Trinidad, DLH, and Calzaghe likely to be inducted into HOF in 2014

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Lets all keep in mind that the only criteria the HOF seems to have is that there is no criteria. At times it has seemed all you needed was a belt and at other times tin collecting had nothing to do with it. What they should do at least is up the year in which the modern era starts. 70 years is a bit much. Countless fighters have either been ignored or passed over since 1943.

And based on some standards today or what ones are placed on fighters by the fickle fans half of that hall from pioneers forward would be emptied out.

Its the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Perfection.

---

IMO it should be based on their REAL resume, or a significant impact in the sport be it a devastating upset or specific fight, for example a Fight of the Decade type fight like Gatti/Ward, but agree that just picking up meaningless trinkets shouldn't get you in

---

So if a mediocre fighter has a fight of the decade type fight or scores an unexpected upset he should be in the HOF?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Lets all keep in mind that the only criteria the HOF seems to have is that there is no criteria. At times it has seemed all you needed was a belt and at other times tin collecting had nothing to do with it. What they should do at least is up the year in which the modern era starts. 70 years is a bit much. Countless fighters have either been ignored or passed over since 1943.

And based on some standards today or what ones are placed on fighters by the fickle fans half of that hall from pioneers forward would be emptied out.

Its the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Perfection.

---

IMO it should be based on their REAL resume, or a significant impact in the sport be it a devastating upset or specific fight, for example a Fight of the Decade type fight like Gatti/Ward, but agree that just picking up meaningless trinkets shouldn't get you in

---

So if a mediocre fighter has a fight of the decade type fight or scores an unexpected upset he should be in the HOF?

---

better them than a guy who played a boxer in a movie, I'd rather have the guy who leaves it all in the ring than some two bit actor or guy who never even stepped into the ring

and I don't mean any little upset, I mean as in literally a historic upset that changed history in the sport, like Buster Douglas' win over Tyson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Lets all keep in mind that the only criteria the HOF seems to have is that there is no criteria. At times it has seemed all you needed was a belt and at other times tin collecting had nothing to do with it. What they should do at least is up the year in which the modern era starts. 70 years is a bit much. Countless fighters have either been ignored or passed over since 1943.

And based on some standards today or what ones are placed on fighters by the fickle fans half of that hall from pioneers forward would be emptied out.

Its the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Perfection.

---

IMO it should be based on their REAL resume, or a significant impact in the sport be it a devastating upset or specific fight, for example a Fight of the Decade type fight like Gatti/Ward, but agree that just picking up meaningless trinkets shouldn't get you in

---

So if a mediocre fighter has a fight of the decade type fight or scores an unexpected upset he should be in the HOF?

---

That is pretty much already the case. Johannsson? Norton is only in for breaking Ali's jaw; his career record against top 10 fighters was 4-8-1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Lets all keep in mind that the only criteria the HOF seems to have is that there is no criteria. At times it has seemed all you needed was a belt and at other times tin collecting had nothing to do with it. What they should do at least is up the year in which the modern era starts. 70 years is a bit much. Countless fighters have either been ignored or passed over since 1943.

And based on some standards today or what ones are placed on fighters by the fickle fans half of that hall from pioneers forward would be emptied out.

Its the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Perfection.

---

IMO it should be based on their REAL resume, or a significant impact in the sport be it a devastating upset or specific fight, for example a Fight of the Decade type fight like the Gatti/Ward, but agree that just picking up meaningless trinkets shouldn't get you in

---

So if a mediocre fighter has a fight of the decade type fight or scores an unexpected upset he should be in the HOF?

---

better them than a guy who played a boxer in a movie, I'd rather have the guy who leaves it all in the ring than some two bit actor or guy who never even stepped into the ring

and I don't mean any little upset, I mean as in literally a historic upset that changed history in the sport, like Buster Douglas' win over Tyson

---

Buster Douglas in the HOF? That's just not right. Plus it'll lead to Hasim Rahman and Leon Spinks trying to get in the same way. Shit if I'm Antonio Tarver I'm pumping up the Jones win to get entry. I can just imagine ridiculousness of Kirkland Laing and Lloyd Honeyghan doing the same

I don't mind Stallone in the HOF cuz he didn't go in as an actual participant of the sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Lets all keep in mind that the only criteria the HOF seems to have is that there is no criteria. At times it has seemed all you needed was a belt and at other times tin collecting had nothing to do with it. What they should do at least is up the year in which the modern era starts. 70 years is a bit much. Countless fighters have either been ignored or passed over since 1943.

And based on some standards today or what ones are placed on fighters by the fickle fans half of that hall from pioneers forward would be emptied out.

Its the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Perfection.

---

IMO it should be based on their REAL resume, or a significant impact in the sport be it a devastating upset or specific fight, for example a Fight of the Decade type fight like Gatti/Ward, but agree that just picking up meaningless trinkets shouldn't get you in

---

So if a mediocre fighter has a fight of the decade type fight or scores an unexpected upset he should be in the HOF?

---

That is pretty much already the case. Johannsson? Norton is only in for breaking Ali's jaw; his career record against top 10 fighters was 4-8-1.

---

Side with VD here. That's the trouble with the place. It may not be The Hall of Perfection but it should not be The Hall of Mediocrity either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Lets all keep in mind that the only criteria the HOF seems to have is that there is no criteria. At times it has seemed all you needed was a belt and at other times tin collecting had nothing to do with it. What they should do at least is up the year in which the modern era starts. 70 years is a bit much. Countless fighters have either been ignored or passed over since 1943.

And based on some standards today or what ones are placed on fighters by the fickle fans half of that hall from pioneers forward would be emptied out.

Its the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Perfection.

---

IMO it should be based on their REAL resume, or a significant impact in the sport be it a devastating upset or specific fight, for example a Fight of the Decade type fight like Gatti/Ward, but agree that just picking up meaningless trinkets shouldn't get you in

---

So if a mediocre fighter has a fight of the decade type fight or scores an unexpected upset he should be in the HOF?

---

That is pretty much already the case. Johannsson? Norton is only in for breaking Ali's jaw; his career record against top 10 fighters was 4-8-1.

---

And you think we need more?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Lets all keep in mind that the only criteria the HOF seems to have is that there is no criteria. At times it has seemed all you needed was a belt and at other times tin collecting had nothing to do with it. What they should do at least is up the year in which the modern era starts. 70 years is a bit much. Countless fighters have either been ignored or passed over since 1943.

And based on some standards today or what ones are placed on fighters by the fickle fans half of that hall from pioneers forward would be emptied out.

Its the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Perfection.

---

IMO it should be based on their REAL resume, or a significant impact in the sport be it a devastating upset or specific fight, for example a Fight of the Decade type fight like Gatti/Ward, but agree that just picking up meaningless trinkets shouldn't get you in

---

So if a mediocre fighter has a fight of the decade type fight or scores an unexpected upset he should be in the HOF?

---

That is pretty much already the case. Johannsson? Norton is only in for breaking Ali's jaw; his career record against top 10 fighters was 4-8-1.

---

And you think we need more?

---

No. The HoF should mean something, not just that 5 guys every year get in. I don't even think Little Red lopez belongs and that was my first boxing hero.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Violent Demise

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Lets all keep in mind that the only criteria the HOF seems to have is that there is no criteria. At times it has seemed all you needed was a belt and at other times tin collecting had nothing to do with it. What they should do at least is up the year in which the modern era starts. 70 years is a bit much. Countless fighters have either been ignored or passed over since 1943.

And based on some standards today or what ones are placed on fighters by the fickle fans half of that hall from pioneers forward would be emptied out.

Its the Hall of Fame not the Hall of Perfection.

---

IMO it should be based on their REAL resume, or a significant impact in the sport be it a devastating upset or specific fight, for example a Fight of the Decade type fight like Gatti/Ward, but agree that just picking up meaningless trinkets shouldn't get you in

---

So if a mediocre fighter has a fight of the decade type fight or scores an unexpected upset he should be in the HOF?

---

That is pretty much already the case. Johannsson? Norton is only in for breaking Ali's jaw; his career record against top 10 fighters was 4-8-1.

---

And you think we need more?

---

No. The HoF should mean something, not just that 5 guys every year get in. I don't even think Little Red lopez belongs and that was my first boxing hero.

---

No he does not. He along with Ken Norton, Jeff Fenech, Barry McGuigan and Abe Attell would be the first muthafukkas I would throw out

And Johannsson, and Patterson, and Max Baer. Why is Jack Sharkey in there?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greynotsoold

And Johannsson, and Patterson, and Max Baer. Why is Jack Sharkey in there?

---

True enough. Historical significance does seem to play a role but Sharkey really does not even meet that requirement.

I like the way Groves put it from Ring. He wrote it prior to the inductions for 2012.

Quote:

---

Since this scribe became an elector for the Hall's Modern category in 2001, a disturbing trend has developed: A vast majority of the 43 names that were present then remain so 11 years later. That means the electors have already made up their minds on the candidacies of many of them, including Georgie Abrams, Horacio Accavallo, Joey Archer, Jose Beccera, Johnny Bratton, Jimmy Carruthers, Hiroyuki Ebihara, Tommy Farr, Tiger Jack Fox, Ceferino Garcia, Al Hostak, Harry Jeffra, Peter Kane, Pone Kingpetch, Tippy Larkin, Raul Macias, Freddie Mills, Rinty Monaghan, Ken Overlin, Gustave Roth, Lou Salica, Dave Sands, Pete Scalzo, Yoshio Shirai and Kid Tunero,

If the majority of voters believe these 25 men weren't worthy of enshrinement this many years in a row, it's very unlikely they'll experience a sudden and collective change of heart when fresh names like Oscar de la Hoya, Felix Trinidad, Arturo Gatti, Joe Calzaghe and Virgil Hill get their first crack before the voters in the next couple of years.

---

the only HW boxers worthy of being in the HOF are:

James J Braddock
Jack Johnson
Jack Dempsey
Joe Louis
Rocky Marciano
Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Michael Spinks
Evander Holyfield
Lennox Lewis

I get a bit annoyed always hearing Calzaghe mouthing off even to this day. he seems very bitter and I remember when he got busted by the newspapers in a cocaine scandal, he was recorded slating hatton and lennox lewis, claiming he was better than them. A lot of when we talk about him is reduced to "what if" because he didn't face everyone he should of and that's his own fault. he didn't want to travel and he didn't want hard fights....that's from his own mouth. I ADMIT he was an awesome talent and one of the best around at the time, but his resume' is not as great as it could have been. With all due respect I feel like Joe padded his record and faced a lot of journeymen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powerpuncher

there is always a debate on how good calzaghe actually was. i always say that he was a good, not great fighter. he had a few solid wins but that was it. really kessler and bhop are his only wins that i consider good. he had a fews others like bika, eubank or reid that were alright. the rest didnt mean much. i remember negotiations being made earlier in his career for him to fight bhop, jones, and glen johnson. they all fell through. he didnt have many good fighters around him, but he could have definitely negotiated weight to make better fights than he had.

and i cant believe that anyone would ever think margarito was anywhere near a HOF fighter. he is garbage. even when he cheated he was a B class fighter.

---

That's simply not the truth and I'm not sure why people continue to say it. There were never any negotiations made between any of those three mentioned. He was not going to come down to 160 to fight Hopkins and Jones was long gone to 175 at a time when Joe was just starting to break stride.

I also take issue with you saying Joe was not a great fighter. You seem to base this on the fact that his ledger is not full of household names. With or without fighting twenty other greats, Joe Calzaghe is still a great fighter. From a boxing standpoint he's a brilliant fighter and stand out skill wise and as I've said before you could probably count the number of guys that could have beaten him at 168 on one hand over the course of history. If that's not great then I dont know what is.

---

there were negotiations. i remember specifically all those fights being agreed to. i know that against johnson, calzaghe pulled out because of injury and then the fight never ended up happening. im thinking jones was the same sort of thing but i cant say for sure. but i know for sure there were definitely talks.

and with a weak resume, it all goes off of the eye test. and from the eye test, calzaghe never looked like a truly great fighter. ive seen him fight a lot but the only fight i thought he looked impressive in was the lacy fight which we found out later was a total bum. he had some other good wins but never looked super impressive by any means which is why i consider him very good but not great.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

the only HW boxers worthy of being in the HOF are:

James J Braddock
Jack Johnson
Jack Dempsey
Joe Louis
Rocky Marciano
Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Michael Spinks
Evander Holyfield
Lennox Lewis

---

braddock in no way deserves to be in there. he is one of the worse HW champions ever and was an alright LHW. thats why it was such a big deal that he beat baer. the others i would agree but i would add few like sullivan (because of his place in history alone), jim jeffries, tunney, and ezzard charles. maybe walcott too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

the only HW boxers worthy of being in the HOF are:

James J Braddock
Jack Johnson
Jack Dempsey
Joe Louis
Rocky Marciano
Muhammad Ali
George Foreman
Larry Holmes
Mike Tyson
Michael Spinks
Evander Holyfield
Lennox Lewis

---

if you have Braddock and Spinks (due to HW), then how the hell wouldn't you have Frazier on there?