Comments Thread For: Arturo Gatti Heads Class of 2013 Hall Of Fame Inductees

[Ravens Fan]

The best champion Gatti ever beat was Tracy Harris Patterson. He also never beat a Hall of Fame fighter and his trilogy was against a club fighter from New England. Does that sound like Hall of Fame material?

[Chups]

OMG. He doesn't deserve it.......but yeah he's Gatti so I'm not complaining. Standards have really been lowered since Barry McGuigan and this Broner P4P #5, fuck boxing!!

[Freedom2013]

Originally Posted by deanrw

Gatti deserved to get in. Why? Well simply put, for years he carried the sport. People fell in love with him. His fans did not care if he won or lost, he was beyond those "restrictions". He was the embodiment of pure heart and soul. The underdog warrior who consistently fought against all odds and was willing time and time again, to put absolutely everything on the line, just to entertain us.

Add that to the fact that he was among one of the most exciting fighters the sport has ever seen, well then you have something special. That someone special deserves to be rewarded. He was not Elite in the Wins/Losses Category. He was Elite in his own category. He was a headline fighter for a reason. If you have doubts about him, try to think of why he was a headline fighter regardless of his record. Really think about it and you will see why he deserves to be in the HOF.

I agree it makes sense for Arturo Gatti to get in, for the reasons you indicated.

But Virgil Hill shouldn't get in over Dariusz M.

[BattlingNelson]

Originally Posted by deanrw

Gatti deserved to get in. Why? Well simply put, for years he carried the sport. People fell in love with him. His fans did not care if he won or lost, he was beyond those "restrictions". He was the embodiment of pure heart and soul. The underdog warrior who consistently fought against all odds and was willing time and time again, to put absolutely everything on the line, just to entertain us.

Add that to the fact that he was among one of the most exciting fighters the sport has ever seen, well then you have something special. That someone special deserves to be rewarded. He was not Elite in the Wins/Losses Category. He was Elite in his own category. He was a headline fighter for a reason. If you have doubts about him, try to think of why he was a headline fighter regardless of his record. Really think about it and you will see why he deserves to be in the HOF.

He was exiting yes. And a crowdpleaser yes. And a fan-favorite yes. And so on.

Is that what it should take to get a spot in the IBHOF?

I don't think it should be that way. I think the HOF should be reserved to the creme de la creme of the sport. Others might think that Fame in itself should be enough. That's fine. I just don't agree.

[The Weebler II]

Originally Posted by BattlingNelson

He was exiting yes. And a crowdpleaser yes. And a fan-favorite yes. And so on.

Is that what it should take to get a spot in the IBHOF?

I don't think it should be that way. I think the HOF should be reserved to the creme de la creme of the sport. Others might think that Fame in itself should be enough. That's fine. I just don't agree.

Why not both?

For me boxing isn't like other sports, it's about more than just about winning and losing. It's as much about the intangibles like heart, courage and character. It's the fight that matters imo and those who bring it again and again deserve the recognition. They might win some and lose some but they always bring it and with that goes excitement and public appeal.

If they only want those with the best records they shouldn't call it a hall of fame, they should call it the hall of boxing's best records or something results-based.

[D-MiZe]

Colin fuckin' Hart...

[Ravens Fan]

Originally Posted by The Weebler II

Why not both?

For me boxing isn't like other sports, it's about more than just about winning and losing. It's as much about the intangibles like heart, courage and character. It's the fight that matters imo and those who bring it again and again deserve the recognition. They might win some and lose some but they always bring it and with that goes excitement and public appeal.

If they only want those with the best records they shouldn't call it a hall of fame, they should call it the hall of boxing's best records or something results-based.

A big part of it should be based on who you beat. And Gatti beat no one and he also lost to some very average fighters while in his prime!

[BattlingNelson]

Originally Posted by The Weebler II

Why not both?

For me boxing isn't like other sports, it's about more than just about winning and losing. It's as much about the intangibles like heart, courage and character. It's the fight that matters imo and those who bring it again and again deserve the recognition. They might win some and lose some but they always bring it and with that goes excitement and public appeal.

If they only want those with the best records they shouldn't call it a hall of fame, they should call it the hall of boxing's best records or something results-based.

That's certainly a point. Then again fighters such as Frank Fletcher or maybe even Martin Rogan might get in. That doesn't sit well with me.

[ArtThouFurious?]

Originally Posted by Freedom.

I agree it makes sense for Arturo Gatti to get in, for the reasons you indicated.

But Virgil Hill shouldn't get in over Dariusz M.

Ridiculous.

NEITHER belongs in. Both have very thin resumes.

But Virgil Hill at least has more than one quality win.

Henry Maske
Tiozzo x2 (at both Light Heavyweight & Cruiserweight)

Both defeated on their home turf.

All DM has is Virgil Hill, and a washed up Rocchigiani and a bunch of RJJ leftovers and even lost his 0 to one of those leftovers .

And you favoring DM to get in the hall over Hill is shocking, considering your stance on fighters that refuse to leave their home country.

One of these 2 gentlemen defeated "elite" fighters on their own hometurf. Never hesitated once to leave his home country, to fight other top PRIME fighters in thiers.

The other spent his entire career in a 2nd rate boxing nation, feasting on tomato cans and blatantly avoided the best fighter of his era.

Yet you support the latter fighter for some reason?

Care to explain why your stance on fighters needing to leave their borders in order to solidify their GOATness has suddely changed overnight?

Or is it just when Americans do it, it's not deserving of acknowledgement?

[gingeralbino]

Originally Posted by BattlingNelson

That's certainly a point. Then again fighters such as Frank Fletcher or maybe even Martin Rogan might get in. That doesn't sit well with me.

Sits pretty well with me. **** throw Wayne McCullough in there when you're at it!