Future Hall of Famers discussion
The recent inductions got me thinking about the criteria to get in & who we would induct of those active guys coming to the end & what some of the younger guys will have to do to get in.
I'll start with a small section of active fighters who are certainties to get in & who quite frankly I think everyone who follows boxing accepts is more than worthy of a spot.
Definites
Floyd Mayweather
Manny Pacquiao
Bernard Hopkins
Roy Jones Jr
Juan Manuel Marquez
Evander Holyfield
Shane Mosley
James Toney
Erik Morales
Marco Antonio Barrera
Like I said, I don't think anyone can seriously argue with any of those guys being in there.
The next section is guys coming towards the end of their careers, completely shot or still technically active, who there may be some argument over. Now there are at least a couple of these guys who I think should definitely be in there, but I'm guessing there might be some who would debate them. There's also a few who I don't think are worthy but who may have a shot. There's at least one who imo should be nowhere near it & will almost certainly never get in, but some may feel differently.
Possibles
Wladimir Klitschko
Vitali Klitschko
Glen Johnson
Zsolt Erdei
Antonio Tarver
Mikkel Kessler
Miguel Cotto
Cory Spinks
Antonio Margarito
Ricky Hatton
Joel Casamayor
Jose Luis Castillo
Rafael Marquez
Jorge Arce
Fernando Montiel
Pongsaklek Wonjongkam
Ivan Calderon
So say whether you think those guys are deserving or what they have to do to deserve to be in there, although I think in most cases with the possible exceptions of Wlad & Kessler, there isn't much scope for them to improve their standing.
This last section is younger guys or guys currently at their peak, who look like they can go on for a few more years. I don't believe any of these guys have yet done enough to justify being in Canastota & many won't ever, although in some cases it may only be a few wins away.
Unlikely as of now
David Haye
Chad Dawson
Jean Pascal
Andre Ward
Carl Froch
Arthur Abraham
Kelly Pavlik
Sergio Martinez
Victor Ortiz
Tim Bradley
Amir Khan
Humberto Soto
Robert Guerrero
Yuri Gamboa
Chris John
Juan Manuel Lopez
Chris John
Nonito Donaire
Vic Darchinyan
Roman Gonzalez
Giovanni Segura
Like I said, I don't think any of these guys have done enough to be in the hall yet, but what would they have to do to be in there?
I've got my own thoughts, but I'm interested in what you guys have to say first.
Re: Future Hall of Famers discussion
What is the criteria for getting in? I mean it's been used for years that a guy like Barry McGuigan got in and that other noteworthy fighters won't even get a sniff. I think that's the worst thing the hall of fame could have done by lowering their standards like that. And then you have Sylvester Stallone getting a nod for his observer role or whatever.
So what really is the criteria?
Re: Future Hall of Famers discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
generalbulldog
What is the criteria for getting in? I mean it's been used for years that a guy like Barry McGuigan got in and that other noteworthy fighters won't even get a sniff. I think that's the worst thing the hall of fame could have done by lowering their standards like that. And then you have Sylvester Stallone getting a nod for his observer role or whatever.
So what really is the criteria?
Well, I don't think any of us really have the criteria as there's only like 240 journalists worldwide who get a vote. I was more just thinking who we consider worthy of being there.
I mean, I posted the first set as a list of guys who whatever the criteria most definitely deserve to be in there & I can see no argument why not.
Re: Future Hall of Famers discussion
i like the tops of your lists on the posibles and unlikelies
is this another haye wlad thread in disguise?
Re: Future Hall of Famers discussion
A couple of preliminary thoughts.
1. I think Halls of Fame should be reserved for the inarguably great, great, great
2. I believe clear mistakes (McGuigan, Ingo, Norris, Mitchell, Papp, Graham) should NOT be used to justify new mistakes
Of your definites I would seriously question Shane Mosely for two reasons. First his PED usage calls his entire resume into question. 2. At the top of his resume he lost more than he won against great fighters. Should JMM REALLY be a lock? Who is his biggest win exactly? An over the hill MAB? His brother is more deserving in my view. One thing to keep in mind. Since 1875 there have been roughly 500 true champions in the sport. The HOF has about 250 fighters in it. Has JMM REALLY been one of the top 50% of all true champions in history?
Of the possibles the only guys I think who deserve serious consideration are Wlad, Wonjonkam, Iron Boy and Rafale Marquez. The others I'd rate as clear no's.
Before any of the guys I've named go in don't men like Pone Kingpetch, Donald Curry, Betulio Gonzales, Santos Laciar, Myung Wuh Yuh, Wilfredo Vasquez, Yoko Gushiken, Rafael Hererra etc have to go in? I'm not arguing these guys should go, only that their resumes are superior to the guys we are discussing here.
On the last group what do they have to do? The answer across the board is A LOT more than they have done today. None are close.
Now here's the problem. If the IBHOF mandates three indusctions a year? There is going to be some serious watering down.
Re: Future Hall of Famers discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
i like the tops of your lists on the posibles and unlikelies
is this another haye wlad thread in disguise?
No, it's precisely because I wanted to talk about something else that I made this.
Marble,
I did think about that with Mosley (& Holyfield) regarding PEDs, but quite frankly when they've just let a convicted rapist & Kostya Tszyu in, I think that Mosley will more than warrant it. I disagree strongly with JMM being questioned. I think he's got a hell of a resume. He has one clear loss in his whole career. He's been extremely competitive and many believe twice won against an ATG. He's repeatedly taken on the best opposition he can. I would certainly consider him among the 100 best fighters in history, let alone 250.
Re: Future Hall of Famers discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
erics44
i like the tops of your lists on the posibles and unlikelies
is this another haye wlad thread in disguise?
No, it's precisely because I wanted to talk about something else that I made this.
Marble,
I did think about that with Mosley (& Holyfield) regarding PEDs, but quite frankly when they've just let a convicted rapist & Kostya Tszyu in, I think that Mosley will more than warrant it. I disagree strongly with JMM being questioned. I think he's got a hell of a resume. He has one clear loss in his whole career. He's been extremely competitive and many believe twice won against an ATG. He's repeatedly taken on the best opposition he can. I would certainly consider him among the 100 best fighters in history, let alone 250.
Rape is an outside the ring event. Irrelevant to a man's boxing accomplishments. PED's are an in-ring event.
Unless one has seen every single fight in history, I think it is irresponsible to rewrite the record book for a single guy. I mean what is the criteria for turning losses into wins exactly? The inarguable fact is JMM is 1-3-1 against fighters one might call great. I can find dozens of guys with results better than that who we'd NEVER consider putting in the HOF. How about a guy like Willie Joyce? He went 4-6 against HOFers named Armstrong, Ike Williams, Willie Pep and Chalky Wright.
Now don't get me wrong, there is an srgument for putting JMM in. But he should NOT be a lock while men like I listed aren't in.
Here's another. The Cocoa Kid. 150+ wins, 9-6-4 against HOFers and he's not in.
Re: Future Hall of Famers discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Rape is an outside the ring event. Irrelevant to a man's boxing accomplishments. PED's are an in-ring event.
Unless one has seen every single fight in history, I think it is irresponsible to rewrite the record book for a single guy. I mean what is the criteria for turning losses into wins exactly? The inarguable fact is JMM is 1-3-1 against fighters one might call great. I can find dozens of guys with results better than that who we'd NEVER consider putting in the HOF. How about a guy like Willie Joyce? He went 4-6 against HOFers named Armstrong, Ike Williams, Willie Pep and Chalky Wright.
Now don't get me wrong, there is an srgument for putting JMM in. But he should NOT be a lock while men like I listed aren't in.
But would you not argue that Mosley has a better resume than either Tyson or Tszyu? I agree about the PEDs, my point was that those voting are not swayed by what is morally right, let's face it 90% of the press & public wanted to Mosley to flatten Mayweather despite the fact his history with PEDs. It won't matter in the end. Just as Tyson biting off Holyfield's ear didn't. It all gets forgotten in a mist of nostalgia.
I see Marquez certainly better than any of those listed (although I know little of Laciar). Only Kingpetch & Herrera have wins over Harada & Olivares that I'd consider the equal of Barrera. They along with Yuh are also ones who should be in there imo.
I didn't say anyone should re-write the record books, but I don't know where you've got 1-3-1 from, whose that 3rd fighter? The arguable great would surely be Casamayor rather than John no?
You also don't need to have watched every fight in history (maybe if we could we'd know if Harry Greb was as good as he is alleged to be), but you can make judgements on those you have. Old fighters are both disadvantaged & advantaged by us not being able to see all those fights. We may not be able to see if they were unlucky to lose a decision, but they also don't get their entire careers analysed fight by fight in the way modern guys do. They could also fight someone well below their standard without us complaining because it's not on tape.
Re: Future Hall of Famers discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Rape is an outside the ring event. Irrelevant to a man's boxing accomplishments. PED's are an in-ring event.
Unless one has seen every single fight in history, I think it is irresponsible to rewrite the record book for a single guy. I mean what is the criteria for turning losses into wins exactly? The inarguable fact is JMM is 1-3-1 against fighters one might call great. I can find dozens of guys with results better than that who we'd NEVER consider putting in the HOF. How about a guy like Willie Joyce? He went 4-6 against HOFers named Armstrong, Ike Williams, Willie Pep and Chalky Wright.
Now don't get me wrong, there is an srgument for putting JMM in. But he should NOT be a lock while men like I listed aren't in.
But would you not argue that Mosley has a better resume than either Tyson or Tszyu? I agree about the PEDs, my point was that those voting are not swayed by what is morally right, let's face it 90% of the press & public wanted to Mosley to flatten Mayweather despite the fact his history with PEDs. It won't matter in the end. Just as Tyson biting off Holyfield's ear didn't. It all gets forgotten in a mist of nostalgia.
I see Marquez certainly better than any of those listed (although I know little of Laciar). Only Kingpetch & Herrera have wins over Harada & Olivares that I'd consider the equal of Barrera. They along with Yuh are also ones who should be in there imo.
I didn't say anyone should re-write the record books, but I don't know where you've got 1-3-1 from, whose that 3rd fighter? The arguable great would surely be Casamayor rather than John no?
You also don't need to have watched every fight in history (maybe if we could we'd know if Harry Greb was as good as he is alleged to be), but you can make judgements on those you have. Old fighters are both disadvantaged & advantaged by us not being able to see all those fights. We may not be able to see if they were unlucky to lose a decision, but they also don't get their entire careers analysed fight by fight in the way modern guys do. They could also fight someone well below their standard without us complaining because it's not on tape.
Is Shane's resume better than Tyson's or Kostya's? I dunno. How much of it did he do clean?
I had John instead of Casamayor as Casa was long past it, but let's do it your way. 2-2-1. I can STILL find dozens of guys we'd NEVER consider with resumes superior to that. FAR superior to that.
I just think we all tend to be prisoners of the moment with the last thing we've seen. Taking a step back to consider the alternatives requires work. I struggle to see for example how a guy 2-2-1 against great fighters (and that gives him the benefit of every doubt) can be a lock while guys with winning records against great fighters, and twice as many matches against them aren't even considered.
As for Greb? Go watch the footage of the men he beat. Tunney, Walker, Loughran for starters. It tells you what you need to know.
Re: Future Hall of Famers discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Is Shane's resume better than Tyson's or Kostya's? I dunno. How much of it did he do clean?
I had John instead of Casamayor as Casa was long past it, but let's do it your way. 2-2-1. I can STILL find dozens of guys we'd NEVER consider with resumes superior to that. FAR superior to that.
I just think we all tend to be prisoners of the moment with the last thing we've seen. Taking a step back to consider the alternatives requires work. I struggle to see for example how a guy 2-2-1 against great fighters (and that gives him the benefit of every doubt) can be a lock while guys with winning records against great fighters, and twice as many matches against them aren't even considered.
As for Greb? Go watch the footage of the men he beat. Tunney, Walker, Loughran for starters. It tells you what you need to know.
I've watched footage of all those guys now & I personally believe Tunney is one of the best fighters of all time, certainly in my top 10. But, I haven't seen Greb. I don't know that he convincingly beat any of those guys or if it was controversial. He gets the benefit of the doubt that modern guys don't get. I've no doubt he's a hall of famer, but I can't place him among the best having never seen him.
I think Shane's resume is better than both & there is an argument that he wasn't clean, but we just won't know. If he's excluded on the grounds of PEDs fair enough, but on his resume? I don't think so.
Aside from Marquez's record against great fighters, it also has to be taken into account that he has fought around a dozen ranked guys in all of the 3 divisions.
God, I knew you'd find something to nitpick with my locks ;)
Re: Future Hall of Famers discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Is Shane's resume better than Tyson's or Kostya's? I dunno. How much of it did he do clean?
I had John instead of Casamayor as Casa was long past it, but let's do it your way. 2-2-1. I can STILL find dozens of guys we'd NEVER consider with resumes superior to that. FAR superior to that.
I just think we all tend to be prisoners of the moment with the last thing we've seen. Taking a step back to consider the alternatives requires work. I struggle to see for example how a guy 2-2-1 against great fighters (and that gives him the benefit of every doubt) can be a lock while guys with winning records against great fighters, and twice as many matches against them aren't even considered.
As for Greb? Go watch the footage of the men he beat. Tunney, Walker, Loughran for starters. It tells you what you need to know.
I've watched footage of all those guys now & I personally believe Tunney is one of the best fighters of all time, certainly in my top 10. But, I haven't seen Greb. I don't know that he convincingly beat any of those guys or if it was controversial. He gets the benefit of the doubt that modern guys don't get. I've no doubt he's a hall of famer, but I can't place him among the best having never seen him.
I think Shane's resume is better than both & there is an argument that he wasn't clean, but we just won't know. If he's excluded on the grounds of PEDs fair enough, but on his resume? I don't think so.
Aside from Marquez's record against great fighters, it also has to be taken into account that he has fought around a dozen ranked guys in all of the 3 divisions.
God, I knew you'd find something to nitpick with my locks ;)
Harry Greb DESTROYED Gene Tunney in their first fight. Tunney's face was described as "hamburger meat" and Tunney himself is perhaps the best written source on Greb's greatness. But you can also read accounts by Grantland Rice, referee Kid McPartland, Mel Heimer, the NYT and others.
My issue with Shane, as opposed to say Evander and Roy Jones (two other guys implicated in PED's) is that Shane is marginal in any case. Take away his wins over Oscar and he's a no-brainer no.
Again on Marquez, I can find dozens of guys who have beaten more than a dozen ranked guys (apples to apples) and have better records against greats who we'd never consider.
Look, He's one of my very favorite guys to watch because I am convinced he's a mediocre talent who has done it all with an amazing amount of work and desire. I LOVE guys like that. I will not complain much when he goes in...But a lock?
Admit it, you'd have been extremely disappointed if I just went along ;)
Re: Future Hall of Famers discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Is Shane's resume better than Tyson's or Kostya's? I dunno. How much of it did he do clean?
I had John instead of Casamayor as Casa was long past it, but let's do it your way. 2-2-1. I can STILL find dozens of guys we'd NEVER consider with resumes superior to that. FAR superior to that.
I just think we all tend to be prisoners of the moment with the last thing we've seen. Taking a step back to consider the alternatives requires work. I struggle to see for example how a guy 2-2-1 against great fighters (and that gives him the benefit of every doubt) can be a lock while guys with winning records against great fighters, and twice as many matches against them aren't even considered.
As for Greb? Go watch the footage of the men he beat. Tunney, Walker, Loughran for starters. It tells you what you need to know.
I've watched footage of all those guys now & I personally believe Tunney is one of the best fighters of all time, certainly in my top 10. But, I haven't seen Greb. I don't know that he convincingly beat any of those guys or if it was controversial. He gets the benefit of the doubt that modern guys don't get. I've no doubt he's a hall of famer, but I can't place him among the best having never seen him.
I think Shane's resume is better than both & there is an argument that he wasn't clean, but we just won't know. If he's excluded on the grounds of PEDs fair enough, but on his resume? I don't think so.
Aside from Marquez's record against great fighters, it also has to be taken into account that he has fought around a dozen ranked guys in all of the 3 divisions.
God, I knew you'd find something to nitpick with my locks ;)
Harry Greb DESTROYED Gene Tunney in their first fight. Tunney's face was described as "hamburger meat" and Tunney himself is perhaps the best written source on Greb's greatness. But you can also read accounts by Grantland Rice, referee Kid McPartland, Mel Heimer, the NYT and others.
My issue with Shane, as opposed to say Evander and Roy Jones (two other guys implicated in PED's) is that Shane is marginal in any case. Take away his wins over Oscar and he's a no-brainer no.
Again on Marquez, I can find dozens of guys who have beaten more than a dozen ranked guys (apples to apples) and have better records against greats who we'd never consider.
Look, He's one of my very favorite guys to watch because I am convinced he's a mediocre talent who has done it all with an amazing amount of work and desire. I LOVE guys like that. I will not complain much when he goes in...But a lock?
Admit it, you'd have been extremely disappointed if I just went along ;)
Hey, you just wait till VD gets in here & sees what you've written ;D
I can't see JMM not being in there & I can state right now, I won't be convinced otherwise.
I'm convinced that Shane will get in, but despite him being one of my favourites (& he was the fave up until I found out about the HGH), I'll agree he does have some holes. His bypassing of 140 doesn't bother me, nor does him avoiding Mayweather in the late 90s as he was clearly outgrowing Lightweight. However, I still fail to understand why didn't fight Mayweather when he was repeatedly a fight with him from 2005-7. Saying he had a toothache to then sign a fight with Cotto just never made sense to me :confused:. Maybe they always knew it was a bad style match-up. I suppose in the long-term it worked out better, no way was it as a rich a fight at that time.
For me he gets in for his time at Lightweight, he has lineal title wins at 147 almost a decade apart. I ignore the lineal belt at 154 because he had it for one fight & by his own admission was on PEDs.
I agree Greb was great, you might remember I ranked him as an ATG. However, my point was I couldn't place him among the top 10/20/50 fighters of all time because I haven't seen him with my own eyes. I've not even talked to someone who has seen him. I know the press of the time loved him, but let's remember that the press of every era have a tendency for hyperbole.
Re: Future Hall of Famers discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Is Shane's resume better than Tyson's or Kostya's? I dunno. How much of it did he do clean?
I had John instead of Casamayor as Casa was long past it, but let's do it your way. 2-2-1. I can STILL find dozens of guys we'd NEVER consider with resumes superior to that. FAR superior to that.
I just think we all tend to be prisoners of the moment with the last thing we've seen. Taking a step back to consider the alternatives requires work. I struggle to see for example how a guy 2-2-1 against great fighters (and that gives him the benefit of every doubt) can be a lock while guys with winning records against great fighters, and twice as many matches against them aren't even considered.
As for Greb? Go watch the footage of the men he beat. Tunney, Walker, Loughran for starters. It tells you what you need to know.
I've watched footage of all those guys now & I personally believe Tunney is one of the best fighters of all time, certainly in my top 10. But, I haven't seen Greb. I don't know that he convincingly beat any of those guys or if it was controversial. He gets the benefit of the doubt that modern guys don't get. I've no doubt he's a hall of famer, but I can't place him among the best having never seen him.
I think Shane's resume is better than both & there is an argument that he wasn't clean, but we just won't know. If he's excluded on the grounds of PEDs fair enough, but on his resume? I don't think so.
Aside from Marquez's record against great fighters, it also has to be taken into account that he has fought around a dozen ranked guys in all of the 3 divisions.
God, I knew you'd find something to nitpick with my locks ;)
Harry Greb DESTROYED Gene Tunney in their first fight. Tunney's face was described as "hamburger meat" and Tunney himself is perhaps the best written source on Greb's greatness. But you can also read accounts by Grantland Rice, referee Kid McPartland, Mel Heimer, the NYT and others.
My issue with Shane, as opposed to say Evander and Roy Jones (two other guys implicated in PED's) is that Shane is marginal in any case. Take away his wins over Oscar and he's a no-brainer no.
Again on Marquez, I can find dozens of guys who have beaten more than a dozen ranked guys (apples to apples) and have better records against greats who we'd never consider.
Look, He's one of my very favorite guys to watch because I am convinced he's a mediocre talent who has done it all with an amazing amount of work and desire. I LOVE guys like that. I will not complain much when he goes in...But a lock?
Admit it, you'd have been extremely disappointed if I just went along ;)
Hey, you just wait till VD gets in here & sees what you've written ;D
I can't see JMM not being in there & I can state right now, I won't be convinced otherwise.
I'm convinced that Shane will get in, but despite him being one of my favourites (& he was the fave up until I found out about the HGH), I'll agree he does have some holes. His bypassing of 140 doesn't bother me, nor does him avoiding Mayweather in the late 90s as he was clearly outgrowing Lightweight. However, I still fail to understand why didn't fight Mayweather when he was repeatedly a fight with him from 2005-7. Saying he had a toothache to then sign a fight with Cotto just never made sense to me :confused:. Maybe they always knew it was a bad style match-up. I suppose in the long-term it worked out better, no way was it as a rich a fight at that time.
For me he gets in for his time at Lightweight, he has lineal title wins at 147 almost a decade apart. I ignore the lineal belt at 154 because he had it for one fight & by his own admission was on PEDs.
I agree Greb was great, you might remember I ranked him as an ATG. However, my point was I couldn't place him among the top 10/20/50 fighters of all time because I haven't seen him with my own eyes. I've not even talked to someone who has seen him.
I know the press of the time loved him, but let's remember that the press of every era have a tendency for hyperbole.
Yeah but Gene Tunney didn't ;)
Re: Future Hall of Famers discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JazMerkin
Quote:
Originally Posted by
marbleheadmaui
Is Shane's resume better than Tyson's or Kostya's? I dunno. How much of it did he do clean?
I had John instead of Casamayor as Casa was long past it, but let's do it your way. 2-2-1. I can STILL find dozens of guys we'd NEVER consider with resumes superior to that. FAR superior to that.
I just think we all tend to be prisoners of the moment with the last thing we've seen. Taking a step back to consider the alternatives requires work. I struggle to see for example how a guy 2-2-1 against great fighters (and that gives him the benefit of every doubt) can be a lock while guys with winning records against great fighters, and twice as many matches against them aren't even considered.
As for Greb? Go watch the footage of the men he beat. Tunney, Walker, Loughran for starters. It tells you what you need to know.
I've watched footage of all those guys now & I personally believe Tunney is one of the best fighters of all time, certainly in my top 10. But, I haven't seen Greb. I don't know that he convincingly beat any of those guys or if it was controversial. He gets the benefit of the doubt that modern guys don't get. I've no doubt he's a hall of famer, but I can't place him among the best having never seen him.
I think Shane's resume is better than both & there is an argument that he wasn't clean, but we just won't know. If he's excluded on the grounds of PEDs fair enough, but on his resume? I don't think so.
Aside from Marquez's record against great fighters, it also has to be taken into account that he has fought around a dozen ranked guys in all of the 3 divisions.
God, I knew you'd find something to nitpick with my locks ;)
Harry Greb DESTROYED Gene Tunney in their first fight. Tunney's face was described as "hamburger meat" and Tunney himself is perhaps the best written source on Greb's greatness. But you can also read accounts by Grantland Rice, referee Kid McPartland, Mel Heimer, the NYT and others.
My issue with Shane, as opposed to say Evander and Roy Jones (two other guys implicated in PED's) is that Shane is marginal in any case. Take away his wins over Oscar and he's a no-brainer no.
Again on Marquez, I can find dozens of guys who have beaten more than a dozen ranked guys (apples to apples) and have better records against greats who we'd never consider.
Look, He's one of my very favorite guys to watch because I am convinced he's a mediocre talent who has done it all with an amazing amount of work and desire. I LOVE guys like that. I will not complain much when he goes in...But a lock?
Admit it, you'd have been extremely disappointed if I just went along ;)
Hey, you just wait till VD gets in here & sees what you've written ;D
I can't see JMM not being in there & I can state right now, I won't be convinced otherwise.
I'm convinced that Shane will get in, but despite him being one of my favourites (& he was the fave up until I found out about the HGH), I'll agree he does have some holes. His bypassing of 140 doesn't bother me, nor does him avoiding Mayweather in the late 90s as he was clearly outgrowing Lightweight. However, I still fail to understand why didn't fight Mayweather when he was repeatedly a fight with him from 2005-7. Saying he had a toothache to then sign a fight with Cotto just never made sense to me :confused:. Maybe they always knew it was a bad style match-up. I suppose in the long-term it worked out better, no way was it as a rich a fight at that time.
For me he gets in for his time at Lightweight, he has lineal title wins at 147 almost a decade apart. I ignore the lineal belt at 154 because he had it for one fight & by his own admission was on PEDs.
I agree Greb was great, you might remember I ranked him as an ATG. However, my point was I couldn't place him among the top 10/20/50 fighters of all time because I haven't seen him with my own eyes. I've not even talked to someone who has seen him.
I know the press of the time loved him, but let's remember that the press of every era have a tendency for hyperbole.
Yeah but Gene Tunney didn't ;)
Wait, that's it... where's the long analysis & decimation of my views? I'm disappointed in you Marble.
I agree he was great. But I like many others can't rank a guy who I've not seen.
