Is Gerry Penalosa HOF worthy?

By that argument, guys like Cory Spinks, Jermain Taylor and Steve Cunningham are future hall of famers.

Yeah, there are some shitty guys in the hall. Almost all of them were voted in by the old-timers committee (other than McGuigan, who was a transformative figure).

I can name 100 guys who AREN'T in the Hall of fame that are more deserving than Penalosa. Look at this year's ballot, and nearly every guy on there would be more deserving than Penalosa. Like I said, he's not even close, and you're bordering on stupid if you think otherwise.

He was a very good fighter and deserves recognition. He deserves to make it onto the ballot at some point. If there's a Filipino boxing hall of fame, he certainly belongs there.

And, FWIW, even if Gatti was in the Hall, which he's not, Gatti's resume is still better than Penalosa's :deal

 

well who did gatti beat that gets him a place above Penalosa?

 

Who did Penalosa beat? Neither of them had any great wins. Both of them were titlists in two weight classes. Both of them have a number of bad losses and a number of good (but not great) wins. Gatti (Patterson x2, Dorin, Gamache, shot Leija, Ruelas, Damgaard) has more of those wins than Penalosa (Gonzalez, Ratanachai x2, Kawashima, shot to hell and three weight classes above his best weight Yamaguchi) plus was involved in three fights of the year, plus his secondary level of competition was higher. Even if you count Penalosa's arguable robberies against Morel and Tokuyama the second time in his favor, it's still about a push. And that's completely ignoring the fact that Gatti was one of the most popular fighters of his generation, while Penalosa mostly toiled in obscurity outside of the Philippines.

And not that I have a vote or that it matters, but I wouldn't vote Gatti in for the hall of fame either.

Just out of curiosity, do you think Masamori Tokuyama is a hall of famer?

 

This. It wouldn't be a crime for him to get in at all, unless it was at the expense of someone far more deserving. If he hangs out on the eligible list for awhile and gets in down the line, it's all good. Personally I think Gonzalez should be an eventual inductee, so the win over him is big.

If there is Philippines Boxing HOF, Penalosa should undeniably be 1st ballot for that. As far as Canastota, he can back-door it a generation from now.

 

About 20 years ago, baseball analyst Bill James came out with a test called the Keltner Test to determine whether someone actually deserves to be in the Hall of Fame. While it was developed for baseball, I think it's actually pretty applicable to most Halls of Fame. In fact, variations on the Keltner Test have been officially adopted as the criteria for induction in both the basketball hall of fame, as well as the rock n roll hall of fame.

Here's the questions that should be asked. Wherever it says "baseball", you can just substitute the appropriate term for boxing:

1.Was he ever regarded as the best player in baseball? Did anybody, while he was active, ever suggest that he was the best player in baseball?

2.Was he the best player on his team?

3.Was he the best player in baseball at his position? Was he the best player in the league at his position?

4.Did he have an impact on a number of pennant races?

5.Was he a good enough player that he could continue to play regularly after passing his prime?

6.Is he the very best player in baseball history who is not in the Hall of Fame?

7.Are most players who have comparable career statistics in the Hall of Fame?

8.Do the player's numbers meet Hall of Fame standards?

9.Is there any evidence to suggest that the player was significantly better or worse than is suggested by his statistics?

10.Is he the best player at his position who is eligible for the Hall of Fame but not in?

11.How many MVP-type seasons did he have? Did he ever win an MVP award? If not, how many times was he close?

12.How many All-Star-type seasons did he have? How many All-Star games did he play in? Did most of the other players who played in this many go to the Hall of Fame?

13.If this man were the best player on his team, would it be likely that the team could win the pennant?

14.What impact did the player have on baseball history? Was he responsible for any rule changes? Did he introduce any new equipment? Did he change the game in any way?

15.Did the player uphold the standards of sportsmanship and character that the Hall of Fame, in its written guidelines, instructs us to consider?

Look at what the boxing equivalents would be for these questions, and I think it's pretty clear that Penalosa is on the out line. I mean, can someone make a coherent argument that Penalosa's even one of the best 500 fighters of all time? There's about 350 currently in the Hall.

 

The Keltner Test is nice in theory, Brick, but at the end of the day it is the Hall of Fame, not greatness.

Gatti is expected to get in (albeit undeservedly, if you think the HOF should be reserved for true greats) due to a lot of the BWAA folks having covered his career closely and with his death being so recent, based on pure sentimentality.

As far as baseball - Wade Boggs flunks the Keltner Test pretty clearly, but got in due to his popularity.

Ideally (in some people's view), any sports HOF would be an elite class of undeniable greats. In practice, a lot of time it winds up being a popularity contest. As for the IBHOF specifically, it's somewhere in between.

Therefore, while Penalosa falls short on both counts (isn't an ATG, and as you said earlier wasn't all that popular outside of PI other than as a cult favorite) when you combine the two criteria of greatness and popularity he does sort of fall somewhat within range in a weird way.

 

Id still put his acomplishments slightly higher than Gattis,in his prime he never lost as convincingly to far less than great fighters like gatti, and as ive said less deserving fighters than penalosa have got into the hall. That shouldnt be the way it is but sometimes its based on popularity as you said. Masamori Tokuyama was a very good fighter with some excellent wins and if he could have gotten a few more good victories under his belt he should be a definite choice for the hall, and hes borderline as it is. Im 50/50 on whether he should be in or not. But he wasnt very well known and its called the hall of fame for a reason so its doubtful he would get in. Im not a big fan of fighters getting into the hall because of popularity but i suppose thats part of their criteria and why gatti will most likely get in it

 

in fairness to gatti the chap was in four fights of the year and won most of them.

 

Just showing R-E-S-P-E-C-T to elmer fudd, it's a yes for me..