Who would you boot from the Hall of Fame??

If you had two votes, one to remove a fighter from the Hall of Fame and one to add a fighter to the Hall of Fame, which fighters would you choose and why?

 

There's a few off the top of my head. Is there a full list somewhere though?

I'm sure i could google it but don't feel like it.

 

I would kick Barry Mcguigan right TFO and nominate Marlon Starling.

 

Dear jesus you are worthless.

http://www.ibhof.com/pages/about/inductees/modern.html

 

Maxim and Johansson

 

I'm saving my votes for future consideration...Arturo Gatti and Mickey Ward.

 

Ward's not getting in.

 

Norton and Duran

 

At the risk of sounding a bit douchy. I wouldn't boot anybody out. It's a bit disrespectful of guys who boxed to all of a sudden tell them, they don't belong in the HOF.

I always go back to "It's called the 'Hall of Fame', not the 'Hall of Very Greatest', 'Hall of Superheroes', or 'Hall of Everybody IThink is Worthy'.

I've been up to the Hall of Fame every year since 1997 and it's usually the borderline guys who have the most respect for the place, and really savor the fact that fans still remember them.

The encounters I've had with guys like Jeff Chandler, Ken Norton and Matthew Saad Muhammad are far more valuable to me, then the stand off-ish attitudes of Marvin Hagler, Joe Frazier and Roberto Duran.

Who am I to tell anyone from that first group that they don't belong.

I might argue who I think should or shouldn't go in, before it happens, but once they're in, they're in...........whether I think they should be or not.



Now to get off my soapbox.................If I had to pick one guy..........Jose Sulaiman, get out. Since he's a Non-Participant, I'd replace him with Don Elbaum or any number of other prolific regional promoters/managers.

 

Suliaman is too easy of an answer. He shouldn't just be booted from the hall of fame, he should be put into a small space craft and launched out of earth's atmoshophere.

 

"Jose Sulaiman once gave me a handjob on an airplane. He should be in the HOF."

-mikE

 

based on his fame, especially after the movie, he has a chance.

not sure what the true standard is to be a hall of famer, but i've been on the side that FAME actually attributes to the same word that's tied to the organization.

this isn't to say that butterbean should be nominated, but at the very least, ward was a serious fighter who garnered serious interest to the sport when he fought towards the end of his career.

mcguigan was super star in his homeland and also known commodity in the states while boxing was hot.

gatti is a deserved hall of famer. not a great fighter, but he was two time world champion who's had a long career as an hbo fighter that gave fans memorable fights. not sure how he can be denied.

 

Well as surly as Roberto Duran can be, to his credit, he did practically threaten to beat Sulaiman off the stage, during his 45 minute HOF acceptance speech.

Unfortunately, Sulaiman, thick as he is, took it as a joke and just kept on rambling. :bangh:

 

Damn you come off as douchy.

 

Nah, I don't think so. I think Mark Wahlberg has a better chance of eventually getting in as a non-participant then Ward does as an actual fighter.

I don't think there's any precedent at this point. There's several guys in the HOF who were non-champions, but fought during the 8 Belt 1 Champion per division era.

I don't think there's any non-champions in there from the modern multi-belt per division era.

 

Thanks man. :bears:

 

didn't you see the movie? ward is a former WBU world champion!

 

::

Yeah, I did see it. I think the Boxing Writers of America will be able to weed that one out during the voting process.

 

and apparently a welterweight one, at that!

My votes for this topic, for the sake of picking two names not yet mentioned:

Randy Turpin
Billy Graham

 

Interesting choice in Starling. But I can't help but think why Starling and not Donald Curry who was 2 -0 against Starling and was the better and more accomplished fighter at 147? Is it a personal preference or do you really think Starling is more deserving than Curry?

 

Curry isn't in?

 

One in and one out people.

Not two out. :nono:

 

It's mostly personal preference. But also because I am in the minority that thought Starling and Curry split their two fights. I honestly still think Starling deserved the win in the first fight. Judges gave way too much credit for punches by Curry that missed or were blocked. Starling wasn't hit cleanly in that fight nearly as much as the crowd or judges thought.

Nevertheless, I also don't think Curry ever had the big, career defining win. Starling's destruction of Honeyghan does it for me.

 

Nope.

http://www.ibhof.com/pages/about/inductees/modern.html

 

good one. turpin's a legend though (both in the ring and circus acts). merchant brought him up as a comparison to tarver having's roy jones' number!

 

I don't think you can go wrong with either guy for different reasons.

Curry was obviously more dominant during his absolute prime. I think he's dismissed by many people because he flamed out so quick and people during that time expected a lot more from him.

Starling, on the other hand was a spoiler who beat a lot of fighters he was supposed to be considered a stepping stone for. Curry did beat Starling twice, fair and square, but both were during Curry's absolute peak and he did not have an easy time of it.

Starling was a match-makers nightmare because you never knew which Marlon was going to show up for which fight. He did really relish the underdog role.

 

I saw what you did there. :nono:

 

How about a couple guys who aren't in...would they get the nod...

Glen Johnson
Manny Medina

Are they Hall of Famers?

 

Hmmm....to each his own I guess.

IMO...I can't see any way that Starling is more qualified than Curry. Curry is 2-0 against Starling (and I think Starling spent too much time clowning around and not time enough fighting to win the fight), And then Curry beat Starling convincingly in their title fight, unified the 147 lb title, and won more title fights than Starling at 147 (8-1 vs 4-2-1) .

Curry did stay one fight too long in the division and was upset by Honeyghan (who, IMO, Curry would have beaten without trouble a year or so earlier), but Starling had the two losses to Curry, plus losses to the likes of Pedro Viella & Johnny Bumphus (a technical decision, but still a loss) and a title fight loss to Blocker.

 

The subconscious is funny sometimes. :tick: