Did Arturo Gatti Deserve IBHOF Spot?

[Anthony342]

Well, it's like they say about other sports, it's not called The Hall of Very Good. It's kind of supposed to be reserved for the best of the best.

[GhostofDempsey]

They are in a different section though arent they?

The non participant category

Cant really use that as justification

Different categories yes, but Gatti was a household name in his prime and drew a lot of fans to the sport as a boxer. Each year HBO compiles a list of fighters who are on the "Gatti List", meaning they were the most entertaining fighter's of the year.

There are plenty of fighters in the IBHOF who were never title holders or champions. Jimmy Bivins, Holman Williams, Charley Burley, Cocoa Kid, Eddie Booker, Lloyd Marshall, Newsboy Brown and former champions--some of whom lost up to 40% of their fights or no one has ever heard of.

Without using Google, tell us all about the greatness of Myung Woo-Yuh. He's in the HOF.

[Elroy The Great]

F U C K N O !!!!

dude truly went life death vs some of the shlttiest guys. does he have a quality victim on his ledger ?

[billeau2]

I don't know if there is actual evidence, but there is motive.

Gatti was well known for drinking heavily and putting his hands on women. There were witnesses that he slapped her around prior to the murder.

Sometimes there is evidence in a case that is of a poor quality... for example, a very bad witness, who was in a place at the right time is claiming he/she saw something...but the witness has his/her own motivations.

Sometimes there is evidence that is great quality but insufficient in amount... they find a piece of something somewhere but it has no fingerprint, etc.

Finally, sometimes evidence exists that is great but does not reach the legal standard. Character witness', other secondary sources. This is especially true of when a case can be tried in a civil court but not in a criminal court.

I think with Gatti that there was enough evidence to have a civil trial. I don't remember the outcome of the trial but there was enough for a case to go forward. Maybe I am mistaken and there was no civil trial? if there was no civil case than there might not have been evidence after all. Again, the quality of evidence is such that if there was no civil case brought one can assume the evidence was sketchy regardless of how people felt.

Ok this case is a cluster f uck! Her purse strap could probably be cosidered evidence.

http://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/i...r-arturo-gatti

[Tom Cruise]

Different categories yes, but Gatti was a household name in his prime and drew a lot of fans to the sport as a boxer. Each year HBO compiles a list of fighters who are on the "Gatti List", meaning they were the most entertaining fighter's of the year.

There are plenty of fighters in the IBHOF who were never title holders or champions. Jimmy Bivins, Holman Williams, Charley Burley, Cocoa Kid, Eddie Booker, Lloyd Marshall, Newsboy Brown and former champions--some of whom lost up to 40% of their fights or no one has ever heard of.

Without using Google, tell us all about the greatness of Myung Woo-Yuh. He's in the HOF.

Are you seriously comparing Gatti to those guys??

Did I ever say I knew all the fighters in the hall, or that all were deserving? Why would my knowledge of Myung Woo-Yuh's career mean anything? Im not a historian. At a guess he was a fighter from the lighter weights. Im sure if you ask an expert then they will tell you if he deserves to be in or not.

Gatti isnt deserving in my opinion because he wasnt a great fighter. He didnt beat any great fighters or have any great achievements.

[Tom Cruise]

It wouldnt happen but I think there should be a 10 year wait after a career is done before you are eligible. I think after 5 years there is still too much emotion attached to the picks.

After 10 years you can make a much more effective assessment of a fighters career in its proper historical context.

[GhostofDempsey]

Are you seriously comparing Gatti to those guys??

Did I ever say I knew all the fighters in the hall, or that all were deserving? Why would my knowledge of Myung Woo-Yuh's career mean anything? Im not a historian. At a guess he was a fighter from the lighter weights. Im sure if you ask an expert then they will tell you if he deserves to be in or not.

Gatti isnt deserving in my opinion because he wasnt a great fighter. He didnt beat any great fighters or have any great achievements.

Comparing one fighter to another is not the criteria for HOF induction. Otherwise we have to start comparing Hector Camacho to Willie Pep, Henry Armstrong and Carlos Ortiz, hardly in the same league.

Some of the guys I listed weren't great fighters either. Some were, some weren't. Some of them never defeated anyone for a title yet they are in the HOF.

This is a question of what is the standard to get in? The IBHOF does not have a majority vote system such as other sports where an athlete must receive 75% votes to get in. They don't even reveal their criteria and how a fighter was selected or why. HOF doesn't always = ATG.

[Freedef]

Yes, sure he deserves. He gave a lot to this sport.

[StarshipTrooper]

It's the Hall of "Fame" not the hall of "ATG". I have no problem with Gatti being in despite not being an All-Time Great fighter. Every other sports Hall of Fame has non-great members. Up until now it was only the Hockey fans that I've ever heard b1tch about that fact.

[Anthony342]

Sometimes there is evidence in a case that is of a poor quality... for example, a very bad witness, who was in a place at the right time is claiming he/she saw something...but the witness has his/her own motivations.

Sometimes there is evidence that is great quality but insufficient in amount... they find a piece of something somewhere but it has no fingerprint, etc.

Finally, sometimes evidence exists that is great but does not reach the legal standard. Character witness', other secondary sources. This is especially true of when a case can be tried in a civil court but not in a criminal court.

I think with Gatti that there was enough evidence to have a civil trial. I don't remember the outcome of the trial but there was enough for a case to go forward. Maybe I am mistaken and there was no civil trial? if there was no civil case than there might not have been evidence after all. Again, the quality of evidence is such that if there was no civil case brought one can assume the evidence was sketchy regardless of how people felt.

Ok this case is a cluster f uck! Her purse strap could probably be cosidered evidence.

http://www.espn.com/boxing/story/_/i...r-arturo-gatti

Yeah, I remember an episode of HBO's Real Sports doing a story on the case at the time it happened. Oh yeah and I know what you mean about not always having enough or reliable evidence. I not only watch a lot of mysteries and crime dramas, but true crime like Autopsy and Forensic Files. I remember on Autopsy they found an arm in an ocean spit out by a shark, but wasn't enough to prosecute, because it didn't mean the person was dead, at least that was the ruling. But I've seen on Forensic Files a handful of times when there's a conviction without even finding the body, only finding bones, or even finding a piece of a finger or a tooth. Amazing how far crime science has come. Arthur Doyle, who wrote the Sherlock Holmes stories, even talked about things such as crime labs and ballistics in his stories before they even existed.

In this case, it just seems police and the crime lab did a really sloppy job. It was probably the wife. I've read that 75% of murder victims are killed by people they know and about 19% by a spouse and 29% by a significant other.