Are Nigel Benn and Chris Eubank Hall Of Fame Worthy?

Let me ask you this, what boxers of the 1990's who are 1) eligible for induction and 2) not already in the Hall of Fame are more worthy than Eubank or Benn? Can you come up with 17 names at a minimum?

 

atsch

 

Yes its a no brainer, not even up for debate.

Both two weight champs, Eubank beat Benn & Rochginani and Benn Beat Barkley & G-Man.

End of really.

 

Both great fighters

Not on James toney level

And nowhere near greatest of all time, roy jones level

But, not bad

 

I don't really see the relevance of that question when you apply that criteria. Using the 120 fighters over 70 years ratio, there should be 17 fighters TOTAL from that decade, inclusive of fighters already inducted and those that will obviously be inducted when they are eligible. Even if you broaden it to the top 20 fighters of the 90s, there is absolutely no way that either Benn or Eubank fit that.

Depending on what you class as a 90s fighter, there are around 10 or so already inducted. There are some absolute no-brainers like Holyfield, Jones, Hopkins, Barrera, De La Hoya etc that will be first balloters. It doesn't leave much room for the Benns and Eubanks of this world, which is why they haven't been inducted and probably never will be.

A far more relevant question I raised earlier in the thread (which no-one has attempted to answer) is how many fighters in the IBHOF have inferior resumes to Benn and Eubank. If you compare them objectively to the "typical" Hall of Famer, it should be obvious that they are not on the same level. By "typical" I'm not referring to Sugar Ray Robinson either, but rather what is left when you take out the "bad" inductions that everyone uses to back up why their favourite fighter should get in.

 

End of if you want there to be 500 fighters in the Hall of Fame.

Both two weight titlists not champions, and the WBO middleweight belt was essentially meaningless due to its spurious lineage.

The 168 titles are more meaningful, but it's still only one quarter of a championship. If every fighter who held an alphabet title for a few years gets in, there is little point even having a HOF.

So to sum up, they never beat a HOF level fighter, never held a world championship or recognised as the division's best fighter, and were never regarded in the top 10 p4p fighters in the world at any point of their careers. It's hardly an overwhelming resume in HOF terms.

 

In most peoples eyes they were regarded as the 2 best clean SMW in the world...
Benn beating mcclellan is a better win than RJJ ever had which makes Benn a legend..
Eubank beat a hof legend....Benn

 

Holyfield, Jones and Hopkins aren't eligible because they're not retired - add Toney to that list - and Barrera's not been retired long enough to be eligible. A boxer must be retired at least five years before he becomes eligible for inductation. Five years after they have been retired they'll be no brainers but because that milestone has not been reached yet they are irrelevant as to whether or not Eubank and Benn would be suitable inductees from the 1990s right now.

Also, because they're not eligible at this moment in time, they are in no way ahead of Eubank or Benn in the pecking order for inductees, and its not a case of either Benn and Eubank or Hopkins and Jones and Holyfield and Toney and Barrera, in a couple of years it might be but right now, only Benn and Eubank are eligible out of that list, so its a case of Benn and Eubank or...someone else from that period.

Which is entirely the point I made when I made the distinction of fighters who are eligible for inductation. Fighters who aren't eligible are not relevant to the issue at this moment in time, and are not likely to be relevent to it for at least three years for Barrera and five years for the others.

Now De La Hoya is certainly someone who would be ahead of them in the pecking order, so I cant argue with that.

 

I understand how the induction process works.

I brought up the 17 fighters per decade ratio as an example of how selective the IBHOF process is about who gets inducted. Assuming the standard remains the same, when the smoke clears and everyone is eligible there will be roughly 17 fighters from each decade. Even allowing for a bit of expansion, you're still looking at only the top 20 fighters per decade eventually getting in,
which excludes them both in my opinion.

Benn and Eubank are obviously not competing directly against fighters from their era who are ineligible or have already been inducted. They are up against the entire pool of eligible candidates in the Modern category from 1943 onwards, and the existing standard of the Hall (in theory, if there are no worthy fighters on the ballot the voters shouldn't select anyone. This is unlikely to happen in practice though).

There have been 3 Modern inductees per year for the last few years. 1 or 2 of these are usually first balloters, so that leaves one or two spaces for people already eligible.

From the eligible fighters (both on the ballot and off), off the top of my head the following should be ahead of Benn and Eubank, although not necessarily all of them are "HOF worthy":

Yoko Gushiken
Eddie Booker
Don Curry
Lloyd Honeyghan
Simon Brown
Tony DeMarco
Chucho Castillo
Rafael Herrera
Harry Jeffra
Pone Kingpetch
Alfredo Escalera
Masao Ohba
Wilfredo Vasquez Sr
Hilario Zapata
Jose Luis Ramirez
Sung-Kil Moon
Naseem Hamed
Santos Laciar
Dariusz Michalczewski
Davey Moore (FW)
Rodrigo Valdes
Lionel Rose
Paul Pender
Ike Quartey

I'm sure there's plenty more out there, but it gives an idea of the calibre of fighter in the pool of eligible candidates. When you add to this the steady stream of fighters added to this pool, many of whom will be first-balloters, the chances of either Benn and Eubank being inducted look bleak.

 

Interestingly enough, doping issues don't come under the IBHOF remit. It's based on achievements only, so any failed tests don't come under consideration, like it or not.

Jones has beat two near-prime Hall of Famers, as well as a a top 5 heavyweight. It isn't even comparable.

Eubank's house of cards falls down on the basis that Benn isn't actually a HOF legend.

 

As far as I'm concerned, both took part in the two best fights of all-time - Eubank/Watson II and Benn/McClellan. And when Eubank fought, England as a nation stopped - I don't mean just boxing fans, I mean everyone from age 3 to age 83, male or female. Benn wasn't far behind, though Eubank and Bruno rule in this regard.

So yes, Eubank and also Benn are more 'worthy' than just about anyone, bar maybe Ali.

 

Ali himself was a big Chris Eubank fan as he said at his 60th birthday bash in London - 'This guy was unreal, nothing made me smile more than he.'


news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1760000/images/_1760147_century.jpg