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

[Jam Jars]

I wonder why Virgil Hill got in to the HOF and not Dariusz M, who defeated him?

I guess it was winning 25 world title fights that did it.

[Optimistic]

I ain't even mad.

Happy for Gatti, he deserves to be inducted.

[crold1]

thats almost like asking why duran got in and not kirkland laing (rip) who defeated him.

No, it's really not. If Hill deserved to be in, so did Dariusz. I don't think either was a first ballot guy, but Hill going in and not Dariusz says a LOT about the overwhelming U.S. voting bias in the HOF pool. NOT because he beat Hill, but because he did that, held the same unified titles, and had the same gaudy title numbers against similar comp.

It's plurality voting (meaning you don't need to have 80% of the vote or whatever; just need to be one of the three highest). That makes name rec important in years without an obvious vote. That favors who the pool saw more of.

Tunney cares about this for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't mean he isn't right that there is something wrong with this particular voting outcome. Actually working on something on this issue already

[BattlingNelson]

Call me grumpy, but I feel that the bar for inshrinement (sp?) should be raised.

Furtermore, as implied by Freedom, this doesn't seem like the INTERNATONAL BHOF as it seems easier for fighters who was regularly on US télévision has an easier path.

Cliff could you weigh in here?

[ddangerous]

Cool to hear about Mills Lane being inducted.

[crold1]

Call me grumpy, but I feel that the bar for inshrinement (sp?) should be raised.

Furtermore, as implied by Freedom, this doesn't seem like the INTERNATONAL BHOF as it seems easier for fighters who was regularly on US télévision has an easier path.

Cliff could you weigh in here?

Obviously true. That doesn't mean the IBHOF isn't a great thing for the sport, a great place to go etc. but there are some heavy voting biases inherent in the modern category.

[BattlingNelson]

Obviously true. That doesn't mean the IBHOF isn't a great thing for the sport, a great place to go etc. but there are some heavy voting biases inherent in the modern category.

Thanks.

How is the voters selected?

[The Big Dunn]

No, it's really not. If Hill deserved to be in, so did Dariusz. I don't think either was a first ballot guy, but Hill going in and not Dariusz says a LOT about the overwhelming U.S. voting bias in the HOF pool. NOT because he beat Hill, but because he did that, held the same unified titles, and had the same gaudy title numbers against similar comp.

It's plurality voting (meaning you don't need to have 80% of the vote or whatever; just need to be one of the three highest). That makes name rec important in years without an obvious vote. That favors who the pool saw more of.

Tunney cares about this for the wrong reasons, but that doesn't mean he isn't right that there is something wrong with this particular voting outcome. Actually working on something on this issue already

I'm sorry but Dariusz is the equivalent to me of Dave Kingman. Up until Kingman retired everyone with 450 HR's got into the baseball HOF. Kingman never led the league (i believe) and also has no where near the complete resume as the other 450 HR hitters at the time.

[-PBP-]

Sylvester Stallone opened the flood gates for anyone so I have no problem with Gatti getting in.

[crold1]

I'm sorry but Dariusz is the equivalent to me of Dave Kingman. Up until Kingman retired everyone with 450 HR's got into the baseball HOF. Kingman never led the league (i believe) and also has no where near the complete resume as the other 450 HR hitters at the time.

Dariusz won the lineal crown from Hill, tied the record for lineal consecutive defenses, set the record for consecutive defenses of a belt in class, had an extra alphabelt at Cruiser (like Hill) and beat pretty much the same quality opp. Hill's resume hardly awesome and Dariusz beat him one of the best win of his career (Maske). And beat him going away.

Tunney has a very valid point on this and it is a strong case of inherent U.S. bias on face.