Printable View
an article from espn
ESPN - Stuck on the Hall of Fame fence - Boxing
I'm sure somebody's gonna mention Barry McGuigan
With Casamayor you could make the case that he could be undefeated (of course you could say he lost to Santa Cruz too)
The Hatton one I'm sure will be a friendly debate.
Meh, I can't bring myself to say something positive about Tarver. I guess that's not very objective.
I was surprised he mentioned Penalosa but he's had a very underrated career, a very good fighter.
There are other ones obviously. There's always been the debate about Gatti, strictly as a fighter I would say no. I wouldn't be surprised if he got in though.
Gatti should be a future HOFer. Win or lose he was really entertaining to watch. He gave big contributions to the boxing world too.
As for Penalosa. For those people who really know him, and followed his career for over decade should know that ALL of his losses were controvesies. He should be also in hall of fame 7 to 8 years from now.
Casamayor and Penalosa yes. The others fukk no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OumaFan
all the ones listed ny you, no fucking way IMO
How the hell can someone even suggest tarver should be a HOFer??
He beat a 35 year old RJJ and a 36 year old glen johnson, had he of beaten them to at the turn of the decade sure this could be an interesting debate...but he didnt and it isnt.
I dont usually like to comment on potential world class boxers that have fought any lower than 126 as i dont pay attention those divisions..
Calderon looks to be a great little warrior from the few occasions ive seen of him, penalosa always reminded me of that guy who could of come to the party and made a hell of an impression but never quite managed it.
Hatton is 44-1 and his only defeat was by the single greatest p4p athlete of our generation.
If you suggest he shouldnt be a hall of famer you may as well suggest neither should manny pacquiao or marco antonio barrera!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hattonthehammer
Pacquiao and Barrera have far higher quality wins than Hatton though, it's not just about who they lost to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingQuote:
Originally Posted by hattonthehammer
Pacquiao and Barrera have far higher quality wins than Hatton though, it's not just about who they lost to.
If the hall of fame was about out and out quality im sure you could find a perfectly good argument to suggest someone like ricardo mayorga should be in there.
But its a combination of many different factors. 44-1 is more than enough to argue for hall of fame status, add to that the fact he is still unbeaten and untested at 140, won a world title in a division he wasnt comfortable in and has wins over greats like kostya tszyu and JLC.
I'm a big hatton fan but I admit, those two deserve fully to be ranked above Hatton no question. Though Hatton should be definitely in there IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingQuote:
Originally Posted by hattonthehammer
Pacquiao and Barrera have far higher quality wins than Hatton though, it's not just about who they lost to.
I'm trying but not succeeding.Quote:
Originally Posted by hattonthehammerQuote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingQuote:
Originally Posted by hattonthehammer
Pacquiao and Barrera have far higher quality wins than Hatton though, it's not just about who they lost to.
If the hall of fame was about out and out quality im sure you could find a perfectly good argument to suggest someone like ricardo mayorga should be in there.
But its a combination of many different factors. 44-1 is more than enough to argue for hall of fame status, add to that the fact he is still unbeaten and untested at 140, won a world title in a division he wasnt comfortable in and has wins over greats like kostya tszyu and JLC.
I wouldn't put any of those guys in that article in the Hall of Fame yet. When it comes to HOFs in any sport, I think that the tougher the standards are, the better the HOF is and the more an induction means.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SweetPea
Exactly
when did the HOF become a recognition that any half decent world champion could have an argument to be in??
When cretins like Jose Suliaman, Don King & Bob Arum are inducted then the credibilty of the HOF suffers . Who is next Bob Lee & Panama Lewis ?????
Suliman I can probably agree with you on, though I don't know enough about his career... But Dong King and Bob Arum absolutely belong in the Hof based on it's standards. I would be all for it if they didn't induct people who weren't either fighters or trainers, who didn't personally compete. However since that's not the case, King and Arum have probably done more for the sport of boxing than any fighter by a long way. Of course they have screwed their share of people over, that comes with the territory... But Don King's first promotion was the rumble in the jungle, and since then has put together so many huge events and been probably the most recognizable face in the sport. Bob Arum even today is doing great things for the sport in many ways, he's putting his best talent in the fights people really want to see currently. I don't see how you can exclude guys like that based on their impact on the sport. Which is the same reason I'm pretty sure Gatti will get in, although so many technically superior fighters will not.Quote:
Originally Posted by C.J.Rock
44-1 in itself means absolutely nothing. Tons of guys have gone almost undefeated past 50 fights and built up horribly padded records. The fact that he is "untested" at 140 is because the best fighters there long ago moved up to Welter. He basically failed to be succesful in doing so. I honestly have never heard more made of one jump in weight class than over Hatton, although obviously I wasn't there at the time in most cases. I don't think it gives him a complete out for the Collazo fight, as imo he clearly was a better WW against Mayweather who probably wouldn't have had so much trouble. I'm not really saying Hatton shouldn't go in the hall here, and tbo I didn't even read the article, but I'm just kind of playing devils advocate. What exactly makes Hatton a more worthy candidate than Tarver to the Hall? I just can't personally see it. Tarver beat Roy Jones Jr, who was past his best however had never been beaten and coming off winning the HW title(of course this worked against him but I'm just putting the win at the time in perspective), and still had enough to beat Tarver at his absolute best in a tough fight the first go. Then he split a couple tough fights with Glen Johnson who has more than proved his worth since, I thought Tarver actually won both of them. Lost to Hopkins, beat Clinton Woods. Before his big night he just had a bunch of aging names he'd beaten, Griffin, Harding, Johnson... Actually very similar to Hatton's career on paper or in form if you ask me. Makes me wonder how much that really has to do with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hattonthehammerQuote:
Originally Posted by p4pkingQuote:
Originally Posted by hattonthehammer
Pacquiao and Barrera have far higher quality wins than Hatton though, it's not just about who they lost to.
If the hall of fame was about out and out quality im sure you could find a perfectly good argument to suggest someone like ricardo mayorga should be in there.
But its a combination of many different factors. 44-1 is more than enough to argue for hall of fame status, add to that the fact he is still unbeaten and untested at 140, won a world title in a division he wasnt comfortable in and has wins over greats like kostya tszyu and JLC.