Is the voting for the IBHOF biased in favor of American and British boxers?

Being favored has nothing to do with it. Its just a well known fact that most of all the greatest boxers in history are from the U.S.A and if they were not they only made their stamp in boxing because they were allowed to box in the U.S.A

 

"but was stripped of the others because he was not an American" You keep repeating this, but it doesn't make it true.

Like I said, he held the WBO belt when it did not matter. And at the end of the day it hurt his legacy and his potential. His claim as two division champion is ****ing joke.
And if he was truly frozen out of the division, then I dont see how he could have achieved more than Hill.

 

And had he been British?

 

That was more a refusal on the WBA, WBC (neither of whom are American based BTW), and the IBF not playing ball with the newer formed WBO.

 

That's like saying the IBO champ should get in for being a world champ. It is great on paper but lacks real value. It wasn't until after he retired that the WBO became a real belt

 

If the IBO ever gets recognized then Eubank Jr. automatically gets recognized as a two division world champion, lol.

 

But it wont change his historical standing. It only will change future champs. People never talk about Johnny Nelson being a super dominate champ despite 13 defenses of his WBO belt while Huck is respected for his reign

 

You say that, but Nelson won the belt in 1999.
Here is a list of boxers who held a WBO title before Nelson won his:
Dariusz Michalczewski
Michael Moorer
Joe Calzaghe
Steve Collins
Chris Eubank
Winky Wright
Oscar De La Hoya

All of their reigns are considered legit these days, even tho they held the belt before it was widely recognized to be legitimate. De La Hoya is considered a 6 division world champion even tho he held the WBO belt at 130 way back in 1994.

People just dont give a **** about Nelson.

 

Everyone you mentioned, but Dariusz Michalczewski, won and defended other titles or aren't HOFers either

 

Dariusz beat Hill for the IBF and WBA titles. His WBO reign is considered legit. Calzaghe´s 20 title defenses are considered legit.

Point is that if the IBO tomorrow would be considered as on of the "big 5", then historical revisionism would take place as it did with the WBO, and also as was with the IBF at one point.

Bernard Hopkins´ undisputed Middleweight reign is considered to have started with his win over De La Hoya, but it actually was when he beat Trinidad.

 

Im not arguing that the reigns wouldnt become legitimate. But in the collective mind of the voters, it will always be a lesser reign due to not being Big 3 (at that time)

 

Arturo freaking Gatti is in the boxing HOF. And Mairis Briedis probably won't even get in. So, yea. Pretty obvious there is bias against fighters without a large ethnic following.