IBHOF - What would you change?

[billeau2]

What would you change, who would you cut or add to The International Boxing Hall of Fame - in any category - and why.

Here's the Inductee Index

This is a heady topic with some discussion in this section at various times. One of the courses I taught in college was Ethics and I could easily use the whole Hall of Fame in each sport as a great example of how sports bring to bare fundamental ethical quandries that make our society dynamic.

What about the rights of the individual to pursue their self interest at all costs? When does it violate our utilitarian laws to a sufficient degree that a person's sports performance can be discounted? Collectively we say certain behavoirs are bad and unlawful....So if we have a fighter like Floyd, arrested multiple times, how many times does he have to be arrested, or does it matter before we ban his entry? this actually happened with Peter Rose in baseball. It was decided that we could collectively tolerate gambling but the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back was Pete's betting oh his team.

And ethically we have a fighter who works and works and is highly entertaining....he personifies boxing itself, we have Gatti. But alas his actual ability is lacking...Is it the right thing to do to enter him? Is it Just, is it fair to others who had more skills than Gatti?

Finally we have the issues of sanctions: If I am a lawyer or a broker, my actions, when questionable are referred to a judiciary composed of peers sanctioned for the purpose of discipline (in addition to legal issues). In Boxing who is rightly entrusted with the judgement rendered to induct? or to determine what will banish? It is not the state....It is not other peers, nor as I and Green commiseratted on.... Is it a group of experts....rather it is sports writers.

My own feeling is that these institutions tend to be self serving....much as Lefty says. The voting is not truly representational of the fans, nor is it representative of the experts.

[joseph5620]

This is a heady topic with some discussion in this section at various times. One of the courses I taught in college was Ethics and I could easily use the whole Hall of Fame in each sport as a great example of how sports bring to bare fundamental ethical quandries that make our society dynamic.

What about the rights of the individual to pursue their self interest at all costs? When does it violate our utilitarian laws to a sufficient degree that a person's sports performance can be discounted? Collectively we say certain behavoirs are bad and unlawful....So if we have a fighter like Floyd, arrested multiple times, how many times does he have to be arrested, or does it matter before we ban his entry? this actually happened with Peter Rose in baseball. It was decided that we could collectively tolerate gambling but the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back was Pete's betting oh his team.

And ethically we have a fighter who works and works and is highly entertaining....he personifies boxing itself, we have Gatti. But alas his actual ability is lacking...Is it the right thing to do to enter him? Is it Just, is it fair to others who had more skills than Gatti?

Finally we have the issues of sanctions: If I am a lawyer or a broker, my actions, when questionable are referred to a judiciary composed of peers sanctioned for the purpose of discipline (in addition to legal issues). In Boxing who is rightly entrusted with the judgement rendered to induct? or to determine what will banish? It is not the state....It is not other peers, nor as I and Green commiseratted on.... Is it a group of experts....rather it is sports writers.

My own feeling is that these institutions tend to be self serving....much as Lefty says. The voting is not truly representational of the fans, nor is it representative of the experts.

This is why I believe the selection of voters must change. But the precedent has already been set so nothing can really be done about the standards now.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

I would make all the voting take place via polls on NSB


best minds in the sport, no fanboys there

[sonnyboyx2]

Gatti definitely shouldn't be there. I don't understand is how a fighter like Little Red Lopez had a hard time getting in but Gatti was voted in as soon as he was eligible. Something is wrong with that. I would also take out fighters like Bowe and Johansson.

WOoW,,, Jose Torres, Jess Willard, Riddick Bowe, Ingo Johansson & Thunder Gatti.. should not be in the Hall of Fame?????

Well, i have heard it all now. 5 fantastic fighters whose achievements in the sport are incredible.

Jose Torres - Undisputed Champion who's record speaks for itself. (one FOTY)
Jess Willard - Beat Jack Johnson in 26rds
Riddick Bowe - undisputed Heavyweight Champion (one FOTY)
Ingo Johansson - Undisputed Champion, KOd Eddie Machen in 1rd.(one FOTY)
Arturo Gatti - Two-Wieght World Champion who took part in 4 Ring Magazine Fights of The Year.....

[AndrewSelby2016]

Gatti didn't have Hof level skills or wins but i can see how they let him in based off his amazing balls, no one has given us better fights in this era

[billeau2]

Gatti didn't have Hof level skills or wins but i can see how they let him in based off his amazing balls, no one has given us better fights in this era

That is the crux of the issue really. Some people want Gatti in for his persona and others do not... One way to look at this is how skillful are boxers as entertainers? Is this entertainer quality part of the fighter's skill set? You see issues like this where society has to have a criteria:

Frank Sinatra sang with perfect pitch and rhythm. He was incredibly technically gifted, Stevie Wonder often sings out of pitch and creates his own tempo....Both great singers. Lets suppose that you had a singer who had incredible technical ability like Sinatra....but he never was famous and never sold many records. Would his ability alone get him recognized as a great entertainer?

See....what we did was turn the problem around from the other side: Gatti was a great entertainer, but not so great a fighter as most of his HOF contemporaries, with the singers it is the same problem in the opposite sense, we could have a guy with great technique but who does not sound as great, or was not as popular as other luminaries. In both cases it ultimately depends on how people choose greatness. I don't have an opinion about Gatti being HOF....

I am willing to consider that along with the skill of throwing a left hook there is a skill in getting the common man to see you as representing them in the ring as the proverbial underdog... which Gatti did so well. At the end of the day if we took and deconstructed Sugar Ray Robinson, considered by many to be the best ever....we would find a man who had few weaknesses as a fighter, could do many things as a fighter most fighters cannot do, had an abnormal drive to win, abnormal physical gifts, was an imperfect human being like us all. One could point to Ali as a fighter who transcended the sport and made it socially relevant as a way to be an activist....Is this something relevant to HOf activity?

Other people see it more simply. HOF membership is a matter of skills and comparison to other fighters. I can see this view as well, it depends on what boxing fans want the HOf to represent....But the one thing I will say is that when it comes to skills and comparison it would be nice to have compitacy. I don't think many sports writers know enough about boxing to be the final representative of the sports fans when voting for HOF membership.

[-PBP-]

I would make a separate section for all out action fighters who made an impact on the sport's popularity like Gatti and Ward. Similar to the way they have a section for media members. I think this is needed so that people can't say things like "If Gatti got in then (insert average fighter) should get in."

[Ray Corso]

It's not the Hall of Greatness it's about being Famous for your fights!
A crowd pleaser, a matchmakers dream, a guarenteed great showing.

This has little to do with a record or huge boxing IQ it's about excitement and
sports coverage.

Ray

[sonnyboyx2]

It's not the Hall of Greatness it's about being Famous for your fights!
A crowd pleaser, a matchmakers dream, a guarenteed great showing.

This has little to do with a record or huge boxing IQ it's about excitement and
sports coverage.

Ray

Well said Ray.. some of these cuckoo's who post on here wouldn't know the difference between a boxing fight and a pillow fight. i would bet most have never been to a boxing fight, yet claim to know so much about the sport..Your post is 100% accurate. Barry McGuigan was inducted a few years ago, he was inducted because when he fought he brought two countries together. Northern Ireland & Southern Ireland, would come together as one to support him.

[joseph5620]

WOoW,,, Jose Torres, Jess Willard, Riddick Bowe, Ingo Johansson & Thunder Gatti.. should not be in the Hall of Fame?????

Well, i have heard it all now. 5 fantastic fighters whose achievements in the sport are incredible.

Jose Torres - Undisputed Champion who's record speaks for itself. (one FOTY)
Jess Willard - Beat Jack Johnson in 26rds
Riddick Bowe - undisputed Heavyweight Champion (one FOTY)
Ingo Johansson - Undisputed Champion, KOd Eddie Machen in 1rd.(one FOTY)
Arturo Gatti - Two-Wieght World Champion who took part in 4 Ring Magazine Fights of The Year.....

You're damn right they shouldn't. Did I stutter? Now go troll somebody else. Your pathetic arguments are a waste of time.