BoxRec

Posted: **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?

Posted: **24 Jan 2021, 10:10**

I think it depends what you think the HoF is for. I mean, who hasn’t heard of those guys, in other words they’re definitely famous enough.
As regards their achievements possibly not, but you can’t be too rigid with that.

Posted: **24 Jan 2021, 10:17**

Norton is HOF-worthy for sure.

Posted: **24 Jan 2021, 10:39**

They were all very good for the popularity of Boxing. We have guys with better resumes who haven't gotten in though.

Posted: **24 Jan 2021, 11:15**

Norton yes. 'He never won a world title fight' is a simplification and doesn't do him justice.

The others no.

Posted: **24 Jan 2021, 13:20**

Popularity wise they all belong. Achievement wise there are more deserving guys that aren't in.

Posted: **24 Jan 2021, 13:26**

Tuan_Jim wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 11:15 Norton yes. 'He never won a world title fight' is a simplification and doesn't do him justice.

The others no.

Norton yes. I'd add mancini as a yes.

Posted: **25 Jan 2021, 21:02**

I vote "no" for Boom Boom, Gatti and The Irishman without hesitation. For me, a man has to be famous for his accomplishment and/or ability. Norton was the best of the group, p4p. He comes close to induction but doesn't quite get my vote.

Posted: **26 Jan 2021, 00:16**

gilgamesh wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 13:20 Popularity wise they all belong. Achievement wise there are more deserving guys that aren't in.

That's the thing....Mancini, for example, as someone else commented in an argument with me in another topic, beat the tar out of Jose Luis Ramirez........but Ramirez was a two time world champion with 92 wins in 101 bouts, a couple of wins over hall of famers (giving and taking, or trading, the Arguello and Whitaker I bouts, of course) so you can say Ramirez's achievements overshadow Mancini's one title, 29-5 record achievements.

Popularity wise, Mancini was much more famous, of course...though Ramirez was pretty famous in Latin America being that this was during the run of Ring en Espanol and Guantes magazines and he was regularly portrayed in both, but so was Mancini....

Posted: **26 Jan 2021, 05:46**

AntonioMartin wrote: ↑26 Jan 2021, 00:16
gilgamesh wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 13:20 Popularity wise they all belong. Achievement wise there are more deserving guys that aren't in.
That's the thing....Mancini, for example, as someone else commented in an argument with me in another topic, beat the tar out of Jose Luis Ramirez........but Ramirez was a two time world champion with 92 wins in 101 bouts, a couple of wins over hall of famers (giving and taking, or trading, the Arguello and Whitaker I bouts, of course) so you can say Ramirez's achievements overshadow Mancini's one title, 29-5 record achievements.

Popularity wise, Mancini was much more famous, of course...though Ramirez was pretty famous in Latin America being that this was during the run of Ring en Espanol and Guantes magazines and he was regularly portrayed in both, but so was Mancini....

You know Antonio with Mancini and McGuigan the story was much bigger than the accomplishments that they achieved. They were good enough to be world champions when many others tried and failed. It is like saying how many guys made it to the NFL. The number is few and far between and to get that far is something to take notice of. Mancini the whole thing with his father never getting his title shot and that really was a big topic of conversation and really added to his legacy. His in ring achievements are not hall of fame credentials. He had 4 titles defenses and held the title just slightly over 2 years. When i and a friend of mine MC were at the IBHOF in June 2014 we talked to Ed B about 15 minutes and we brought up Mancini and mentioned that lesser fighter like Barry McGuigan were in why not Boom Boom? I am not saying that is why they inducted him but maybe they took a closer look and he was inducted the next year June 2015. McGuigan had the title about 1 year and had 2 title defenses. However when he fought the Catholics and Protestants longtime rivals united as one to route him on. The both faced questions in their careers and were involved in another boxers demise Young Ali and Deuk Koo Kim. The both guys who i have never met or even seen in person are supposedly very nice gentlemen and a credit to the sport of boxing. Gatti the Mickey Ward trilogy is his ticket to fame and what most fans remember about him. May he and Ken Norton rest in peace.

Posted: **26 Jan 2021, 05:49**

AntonioMartin wrote: ↑26 Jan 2021, 00:16
gilgamesh wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 13:20 Popularity wise they all belong. Achievement wise there are more deserving guys that aren't in.
That's the thing....Mancini, for example, as someone else commented in an argument with me in another topic, beat the tar out of Jose Luis Ramirez........but Ramirez was a two time world champion with 92 wins in 101 bouts, a couple of wins over hall of famers (giving and taking, or trading, the Arguello and Whitaker I bouts, of course) so you can say Ramirez's achievements overshadow Mancini's one title, 29-5 record achievements.

Popularity wise, Mancini was much more famous, of course...though Ramirez was pretty famous in Latin America being that this was during the run of Ring en Espanol and Guantes magazines and he was regularly portrayed in both, but so was Mancini....

Many thought that Ramirez defeated and should have won the decision against Arguello however he should have lost the decision against Whitaker in 1988 in France. I would saying Mancini defeating Jose Luis was his best fight and he won practically every round.

Posted: **26 Jan 2021, 05:59**

goose 5 wrote: ↑25 Jan 2021, 21:02 I vote "no" for Boom Boom, Gatti and The Irishman without hesitation. For me, a man has to be famous for his accomplishment and/or ability. Norton was the best of the group, p4p. He comes close to induction but doesn't quite get my vote.

I concur with you. These hall of fames over the years are getting watered down. It is a certain amount of politics which are in each and every thing we do in life.

Posted: **26 Jan 2021, 10:02**

f read wrote: ↑26 Jan 2021, 05:46
AntonioMartin wrote: ↑26 Jan 2021, 00:16
gilgamesh wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 13:20 Popularity wise they all belong. Achievement wise there are more deserving guys that aren't in.
That's the thing....Mancini, for example, as someone else commented in an argument with me in another topic, beat the tar out of Jose Luis Ramirez........but Ramirez was a two time world champion with 92 wins in 101 bouts, a couple of wins over hall of famers (giving and taking, or trading, the Arguello and Whitaker I bouts, of course) so you can say Ramirez's achievements overshadow Mancini's one title, 29-5 record achievements.

Popularity wise, Mancini was much more famous, of course...though Ramirez was pretty famous in Latin America being that this was during the run of Ring en Espanol and Guantes magazines and he was regularly portrayed in both, but so was Mancini....
You know Antonio with Mancini and McGuigan the story was much bigger than the accomplishments that they achieved. They were good enough to be world champions when many others tried and failed. It is like saying how many guys made it to the NFL. The number is few and far between and to get that far is something to take notice of. Mancini the whole thing with his father never getting his title shot and that really was a big topic of conversation and really added to his legacy. His in ring achievements are not hall of fame credentials. He had 4 titles defenses and held the title just slightly over 2 years. When i and a friend of mine MC were at the IBHOF in June 2014 we talked to Ed B about 15 minutes and we brought up Mancini and mentioned that lesser fighter like Barry McGuigan were in why not Boom Boom? I am not saying that is why they inducted him but maybe they took a closer look and he was inducted the next year June 2015. McGuigan had the title about 1 year and had 2 title defenses. However when he fought the Catholics and Protestants longtime rivals united as one to route him on. The both faced questions in their careers and were involved in another boxers demise Young Ali and Deuk Koo Kim. The both guys who i have never met or even seen in person are supposedly very nice gentlemen and a credit to the sport of boxing. Gatti the Mickey Ward trilogy is his ticket to fame and what most fans remember about him. May he and Ken Norton rest in peace.

That is very true my friend, very, very true...

Posted: **30 Jan 2021, 20:34**

DrDuke wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 10:17 Norton is HOF-worthy for sure.

Agreed, no problem with Mancini. Barry is iffy and definitely no for gatti.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **31 Jan 2021, 17:35**

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 had other exciting fights against good but not great fighters who were close to his level. He was great for the sport, but simply was not good enough to be the HOF.

do you think wlad should be in the hall

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **01 Feb 2021, 11:31**

f read wrote: ↑24 Jan 2021, 09:40 Ken Norton never won a title fight(...)

.. is there anyone else who can complain about winning with Ali as he deserved also the 2nd win

?
If Bowe gets HOF mainly because of his trilogy with Holyfield, I see no issues with Norton here.

Posted: **01 Feb 2021, 12:50**

No, none of them.

Posted: **01 Feb 2021, 22:05**

Whats the criteria for the hall of fame? Being famous or being the best of the best?

Norton was better than ingemar johannson

Posted: **02 Feb 2021, 05:11**

Jeff_lacy_ko wrote: ↑01 Feb 2021, 22:05 Whats the criteria for the hall of fame? Being famous or being the best of the best?

Norton was better than ingemar johannson

Absolutely Norton was much better than Ingemar no question or doubt in my mind. That is a no brainer i would say. Yes that is a good estimation of hall of fame criteria. The fame despite the ability or the ability despite the fame? Of course these hall of fames have a certain amount of politics like everything in life. The voters like a certain individual they have a better chance. I think the bottom line should be credentials and longevity at a high level. They sometime turn into a popularity contest as well.

Posted: **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.

Posted: **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?

Posted: **02 Feb 2021, 10:14**

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?

I mean it ain't just doing their best. For the record Norton, McGuigan, Mancini and Gatti all definitely had better careers than most Boxers throughout the sports history.

BoxRec

Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?

Re: Do think Ray Mancini Ken Norton Barry McGuigan and Arturo Gatti are really legitimate Hall of Famers?