Can someone explain to me why the Hell Gatti is in the hall of Fame?

Is there a lot of fighters who had better ability than Gatti not in the HOF?
And more pertinently,are there a lot of better fighters who weren't first ballot(try and get that in your head) inductees.
Alvarado looks like a lock for first ballot now.

 

Hall of FAME

 

I agree with " Hall of Fame not Hall of Skill". You may be very skilled but without heart you will not join the top level competition. Worst is being skilled and just cherry pick your opponent to be undefeated.

 

So it's not about being good, it's about being famous?
Why isn't Micky Rourke in then?

I've never said Gatti should never get in,but he shouldn't be a first ballot.

 

To be fair, it's a reasonable argument that Fight of the Year accolades (or similar) fall under the category of "achievements". The IBHOF state that the induction is based on achievements as a professional fighter, but don't define achievements as being limited to W/L records, titles, defences etc. They don't really define much to be honest :think

It's worth pointing out that (if we're going by Ring Fight of the Year), they used to be much more of a closed shop than they are now. Often they were based on significance rather than the quality of the fight, and even then there are some bizarre picks (Clay-Jones, Spinks-Ali I, Monzon-Benvenuti, Foreman-Frazier I, Young-Foreman). If Gatti had been around prior to the 80s, chances are he wouldn't have had as many FOTY awards.

Personally I don't have a major issue with Gatti being inducted, although if I was putting a HOF together he wouldn't be in it (not that my opinion counts for ****).

The only things I have an issue with are:

a) The IBHOF have put a set of criteria in place, which the voters then choose to ignore or twist to suit their favourites.

b) The IBHOF have little or no interest in addressing a), as they appear to be more interested in having a certain number of "name" inductees every year rather than the long-term credibility of the Hall.

C) People posting about whether X or Y should be inducted, without bothering to check the criteria on which induction is assessed. Nowhere does it make any reference to "Fame" being part of the criteria for induction - it's just a name.

d) People mixing up arguments over what the criteria for induction should be alongside whether a figher meets whatever criteria is in place. They are separate arguments.


I think the IBHOF need to produce at least some clearer guidelines, and more importantly ensure that the voters don't just let their egos and bias dictate who gets inducted. For example, some voters have said that they will take account of things like doping suspicions/confessions, criminal convictions and other extra-curricular stuff. The IBHOF have stated in the past that these things shouldn't be taken into consideration, so why are the people controlling the inductions going outside of that?

 

HINT: Learn to use apostrophes properly and you might be taken more seriously.

 

But, the criteria set forth in this thread seems to imply that since Floyd has had a PPV impact like no other before him, he should be elected into the HOF. atsch

Then people wonder why boxing is in the state that it's in.

 

Hell no, B level fighters don't get "destroyed" by elite fighters they are competitive.


Gatti is more of a C level maybe even D level fighter.

 

Tapia lost every time he fought a great fighter?
I forgot how Gatti destroyed every elite fighter around.
He lost to average fighters and was destroyed on the rare occasion that he stepped up.
You just destroyed your own argument and again, you ignore my point about the first ballot.

 

Repeatedly getting your ass kicked and into wars with other journeyman, only to be rewarded with "fight of the year" multiple times, does not justify someone as a hall of fame boxer.