10. Does he have 2 losses or less against non-Hall of Famers near his prime? YES
11. Does he have zero or only one opponent who beat him beaten badly near his prime? YES
12. Was he a Gold Medalist in the Olympics? NO

No room for Bowe IMO.

Keith - I gather you think much of Bowe?
I would say yes for 3,4,5, 6, and 7.

3. He isn't arguably the best ? Who is without doubt better?
4. What heavyweight not already in is arguably better?
5. He beat a prime Holyfield for the title. In a normal era, he would have been the champion.
6. Not better than 20%? Take a close look at some of the guys in.
7. "Maybe" better than 20% of the heavweights in?

He is at about a 7, which means he isn't a slam dunk but probably deserves it.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Keith - I gather you think much of Bowe?
I would say yes for 3,4,5, 6, and 7.

3. He isn't arguably the best ? Who is without doubt better?
4. What heavyweight not already in is arguably better?
5. He beat a prime Holyfield for the title. In a normal era, he would have been the champion.
6. Not better than 20%? Take a close look at some of the guys in.
7. "Maybe" better than 20% of the heavweights in?

He is at about a 7, which means he isn't a slam dunk but probably deserves it.

I just think he's overrated. Yes he beat Holyfield, but when you take into consideration the size difference, I think it lessens the victory. It would be like Adonis Stephenson beating Floyd. Ducking Lewis was unforgivable IMO.

Looking at the facts. He beat Holyfield, then fought bums and fringe contenders then retired. One genuine world class performance.

3. There are a load of boxers that are more deserving IMO. Don Curry, Sot Chitalada, Marlon Starling.
4. I'm wrong.
5. I'm not sure what 'a normal era' is. Would he have been champion in another era?
6. I haven't looked at every single person, but modern era, it's a no.
7. It's touch and go. Does he beat more than 1 in 5 of them?

Oddball Keith has a fixation with Riddick Bowe because he has so frequently been outwitted in debates relating to Riddick Bowe. Just one quick glance at his posts will demonstrate to you how large Bowe seems to loom in his thoughts, and how tenuously he will insert his name into any thread. This time it's Alp who has taken Keith by the hand and pointed out the obvious to him, and still he struggles to comprehend it. He'll struggle with it tomorrow, too, and the next day.

Bowe is an obvious hall of famer. An undisputed heavyweight champion with two wins over a prime Evander Holyfield, one by KO. That trumps any other heavyweight's record in the entirety of the 1990s.

Have to say I don't think much of Bowe either. He had two good performances in his short career. He'll likely end up in the HOF no matter what we say or think.

Well, he is already voted in.
He had several other fights where he looked really good; though not against Evander Holyfield type opponents. He actually fought a great fight in the 2nd Holyfield fight and could have got the decision.
Bowe had great skills and a lot of heart. He could fight inside or outside.

As for the criteria:
3. There are no non-Hall of Famers that were clearly better. Starling, Curry had their share of unimpressive performances.
5. Normal era is average. Bowe was as good as the majority of heavyweight champions. 1970s was a great era. 2000s suck. 1990s was very good, and he was the best for a short time.
6. Easily better than 20%.
7. Does he beat more than one of 5? Well yes. He would certainly beat and was better than Willard, Braddock, Burns, Johannson. And he was better than several mid-tier champs as well., Patterson, Walcott, Norton etc.

Bowe was consistently good until the two Golota fights. His weight oscillated but he always looked a force. There was a reason why he was regarded the number one heavyweight in the world in 94, 95 and 96 and it wasn't because he had 'only two good performances.'

He lost one time, narrowly, to a brilliant Evander Holyfield. Meanwhile Holyfield lost four times, to Bowe, Moorer and Lewis. Tyson lost thrice, to Douglas and Holyfield. Moorer lost twice, to Foreman and Holyfield. High calibre opponents all round.

And Lewis. . . Well, Lewis for all his pluses was bombed out by McCall and was very lucky to get the decision vs Mercer. I like many others in the media thought he was lucky to get the decision vs Holyfield in the rematch. The narrative that has allowed to develop that Lewis was the uncrowned king of the 1990s is lazy and fantastical. The WBC champ of the early/mid 90s doesn't cope well with the elite.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Oddball Keith has a fixation with Riddick Bowe because he has so frequently been outwitted in debates relating to Riddick Bowe. Just one quick glance at his posts will demonstrate to you how large Bowe seems to loom in his thoughts, and how tenuously he will insert his name into any thread. This time it's Alp who has taken Keith by the hand and pointed out the obvious to him, and still he struggles to comprehend it. He'll struggle with it tomorrow, too, and the next day.

Bowe is an obvious hall of famer. An undisputed heavyweight champion with two wins over a prime Evander Holyfield, one by KO. That trumps any other heavyweight's record in the entirety of the 1990s.

I've barely posted for 6 months, so for me to be frequently outwitted in debates about Bowe is a bit of a stretch. I'm not on here often enough for it to be frequent or to 'insert my name into and thread'. I ain't struggling to comprehend anything. My opinion differs from Alp's that's all. Alp is a poster I respect a great deal and we were merely discussing Bowe.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Well, he is already voted in.
He had several other fights where he looked really good; though not against Evander Holyfield type opponents. He actually fought a great fight in the 2nd Holyfield fight and could have got the decision.
Bowe had great skills and a lot of heart. He could fight inside or outside.

As for the criteria:
3. There are no non-Hall of Famers that were clearly better. Starling, Curry had their share of unimpressive performances.
5. Normal era is average. Bowe was as good as the majority of heavyweight champions. 1970s was a great era. 2000s suck. 1990s was very good, and he was the best for a short time.
6. Easily better than 20%.
7. Does he beat more than one of 5? Well yes. He would certainly beat and was better than Willard, Braddock, Burns, Johannson. And he was better than several mid-tier champs as well., Patterson

I picked Curry in particular, because he was the undisputed champ with a win over the second best in the division. Bowe beat the man, then did very little after that. Lost to Holyfield, ducked Lewis etc.

Too bad you don't respect Alp enough to imbibe what he's saying. Bowe was all set up to fight Lewis in 95 on TVKO - but Lewis got himself KOd. Post-Holyfield III, Bowe and HBO served up a major money TVKO ppv for Lewis in 96 but Lewis ducked out in favour of a fight with the 36 year old Ray Mercer. You've been told this on numerous occasions but you won't listen because it contradicts your skewed vision of Bowe, which makes you look stupid to say the least. In one thread you're happy for Deontay Wilder to make his first defence against Eric Molina, the worst man out there. On this thread you're outraged Riddick Bowe wouldn't make his first defence against Lennox Lewis, the most dangerous man out there. These views are as incompatible as common sense and your brain.

Tuan_Jim wrote:Too bad you don't respect Alp enough to imbibe what he's saying. Bowe was all set up to fight Lewis in 95 on TVKO - but Lewis got himself KOd. Post-Holyfield III, Bowe and HBO served up a major money TVKO ppv for Lewis in 96 but Lewis ducked out in favour of a fight with the 36 year old Ray Mercer. You've been told this on numerous occasions but you won't listen because it contradicts your skewed vision of Bowe, which makes you look stupid to say the least. In one thread you're happy for Deontay Wilder to make his first defence against Eric Molina, the worst man out there. On this thread you're outraged Riddick Bowe wouldn't make his first defence against Lennox Lewis, the most dangerous man out there. These views are as incompatible as common sense and your brain.

Hey, man. Chill. Everyone's entitled to his opinion. I never liked Bowe or Holmes. I did like Lewis and Ali. We don't all have your tight media connections. I for one never heard of any agreement between Lewis and Bowe in 95 or any other year. Bowe dumped his belt in the trash rather than fight Lewis. He knew he'd be trashed at that point in his career.

'Like' doesn't come into it. I like Bowe and Lewis, but 'like' should be irrelevant.

To say Bowe ducked Lewis is half a story to say the very least, and shows a close-minded, wilfully ignorant attitude to the facts that's quite worrying for a man who's meant to be a Boxrec editor. Fits in with the rest of your odd posts though, I have to say. Why am I even talking to a man who thinks Sonny Liston killed himself rather than fight George Chuvalo?

Tuan_Jim wrote:Too bad you don't respect Alp enough to imbibe what he's saying. Bowe was all set up to fight Lewis in 95 on TVKO - but Lewis got himself KOd. Post-Holyfield III, Bowe and HBO served up a major money TVKO ppv for Lewis in 96 but Lewis ducked out in favour of a fight with the 36 year old Ray Mercer. You've been told this on numerous occasions but you won't listen because it contradicts your skewed vision of Bowe, which makes you look stupid to say the least. In one thread you're happy for Deontay Wilder to make his first defence against Eric Molina, the worst man out there. On this thread you're outraged Riddick Bowe wouldn't make his first defence against Lennox Lewis, the most dangerous man out there. These views are as incompatible as common sense and your brain.

What is your problem? If you don't like me, put me on ignore. Your getting personal and quoting other threads on here.

On these threads we have facts, stories and opinions.

Bowe ducking Lewis is a FACT. As you know Bowe chucked a belt in the bin rather than fight Lewis. That is called ducking. If Povektin was Wilder's mandatory and he had a choice of either relinquishing the title of flushing it down the toilet, I'd be saying that Wilder ducked Povetkin, but that hasn't happened. Bowe's choice of a completely shot Dokes was as bad as Molina IN MY OPINION.

Tuan_Jim wrote:'Like' doesn't come into it. I like Bowe and Lewis, but 'like' should be irrelevant.

To say Bowe ducked Lewis is half a story to say the very least, and shows a close-minded, wilfully ignorant attitude to the facts that's quite worrying for a man who's meant to be a Boxrec editor. Fits in with the rest of your odd posts though, I have to say. Why am I even talking to a man who thinks Sonny Liston killed himself rather than fight George Chuvalo?

Whoa, son. You'd better have your meds checked. Where did anyone say that Liston killed himself rather than face Chuvalo? DD Personally, I never believed Sonny offed himself.

keithmoonhangover wrote:What is your problem? If you don't like me, put me on ignore. Your getting personal and quoting other threads on here.

On these threads we have facts, stories and opinions.

Bowe ducking Lewis is a FACT. As you know Bowe chucked a belt in the bin rather than fight Lewis. That is called ducking. If Povektin was Wilder's mandatory and he had a choice of either relinquishing the title of flushing it down the toilet, I'd be saying that Wilder ducked Povetkin, but that hasn't happened. Bowe's choice of a completely shot Dokes was as bad as Molina IN MY OPINION.

It's not that I don't like you, it's that your loathing of Riddick Bowe amuses me. 'Bowe ducking Lewis' is a subjective opinion, not a fact. It is a subjective opinion arrived at by choosing to ignore context and only acknowledging the facts that suit your agenda. What an enlightened way to analyse a great warrior who gave his all in the ring. I could be like you and say, 'Lewis ducked Ruiz' and 'Lewis ducked Byrd' because he vacated belts rather than fight them - but I would have to ignore a great deal of context and facts.

Really all you demonstrate is that your dislike of Bowe is so strong you can't be objective about him, which renders your opinions about him meaningless. Your bias shows in that hysterical analysis of his career you contributed earlier in this thread, where you have inserted 'two losses against a non-Hall of Famer' on his record - a move worthy of Il Duce. You're in good company, keith!

Cap wrote:

Tuan_Jim wrote:'Like' doesn't come into it. I like Bowe and Lewis, but 'like' should be irrelevant.

To say Bowe ducked Lewis is half a story to say the very least, and shows a close-minded, wilfully ignorant attitude to the facts that's quite worrying for a man who's meant to be a Boxrec editor. Fits in with the rest of your odd posts though, I have to say. Why am I even talking to a man who thinks Sonny Liston killed himself rather than fight George Chuvalo?

Whoa, son. You'd better have your meds checked. Where did anyone say that Liston killed himself rather than face Chuvalo? DD Personally, I never believed Sonny offed himself.

It reads that way in your thread about Chuvalo/Liston. Maybe a syntax stumble, we all have them.

Tuan_Jim wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:What is your problem? If you don't like me, put me on ignore. Your getting personal and quoting other threads on here.

On these threads we have facts, stories and opinions.

Bowe ducking Lewis is a FACT. As you know Bowe chucked a belt in the bin rather than fight Lewis. That is called ducking. If Povektin was Wilder's mandatory and he had a choice of either relinquishing the title of flushing it down the toilet, I'd be saying that Wilder ducked Povetkin, but that hasn't happened. Bowe's choice of a completely shot Dokes was as bad as Molina IN MY OPINION.

It's not that I don't like you, it's that your loathing of Riddick Bowe amuses me. 'Bowe ducking Lewis' is a subjective opinion, not a fact. It is a subjective opinion arrived at by choosing to ignore context and only acknowledging the facts that suit your agenda. What an enlightened way to analyse a great warrior who gave his all in the ring. I could be like you and say, 'Lewis ducked Ruiz' and 'Lewis ducked Byrd' because he vacated belts rather than fight them - but I would have to ignore a great deal of context and facts.

Really all you demonstrate is that your dislike of Bowe is so strong you can't be objective about him, which renders your opinions about him meaningless. Your bias shows in that hysterical analysis of his career you contributed earlier in this thread, where you have inserted 'two losses against a non-Hall of Famer' on his record - a move worthy of Il Duce. You're in good company, keith!

Let's be clear. Do you think that when Bowe binned the WBC belt, rather than face Lewis, he didn't duck/avoid him on that occasion? A simple yes or no answer will suffice.

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.