Future Hall of Famers discussion

[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?

[JazMerkin]

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.

[erics44]

i like the tops of your lists on the posibles and unlikelies

is this another haye wlad thread in disguise?

[JazMerkin]

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.

[marbleheadmaui]

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.

[JazMerkin]

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.

[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.

[marbleheadmaui]

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.