Quote Originally Posted by greynotsoold View Post
Quote Originally Posted by Violent Demise View Post
Quote Originally Posted by ElTerribleMorales View Post
Quote Originally Posted by IamInuit View Post
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.