new HOF ballot - part 2

[TBear]

Thanks Scott

Can someone breakdown some of these lesser known fighters and what achievements make them hof worthy...

I could. Many of these fighters could/should be HOF worthy if it didn't come down to so many choices. Some have to be eliminated and of the ones eliminated a strong argument could be brought up in their behalf. I could present reasons for fighters like Lockridge and Rosi being inducted when I have more time. But even if I did, I probably could point out why some of the others are equally worthy. Choosing who makes it and who doesn't would be a tough task for someone like me who followed all these fighters closely. Glad I am not on any committee to do this.

[billeau2]

Of course I would prefer the latter - that would be the optimal. But I think the damage has already been done to an extent, and at the same time, do I want to begrudge the fighters from getting some time in the lime-light once again? Hell no.

I’ve gotten a lot more relaxed regarding the HOF. I don’t put much stock into it anymore to be honest. The voters are biased and those known to the US public will always have a huge advantage - quite understandably, but unfair nonetheless. The inclusion of Gatti was really the last straw for me in taking the inductions all too serious anymore. We can complain about Zaragoza or McGuigan being in, but those are far better fighters than Gatti ever was in my opinion.

But fine, I would gladly do it in a strictly “purist” fashion. But not only to 75% or 90%. It would be all-in or nothing.

Thats the thing...Treating it like a guage of influence and interest, with all the favoritism, etc works, as long as it is not taken seriously. I guess that is why "lists" are so important in boxing pundatry. People will take a list from Bert Sugar, or some other expert and use it as a standard. I agree with you about Gatti provided we have an institution that is purist and uncomprimising when looking at talent and accomplishment as the only variables. Unfortunately we have deviated from those standards....considerably.

[greeh]

Thats the thing...Treating it like a guage of influence and interest, with all the favoritism, etc works, as long as it is not taken seriously. I guess that is why "lists" are so important in boxing pundatry. People will take a list from Bert Sugar, or some other expert and use it as a standard. I agree with you about Gatti provided we have an institution that is purist and uncomprimising when looking at talent and accomplishment as the only variables. Unfortunately we have deviated from those standards....considerably.

Agree. But where would we draw the line between those who are eligible or not?

Gatti and fighters at a similar level as him are easy to screen out and keep away from sneaking in, but when someone like Ernesto Marcel is brought up, is he good enough? He certainly has top-notch skills and talent, some very good wins and a solid resume overall. Is that enough? He isn’t viewed with ATG-status, but since he’s seen by some as a great featherweight I guess you could argue he is at least close, which would be acceptable judging by your previous post.

Another question would then be raised; who decides they are near enough?

The point I am trying to get across is that it gets subjective rather quickly, and ironing out some parameters in an attempt to form a consensus might be nigh on impossible.

[greeh]

The toughest one for me here was Bowe. He doesn't meet my standard for the HOF, and I dislike him so it was easy to pass. But if Willard and Johansson are in, he should be too. He was better than them both in resume and h2h.

Yeah, but if he doesn't meet your standard, why should he get in? It doesn't get better with the reasoning "oh well, fighter “A” is already in, so this fighter might as well get in there too". It gets self-destructive in a way and lowers the bar little by little.

Not that you aren’t entitled to your own opinion, but if you want to keep it at a certain standard I don’t think it’s sustainable in the long run.

[Scott9945]

Yeah, but if he doesn't meet your standard, why should he get in? It doesn't get better with the reasoning "oh well, fighter “A” is already in, so this fighter might as well get in there too". It gets self-destructive in a way and lowers the bar little by little.

Not that you aren’t entitled to your own opinion, but if you want to keep it at a certain standard I don’t think it’s sustainable in the long run.

Well if you look at the poll results you can see that I didn't select Bowe. Of course my opinion has no effect on who actually gets in the real HOF.

[greeh]

Well if you look at the poll results you can see that I didn't select Bowe.

My bad. I took for granted that you did after reading your post.

Of course my opinion has no effect on who actually gets in the real HOF.

I didn’t think that either. I just questioned the type of reasoning quite a few seems to use.

Anyway, what’s your standpoint on Herrera and Castillo regarding the Hall-of-Fame? Do they have what it takes to be inducted in your opinion?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Here is who I see the criteria for the hall of fame...

What's your historic significance?

It's called the hall of FAME, not hall of achievement, hall of elites, hall of champions, etc. but the hall of FAME. Meaning one that had fame in the boxing world..

Simply put, the HOF is for the guys that would be mentioned in the history book of boxing..
They may not be the best, but their story is one that must be told..
A guy like Fernando Vargas was a champ, but never did anything famous in the ring,, sure big fights and some titles, but he never win the super fights, and his reign was not long.. Probably not a hall of famer..
When you talk about gatti, your talking about a fighter less accomplished in the ring, but a guy that gave us a fight of the year for about a decade... In the history of boxing you can't go from 95-05 and not talk about gatti..his fights were amazing, made him famous, and brought a lot of interest to the sport, and made him a living legend..
Think about this,, every action fighter from late 90s on, will be described as a gatti type fighter... No one ever says someone is like the new Vargas.. It's always someone is the new gatti, or this fight will be like gatti-ward..

How google as a word is synonymous with web searching, gatti's name is synonymous with action fights...

That's why I think gatti is hof material and how I judge worthiness,,, what is your historic significance?.

[Scott9945]

My bad. I took for granted that you did after reading your post.



I didn’t think that either. I just questioned the type of reasoning quite a few seems to use.

Anyway, what’s your standpoint on Herrera and Castillo regarding the Hall-of-Fame? Do they have what it takes to be inducted in your opinion?

Sorry if I came off as defensive.

As to Castillo and Herrera, that's a difficult call. You can't compare Mexican fighters from that era to the stars of today. They started their careers as teenagers and weren't pampered in the slightest. To me Castillo falls short. Just too many losses and only one win in a world title fight. Herrera was a HOF quality fighter but his numbers don't reflect that. His peak was only about three years, but his wins over Olivares, Martinez, Castillo, and Anaya were highly impressive to those who saw them. He would be a 50/50 proposition. I'd like to see him in, but don't see that ever happening.

[Humean]

Full list for the 'modern' ballot I found on twitter.

[billeau2]

Agree. But where would we draw the line between those who are eligible or not?

Gatti and fighters at a similar level as him are easy to screen out and keep away from sneaking in, but when someone like Ernesto Marcel is brought up, is he good enough? He certainly has top-notch skills and talent, some very good wins and a solid resume overall. Is that enough? He isn’t viewed with ATG-status, but since he’s seen by some as a great featherweight I guess you could argue he is at least close, which would be acceptable judging by your previous post.

Another question would then be raised; who decides they are near enough?

The point I am trying to get across is that it gets subjective rather quickly, and ironing out some parameters in an attempt to form a consensus might be nigh on impossible.

Indeed. Point tacken. True consensus, as an objective process that ideally would eliminate some of these issues, by having enough pundits weigh in at all times, has the same inherent problems that democratic process itself has. Namely, how do we absolutely get everybody who should, to weigh in equally on every fighter? We all know that in our democratic institutions we do this by proxy and that dirty sophists like lobbyists take advantage of this, as well as political patronage in general.

In the case of fighters who were less known, who speaks for them? Is advocacy for some of the great fighters not in the public eye, strong, consistant and ever present enough to give these fighters ample consideration? I doubt it.