
Originally Posted by
Violent Demise

Originally Posted by
ElTerribleMorales

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
Bookmarks