Mike McCallum on Donald Curry being excluded from 2017 H of F Class

I like Jeff doing those interviews. He beat a friend of mine in his second pro fight .. wasn't friends with him at the time but know him well now

 

Absolute BS not having Curry in the damned HOF class.

 

Sorry LH . got sidetracked on my thought … Yes Mike has it right and good to see him in for me

 

Didn't Donald Curry make it in this year?

 

Yes. Curry, Julian Jackson and Buddy McGirt are going in this year. I agree with Curry and Jackson but am on the fence with Buddy getting in.

 

Curry and Jackson were deserving.

Buddy had no business whatsoever making the HOF.

Meldrick Taylor got robbed...he completely destroyed McGirt when they fought and accomplished AT LEAST as much career wise.

Mel must feel like boxing is always screwing him out of his potentially biggest moments.

 

Meldrick was more talented than Buddy. They had a good fight at 40 and Taylor got a stoppage which is the only time I can think of Taylor stopping anyone. At 47 I`d give the edge to Buddy McGirt. He that win over Simon Brown when Brown was really hot. He also had two good fights with Sweet Pea. I would agree that you dont put one in and not the other.

 

I think Jackson is the best of the 3. Donald I am on the fence about but it is fine. Makes me think Iran Barkley should be in if McGirt is getting in. This was a weak year for the voting..

 

Meldrick Taylor is not in the Hall of Fame? I thought he was.

 

Nope. He keeps getting snubbed.

Yeah, because punching bag Gatti deserves the HOF more than Taylor...

 

People have been clamoring for Curry to get in for almost a decade and it's about time he gets his just dues. Better late than never. It'll be the same for Taylor. Don't understand how he isn't in already but he will at some point.

 

It's an interesting point raised and one of the real challenges with a HOF in a sport based on direct one on one competition, where styles make fights and there isn't always complete symmetry.

Inducting a fighter has an impact on the claims of their direct competition, and can have a knock on effect. The McGirt-Taylor link is an example of this; if McGirt is inducted, it considerably strengthens the claim of the guy who dominated him close to his prime.

Likewise, Curry's induction makes a stronger case for Honeyghan getting in. If Honeyghan was then inducted Starling would have a stronger claim, which would then in turn validate Curry's induction. There are plenty of examples of this in the HOF; with the late 1930s/40s lightweights if you work on the basis that Williams is an automatic induction, it's difficult to exclude Montgomery who beat him. If you have Montgomery in, you have to have Jack and Angott as well. Not suggesting any are unworthy inductees, but as a group they pretty much all have to be in there as they all held versions of the title around that time while swapping wins and losses.

I don't think either Taylor or McGirt have overwhelming cases; they were clearly better and more accomplished than Gatti but I don't think judging by the lowest common denominator is the way to go. However, I agree that it would be wrong to have McGirt and not Taylor.