I agree. It's like giving out the Best Director award at the Oscars to three or four different people. If they just had one Hall of Fame fighter main award each year and a bunch of other awards, they could strike the right balance between popularity and achievement. It'd be a bit like the end of year fighter of the year awards but for classic fighters.
An equivalence to your example would be to say actually over the years there has been 91 Oscars, and 93 different winners. This is because the Hall of Fame is based on a career work; the best director is generally for one film. People sometimes do not understand what the Hall of Fame is, it is a Hall of FAME, not GREATNESS. Frank Bruno has more chance of getting in than say Dariusz Michalczewski.
Bruno is not even on the ballot, and is unlikely to be in the future - so he will never get in. Dariusz has been on the ballot for several years, and could be voted in one day.
I do understand this, I just don't think it should be, or at least greatness should play a bigger part imo.
A bad example by me, I had a home bias. A better example perhaps: A Hilton brother is more likely to get in than a Gianfranco Rosi.
I've said that a few times on forums like this, and thought it many more. i.e. "Does (fighter) belong in the hall of fame?" Then they'll be this long discussion about his achievements, and many times I've wanted to chime in and say, "Well, he was FAMOUS." It seems like in actuality it's a combination of a boxer's fame, achievements, and popularity, without any strict specific criteria to be inducted. Regarding the Hall of Fame - During Nat Fleischer's tenure, and beyond, at The Ring, Ring Magazine's Hall of Fame was pretty much BOXING'S Hall of Fame. Now, I could pretty easily look this up, but I'll just ask here. When the Hall in Canastota opened up and Ring seemingly abandoned their Hall of Fame, was Boxing's Hall of Fame pretty much wiped clean and started over, or did the Hall of Fame in Canastota port over those boxers and others who were already in Ring's Hall of Fame? Seems like the latter would've been the thing to do.
I think it's an achievement, but it shouldn't be everything you base a fighter off of. Obviously you should also look at other factors like their era, competition, success, and context, such as Langford not being allowed title shots because of the color line. But most of the time, a boxer being inducted is an achievement, and probably has good reasoning.
The bar is much lower for sure. On the other hand baseball in my view hold too much weight in stats. There are legitimate great ballplayers that will never make it. Not even considering the Steroid guys but even before that issue came along. It's too strict.
Nope. Nothing about boxing is easy. If you make the hall of fame in boxing you are not only good, but a survivor. The Hall of fame is important to the sport. The voting rules however need to change.
I know several people who have been there who thought it was great. You can focus on who is in that you think shouldn’t be, or who isn't in that you think should be ... or you can take what you like and leave the rest. Which is what I choose. I’m glad there is an actual, physical shrine to our sport and all its many greats and an induction weekend where you might get to hang out with and have a real conversation with those who you have watched and admired. I hate that the internet has to be a place to mostly hate on things amen tear them down. It’s why we can’t have nice things.
