Who would you boot from the Hall of Fame??

I think both of you missed his point. Lewis actually went to win title fights - a lot of them. And Langford has one of the best resumes in boxing history.

Norton was literally given a belt, and lost it in his very next fight - hence, the only heavyweight "champion" in boxing history to have never won a championship fight, unless you want to count the Ali rubber match, in which he was arguably robbed.

 

Well, I'm guessing both of these posts are directed at my previous description of the phrase "Hall Of Fame".

I guess I have to explain myself. Just as I didn't translate that to mean "Hall of the Super Duper Best" I also don't translate the word "Fame" literally either.

This doesn't mean I think Butterbean or Micky Ward should be in. This doesn't mean I haven't disagreed with other nominations in the past. I've had issues with Braddock, Willard, John Gully, Jem Ward and plenty of others.

I use this in arguments with other Halls to, not just boxing.

In all sports there's always been a camp that thinks about 10-20 guys belong in the Hall of Fame and everybody else is just very good or above average.

In baseball they argue for the no-brainers like Cobb, Ruth, Ted Williams, Hank Aaron, Willie Mays, etc... and think everybody else is a stiff.

I argue the Hall of Fames are to remember the athletes of the past.........borderline greats and the very greatest. These aren't shrines to jack off to the greatest of the greats and that's it. If that were the case all these places would be out of business or tucked into Nat Fleischers little office at the Ring Magazine headquarters, that very few would bother to visit.

 

agREED.

AND...I think some folks argue the "Fame" part when it helps support a fighter they are a fan of. Which is why we see folks wanting fighters like Gatti and Ward in the HOF...they are both popular, but neither of them are deserving.

 

No offense... but I didn't even read/notice your earlier post. :: My reply was directly in response to Ramonza's post, and my general stance on the subject.

My beef is with our "major" writers who are already banging the drums for Gatti. It bothers me because he's one of my all-time favorite fighters, but a HOF fighter he is not. But they're so determined to vote him in that they wallow in their own hypocrisy.

 

Also one other note...

I'm glad that you feel the same on other sports... but the problem is that boxing is the only sport in which the Fame part has become a significant part of the equation.

 

Thank you. The wisdom of Jake endures still.

You can't count the Ali rubber match as a victory because he lost officially...and that's what matters really. The FACT is, Norton was a "champion" who never ever won a championship fight....and lost all of his biggest fights (usually by early KO) with the exception of the first Ali fight (even a broken clock is correct twice a day)...which is his sole claim to fame.


Norton needs to be picked up and kicked up and out of the HOF (goalkeeper style)

 

That's because boxing is much more subjective. There are no stats you can really hang your hat on, like with the other sports. In boxing a 50-0 guy with 45 knockouts can be obviously inferior to another guy who is 35-15 with 15 knockouts, because the two faced a different caliber of competition.

It's like comparing Minor League stats to Major League stats in baseball, only the line is a bit more blurry.

So, unfortunately sometimes it comes down to fame. Who was on TV the most, who was a Heavyweight Champion that everybody recognizes............sometimes even (gasp!), who gave the fans their money's worth.


Besides, you ever take a look at Joe Namath's stats?

How about Bill Walton, who had some nice solid stats when he actually played, but never really put a full NBA season under his belt?

Baseball has a load of guys in the HOF who played in the 1910's through 30's, who are in solely because there was a period when a bunch of their buddies were on the Veterans Committee, while several others from the same era who had equal or superior statistics were completely ignored.

Players who were brutally dominant power hitters of their era like Johnny Mize and Jim Rice, take forever to get into the HOF because they didn't quite get along with the Press of their time.........while popular scrappy players like Kirby Puckett and Ryne Sandberg are easy 1st or early ballot selections.

The player Ryne Sandberg is statistically closest to, according to Baseball Reference.com is Lou Whitaker.

Lou Whitaker was kicked of the ballot his first year of eligibility, for not having enough votes, not even close to enough votes to stay on. I guess the Detroit voting block is not very big. A reason why you will never see Whitaker, Alan Trammell, Jack Morris, Rudy York or Rocky Colavito in the HOF.

Now, I'm a huge Yankees fan.........but try to compare the statistics of some of these names to Tony Lazzeri, Phil Rizzuto or Waite Hoyt.

It's a head-scratcher sometimes.

 

you just said Arturo Gatti will never get your vote.

 

yup... how does that differ from the post you quoted?

 

Yankee Stadium :nono:

 

I'm willing to bet Norton's status as a media "nice guy" helped him gain entrance to the HOF in much the same manner it may help Gatti do the same.

I always been a big Norton fan, but his accomplishments don't warrant induction into the HOF. Maybe if he had gotten the decision he deserved in the 3rd Ali fight and made a couple of defenses before losing to Holmes a case could be made, but not as his career actually unfolded. Norton was a very good fighter during a decade when the top of the division was stacked with great fighters (Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Holmes) and he proved he could be at least mentioned with the rest by giving Ali and Holmes all they wanted and then some.

 

My thing with Gatti is that he's not even a media good guy. In fact, he was often shielded from the media and wasn't exactly a Good Samaritan beyond the ropes.

I can name plenty of fighters who match Gatti's criteria but weren't afforded the same love affair he enjoyed with HBO. However, I always come back to one example - Miguel Cotto.

The same people who bang the Gatti drum will hesitate before definitively answering whether or not they'd vote in Cotto. I honestly don't get that. He's every bit as exciting, FAR more accomplished as a prize fighter and just as - if not more - popular.

Yet all that considered, I have no issue with those who consider Cotto a borderline choice or slightly below at the moment. But I do take issue when those same people insist Gatti has done enough.

 

Gatti wouldn't get my vote either (if I had one). And personally...I don't even know that I would consider him borderline or all that close. There are quite a few fighters I would vote in before getting to Gatti.

 

Gatti is Blood & Guts, Jake. Fans love that shit, you know that. You can install all the logic you want into it, but it's visceral.

People remember the comebacks. They remember Gatti being almost dead and knocking the other guy out, or finishing on his feet. They remember where they were when they saw him fight, they remember gasping as he traded punches with his opponent like a caveman and then sticking his chin out and asking for more punishment. They've seen the clips on YouTube, if they weren't around for the actual fights.

Obviously Cotto is the more skilled fighter, better quality of opponents, better lb. for lb., better in almost every sense of the word.

Difference is Gatti has had "moments", Cotto has not had and will never have. Moments people remember for a long time. Gatti's limitations helped define his popularity.

No, it's not logical. Boxing isn't and has never been logical. It's ruled by politics, bloodlust, television aesthetics, cheering, booing and emotion. Maybe someday it will be ruled by Bill James type Sabrmetric Statisticians.

Until that day......................



Personally, I don't know if Gatti's a Hall of Famer or not. I probably wouldn't vote for him, but if he gets in, he gets in. He excited a lot of fans, shed a lot of blood and held a couple belts. That's gotta be worth somethin'.

 

How would you feel if Gatti got in, but fighters like Cotto and Hatton didn't?

 

Don't know Jake. I'm a dude, don't have much room for "feelings".

Never been a fan of Hatton, so that wouldn't exactly break me up.

How did you feel when anybody you didn't vote for got in over somebody you did vote for?

Did you take it hard or did you just go "Well, good for him", and go on with your day?

 

I guess I take it more personal because there's very little consistency among my voting 'peers.' My issue isn't always with the fighter specifically, but voters' justification in voting for one guy but not the other.

Changes have been made in the voting process - from the number of eligible voters (separation between full/voting BWAA members and auxiliary/non-voting memebrs) to the number of fighters elected in each year (reduced from four to three). They are steps in the right direction, but still flawed.

 

I see where you're coming from Jake. I would most likely vote along the same lines as you if I had a vote.

I'm just more laid back about the whole process...........and yes, it does need improvement. The whole bare-knuckle category is a sham that seems determined to let any Heavyweight with a name in, while ignoring any Lighter weight fighter, which believe it or not was heavily covered during the time period, but for some reason or another they are ignored because Nat Fleischer didn't cover them in his books.

It's a valid category.....and the Pioneers do need to be remembered......but it is a sham they way they have gone about it.

 

One thing I will say - I initially shook my head in disbelief when Sylvester Stallone was voted in. But then I heard the stories told by a number of fighters, which made me realize that his impact was far greater than I ever gave credit.

So with stuff like that, I've certainly learned to not get too excited about.

The election of Joe Cortez, on the other hand...

 

Yeah, I think I felt the same way as you about Sly. Shook my head initially, but eventually came around on it.

Cortez ::

I nearly forgot about "Fair But Firm".

I may have to dial up my rage before this thread finishes out.

I'm in a weird mood today. :notallthere:

 

If you have hate in you heart, let it out.

 

I only hate people and animals. Everyone else, I'm ok with.

 

Years ago, there was a "Boxing History" section and I did a revamped hall of fame where I removed more than half of the fighters

that is the only way I'd ever be pleased with the hall of fame, if it were actually really hard to get into

 

that's because he's gay.

 

You're just unambitious and don't want to spring for induction rings and plaques they can pawn when they get back home.

You'd probably only nominate dead guys and hire Treat Williams to be your parade marshal every year. :nono:

 

::

 

Any of the bums from 1900 to 1950.

I'm not sure Terrible Terry McGovern, Sailor Hardcase Big-Bollox, Tony Lardarse Galento, etc, should be in there.

 

Terrible Terry McGovern? he is unquestionably a hall of famer

the fact that he'd get annihlated by any featherweight post-1920 or so is meaningless, he dominated his peers, thats how you judge them

 

::

 

:giggle:

Him and "Young Stribling"- sounds like a prime cut from a calf.