Gatti certainly deserved HOF because he defines what it means to be a complete warrior in the ring. There are special situations, there aren't any other real inductees with lesser abilities like himself.
Actually if they were elite, both would both deserve to be in it. Personally as much as I like them both, I believe neither was elite. I agree with you that neither belongs in the Hall of Fame.
HoF votes proved to be about fame more rather than about real accomplishments as early as the second year of the hall's existence, when they voted Georges Carpentier in. Really? Ahead of Packey McFarland, Mike Gibbons and Ted Kid Lewis who had to wait a year longer? And that was supposedly respected historians picking old timers to elect. Modern picks were even worse.
No ...but half of the guys who have been inducted aren’t really worthy . The boxing hall of fame is the easiest hall of fame to get into in all of professional sports
No. Alejandro Gonzales ended his prime in 1995. He was surviving on his name after that. He was a great offensive fighter but his defense was rather horrendous and his chin wasn't strong enough to compensate.
It's easy if you are a very popular name who had a big fan base lobbying for you...Arturo Gatti...cough....Ray Mancini. There are still some who are worthy based on accomplishments but are not in...Michael Nunn springs to mind.
There are some things to consider: - He's been in some very exciting and memorable fights (ex. Hamed vs Kelley, Kelley vs Dorsey) - Come from behind wins (ex. Kelley vs Gainer 1) - Became world champion - Got some surprising wins while past his prime when he beat Humberto Soto and Carlos Hernandez - Helped make the lighter weight classes relevant in his era. - Fought just about everyone including the big names (Morales, Hamed, Barrera) even though he lost some of his big fights Considering all the other fighters who have gotten in I think Kelley deserves it in my opinion. He was just as exciting as Gatti with a better resume.
