BoxRec

I've got to say, I think it is. If Virgil Hill wasn't American would he have got in? If Gatti wasn't American based, there's no way they'd be in the IBHOF.

I've said it before, but Dariusz Michalczewski has a similar record to Hill and actually beat Hill, but doesn't even get a look in at the IBHOF. If Michalczewski was American, there he would be in the hall of fame. No question.

Fair question. I think the thing to do is make a list of how the borderline case of guys who are in. What % are from the United States?
Then make a list of of those in the HOF who really have no case at all. What % of them are from the United States?
Lastly make a list of the best fighters (maybe 25-30 or so) who are eligible but are not in the HOF. What % of them are from the United States?

These numbers may be interesting.

All I know is that if the IBHOF is fair and right, lots of fighters, not only American boxers, wouldn't be in at all

Ambling Alp II wrote:Fair question. I think the thing to do is make a list of how the borderline case of guys who are in. What % are from the United States?
Then make a list of of those in the HOF who really have no case at all. What % of them are from the United States?
Lastly make a list of the best fighters (maybe 25-30 or so) who are eligible but are not in the HOF. What % of them are from the United States?

These numbers may be interesting.

Where do you stand on Michalczewski and Hill and the hall of fame?

It only seems BIASED toward american fighters because historically american fighters were the best. As the sport has opened up that will change.

klompton wrote:It only seems BIASED toward american fighters because historically american fighters were the best. As the sport has opened up that will change.

There are much better boxers than Hill and Gatti from outside the US that aren't in the IBHOF. Why is that?

Gatti isnt from the US...

klompton wrote:Gatti isnt from the US...

I already said at the start of the thread that he was based in America.

I dont think being "based" in the usa had anything to do with him getting in the hof. I think its because he was popular which itself is a joke. I agree about dariusz, but i think the overarching issue is more about just undeserving fighters in general. The hof is a joke now and the fact that primarily us fighters are in is the least of its problems.

Considering that the Boxing Writers Association of America is mostly responsible for deciding who gets in and that the hall itself is in the US, I'd say yes and in many cases quite badly.

We do need to actually take a hard look at the data first though. Maybe there is a bias, maybe it's worse than we might think. Or maybe there isn't.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Fair question. I think the thing to do is make a list of how the borderline case of guys who are in. What % are from the United States?
Then make a list of of those in the HOF who really have no case at all. What % of them are from the United States?
Lastly make a list of the best fighters (maybe 25-30 or so) who are eligible but are not in the HOF. What % of them are from the United States?

These numbers may be interesting.

Where do you stand on Michalczewski and Hill and the hall of fame?

Well, look at the 12 criteria that we discussed a while back:
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?

Hill clearly makes only 10 and 11. You could argue for 2 (for a short time around 1989-1990) maybe 5 and 6. That is quite a reach to get him to 5 of the 12, which would make him borderline.
Michalczewski is similar: He makes 10 and 11, maybe 5 and 6. At best he makes 4 of 12.

Though fine fighters, neither really belongs.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

keithmoonhangover wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Fair question. I think the thing to do is make a list of how the borderline case of guys who are in. What % are from the United States?
Then make a list of of those in the HOF who really have no case at all. What % of them are from the United States?
Lastly make a list of the best fighters (maybe 25-30 or so) who are eligible but are not in the HOF. What % of them are from the United States?

These numbers may be interesting.

Where do you stand on Michalczewski and Hill and the hall of fame?

Well, look at the 12 criteria that we discussed a while back:
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?

Hill clearly makes only 10 and 11. You could argue for 2 (for a short time around 1989-1990) maybe 5 and 6. That is quite a reach to get him to 5 of the 12, which would make him borderline.
Michalczewski is similar: He makes 10 and 11, maybe 5 and 6. At best he makes 4 of 12.

Though fine fighters, neither really belongs.

...and that illustrates my point. Hill is in and Michalczewski isn't. And the annoying thing is that Darius beat Hill and much as I love Hearns, he wouldn't have beaten Michalczewski at that time.

Virgil Hill, in my view, is a hall of fame. In my view, he is also a top 20 light-heavyweight of all time. He got the credentials.

I know for a fact that these fighters shouldn't be inducted in the IBHOF:
Barry McGuigan
Riddick Bowe
Arturo Gatti

Keith- I think you can reasonably argue that Hill was past his best by the time he fought Michalczewski.
Their careers are pretty even. Both were consistent and did not lose to ordinary fighters. Both had a few nice wins but nothing special.
The Hall of Fame (and some fans) greatly overrate title defenses. Virtually any fighter who has several (regardless of the competition) gets in. Hill had a ton, so he got in very early.
Michalczweski did have several title defenses, so I have to believe he will get in soon. Would be nice to know how close he has been getting.

When I get a chance sometime, I will really go through the HOF, look at where fighters are from and see if there seems to be a lot of bias.

elmersalsa wrote:I know for a fact that these fighters shouldn't be inducted in the IBHOF:
Barry McGuigan
Riddick Bowe
Arturo Gatti

I agree. I would Hill and Ken Norton to that list.

Virgil Hill should be in he had a great reign as champ.

elmersalsa wrote:I know for a fact that these fighters shouldn't be inducted in the IBHOF:
Barry McGuigan
Riddick Bowe
Arturo Gatti

Bowe shouldn't be in there, no issue with the other two, it's the Hall of Fame, not just a list of the best fighters.

keithmoonhangover wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:I know for a fact that these fighters shouldn't be inducted in the IBHOF:
Barry McGuigan
Riddick Bowe
Arturo Gatti

I agree. I would Hill and Ken Norton to that list.

I agree with all of the above and would throw in kid norfolk, billy miske, and jimmy bivins.

McGuigan didn't have the achievements, but when you watch him dominating LaPorte, beating the stuffing out of Pedroza, or hunting down the BT Express, hell if he didn't look like an alltime great.

Outside of Gatti, not sure why these names are mentioned before many others who have no business being in.

Anyway as for the original question about there being a bias towards fighters from the United States:
I think there are 243 boxers in the IBHOF (not counting the "Pioneers".)
I believe 97 are from outside of the United States
That means about 40% of the fighters in are from outside the United States.

Obviously this subjective, but I went through and picked the fighters I think have really no real case for being in. ( I don't think the number of title defenses gives you a case.) There are dozens of other guys I don't think should be in, but I think are at least reasonably arguable.
I came up with 31 guys. Of those 19 are from outside of the United States.

That means about 61% of the marginal fighters are from outside the United States.
(Sorry if I my math is slightly off)

This is an indication that if anything, there is an actually a bias towards fighters from outside of the United States.

The most deserving fighters not in the IBHOF are nearly all Americans. Santos Laciar of Argentina is one of the few non-Americans I think of off hand that really deserves to be in. Michalczewski deserves to be in as well.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Outside of Gatti, not sure why these names are mentioned before many others who have no business being in.

Anyway as for the original question about there being a bias towards fighters from the United States:
I think there are 243 boxers in the IBHOF (not counting the "Pioneers".)
I believe 97 are from outside of the United States
That means about 40% of the fighters in are from outside the United States.

Obviously this subjective, but I went through and picked the fighters I think have really no real case for being in. ( I don't think the number of title defenses gives you a case.) There are dozens of other guys I don't think should be in, but I think are at least reasonably arguable.
I came up with 31 guys. Of those 19 are from outside of the United States.

That means about 61% of the marginal fighters are from outside the United States.
(Sorry if I my math is slightly off)

This is an indication that if anything, there is an actually a bias towards fighters from outside of the United States.

60% of all the fighters in the IBHOF are from one country. That's One country. Sorry, that's ONE country. Crazy.

I guess you could say that it is crazy; but is it bias?
The United Sates dominated the sport for a really long time. For example, until Lennox Lewis, there had been only a handful of heavyweight champions outside of the United States.

If you took the time to make your list of the top 243 boxers eligible for the Hall of Fame, I am willing to guess that at least half would be from the United States.