I think recent inductees suggest you can be both. I rate him as very good but not great. Not quite on the level of Billy Graham who was said to be 'as good a fighter as can be without being great'. But his swashbuckling style and memorable fights, combined with achievements, get him into a HoF where being absolutely brilliant is not the be all and end all.
Yes. Arturo Gatti deserves to be in the hall of fame. He's part of the most iconic action trilogy of all time. He fought both a prime De La Hoya and Mayweather and lost both in some of the most rousing destructions you'll ever see. I think he has 4 Fight of the Year awards and his fight against Robinson was an absolute banger. He is a core part of the legend of Micky Ward in many respects by indulging a classic brawl in their first fight, where he looked as if he could have just boxed all night and won a decision. He packed the house in Atlantic City for many years and brought as much excitement to the game as anyone. He had a bit more boxing skill than he is given credit for as well, he just loved the roar of the crowd. It's the Hall of Fame, and his career sure had a lot of areas that merit attention in terms of the history of boxing. His fights are among the easiest to show to people who "don't get" the appeal of boxing. The ultimate fighter to show to newcomers to the sport to get them acclimated with tons of great action. He is undoubtedly a hall of famer in my book. You can't get too far down the lists of "most watchable," "most wars," "biggest heart," "best fight," without mentioning Arturo Gatti. Those lists mean a lot.
Based on his resume no but then again some fighters like Barry McGuigan, didn't get in there strictly for his resume. If your judging the Hall Of Fame strictly on the best of the best then he probably shouldn't be in there. But for what he brought to sport with some of most amazing fights in history, then yes i think he should be in there. And it's not like he has the worst resume he is a two division world champion.
I bet almost all of us can remember at least a dozen of his fights as they happened. He made himself famous to us. Forced it. If it's a hall of greatest skills and ring generalship and point scoring...obviously not. But that's not the same as fame. Is greatness tantamount to consequentiality? Is consequentiality a word and if so did I spell it correctly? Does it even mean what I think it means? Yes. The answer is yes. It does. But no, it doesn't.
There are too many undeserving Hall of Famers in just about all sports and certainly boxing is no exception. (Ray Mancini) Gatti was not great and he should not be a HOFer. That doesn't mean he didn't have some great moments and great fights. He most certainly did. It means he did not have a great career and could not, overall, be considered a great fighter..
I think the world of Gatti as a fighter but I think he falls short of being a hall of famer even though he was one of the most exciting fighters I have ever seen. He held two world titles but simply did not have the title defences or top tier wins to warrant being a hall of fame.
No and Hell no. Gatti does not belong in the Hall of Fame. Getting into brawls and being forced feed punches all night long does not qualify one for the Hall. I am certain other undeserving boxers are in the Hall but that alone cannot be a reason for his inclusion.
The Boxing Hall of Fame is also what you GAVE or produced for the sport of boxing. And Gatti definitely gave.
YES, though I understand many hard critics will say no... to me Hundreds of TOP Fighters are 'Underated', and I don't quite get the refusal or denying of these fighters. Usually a Great Fighter is visably recognized by their sheer ability & talent, prowess and willingness, and we comment on that as Serious Fans, ""did you see so & so, man he was great, he boxed or fought well, a tough & great fighter!" you get my point. It is simple, Great Fighters are Great fighters, and yes it has got to be proven AGAINST Their Contemporay Greats and that determines (IF FAIR & HONEST Opportunity existed for them, namely matched & No 'Business') their placements, so among the TOP there will be Hundreds and of the 'Elite' less, Dozens & Dozens over the 150 year history. So YES, Great fighters should NOT be denied, Win or Lose, but yes their Not All Elites, but so what they are Still Great! Gatti is among them.
It’s the Hall of FAME, not the Hall of BEST. He definitely brought fame to himself and to boxing with his action style. He was an iconic fighter of his day. Would I have voted him in if I had a vote? Probably not. But that doesn’t mean I object. There’s also a degree of sentimentality there in that he was taken from us all too soon and people who were touched by his brave heart wanted to honor him in some way. So he gets a plaque on a wall in a building or whatever. There are worse things to get upset over. There are old timers who get in just because they ran out of people from their eras to honor and they have to nominate somebody, I guess. Picasso was an interesting artist and probably by some measure a great one, but a lot of his lesser works that are far from great are in prominent places in prominent museums because his name is on them … and some artist who was technically better isn’t on display because of it. Yet life goes on and the world keeps turning.
