Kostya Tszyu HOF????

His resume is stronger than Hamed's. Tszyu's win over Judah is far and away better than any win Hamed ever achieved.

 

If it's stronger,it certainly isn't by much.And,no,his win over Judah isn't "far and away better" than any victory on Hamed's resume - such a suggestion is a gross exaggeration of Zab Judah's abilities.

 

Pretty much spot on. The Australian's LOVE Kostya. He's a national hero to them. Read a book on Australian boxing.

That, and his resume is pretty darn good. Better than 99% of people who have every laced up, with something like 15 or 16 title fights(Or wins, or something), and one of the best amateur careers ever had. Dude was a stud. He belongs in the company of greats for sheer time spent at #1.

 

I would bet cash money Hamed will be inducted in the next 3 or 4 years.

 

Of course a win over Judah is far and away better than Hamed's best win. Of course it is. Judah was betting favourite to beat Tszyu (Hamed was betting favourite in pretty much every fight he ever had), Judah was 27-0 at the time, Judah was a highly-rated young prime world champion (did Hamed ever fight anyone fitting this description???), and Kostya stopped him in 2. By far superior to anything Hamed ever achieved.

 

Our answers depend on whether the question is "Will he be inducted?" or "Should he be inducted?"

If you ask me "Will Tszyu/Darchinyan/numerous other alphabelt holders be inducted?" I will probably concede yes.

But if you ask me "Should Tszyu/Darchinyan/numerous other alphabelt holders be inducted?" I will argue to my dying hour that they should not.

A Hall Of Fame should be about greatness, not celebrity. This is a sport, not a reality TV show.

 

What do you mean by alphabet holders ? Tszyu unified the division so I'd say he was alot more than just a alphabet holder. He was the man at 140 for many years.

 

Which doesn't mean much considering the opposition he fought. If I remember rightly, Tszyu was a unified champion for 3 years and never held the WBO belt. But he was undoubtedly the best lww in the world for a long time, I wouldn't dispute that. I think he was a cracking fighter, I just have a problem bestowing greatness on someone whose second best win is probably Sharmba Mitchell or Miguel Angel Gonzalez.

 

Andre Berto was a young,prime,highly-rated,world champion,and a strong betting favourite before Victor Ortiz dominated him.Should we make that victory out to be more than what it actually was,simply because of how the match-up and the betting favourite was perceived by other prior to the fight? There isn't a great deal of difference between Judah's credentials(at that particular time) and Berto's credentials.Simple matter of two overhyped,black,quick-fisted fighters that were built-up by a network and ultimately failed to live up to expectations when they stepped up a level.


You're talking about Zab Judah here,not some elite fighter.Judah being a slight betting favourite was the result of the boxing media at the time grossly exaggerating oth his credentials and in-ring abilities.He was never,at any point in his career,what he was originally built up to be.A good win for Tszyu,but no more than that.Certainly not "by far superior" compared to Hamed's victories over Vazquez,Bungu and Johnson.

 

Are you joking? Vazquez and Johnson were shot by the time Hamed cherrypicked them for name recognition. Judah was prime and undefeated. Bungu was a good win for Hamed, but Judah most definitely had better ability than Bungu. It was certainly a far superior win to any of Hamed's.

 

Why would I have an 'agenda' against Kostya Tszyu and Vic Darchinyan? :huh That's disappointing. If ever there's been a motiveless accusation, it's this. Oh yeah, because I have a secret deep hatred of all half-Australians.

You may think a Boxing Hall Of Fame should be the equivalent to a Boxing Hall Of Celebrity, but I don't. Boxing is a sport, so the way you gain fame and recognition should be on merit and greatness, not patronage.

Kostya Tszyu's second best ever win was Sharmba Mitchell or Miguel Angel Gonzalez. Is that enough to enshrine you into the history of the sport? Not even anywhere remotely close, IMHO.

 

I don't think most of the voters really do vote for the famous types though, boxed.

by and large it does seem to be about how good voters think you were.The more celebrity types that get in seem to follow little set pattern other than if you were any kind of heavyweight champ pre-80s you're near enough set.

 

OK, apologies for misinterpreting your point. Hey, you're my second favourite poster on here after sweet_scientist, but this does seem to be an issue we will continue to butt heads over. Like Lora said:

As I've said, boxing is a sport, and you should gain historical recognition for sporting excellence and achievement, nothing more.

Should a guy whose second best win was Sharmba Mitchell or Miguel Angel Gonzalez be enshrined in the history of the sport? I would say just a flat, blunt No.

I'm an idealist, and will continue to be so!! :good

 

Yes he should be in, and this is typical rose tinted pseudo interlectualism from the Classic Forum. For some reason they have a problem with the best of his division for a decade being elected but it's fine for McMustache to be in who was about 10th best in the division he fought in (not all time but over a 2-3year period), fluked a win over a 50yo ex-champ who was suffering from the plague, in a semi-pro era where there were a total of 99 boxers in the whole world, where only the champion could afford 3 square meals a day and boxing training consisted of building haystacks

If you don't think he should be in, give me a long list and it needs to be a long 1 of other fighters you don't think should be in

 

Yes,Hamed was clearly cherry-picking when he fought two fellow world title holders in his division.Tom Johnson being ranked as the best Featherweight in the world,with Vazquez definitely being ranked within the top three or five by the time he fought Hamed.Yes,that's usually an act of cherry-picking - if you're a complete moron it is,anyway.



You've still done nothing but point out that Judah was younger than these three opponents.For somebody who was apparently "by far" a better win,you've put up no credible argument that suggests that it was.Perhaps Zab Judah participated in several fights behind closest doors that only you and a few others witnessed,because I've never seen anything about him or who he beat that justifies him being,"by far",a better win than anyone Hamed ever beat.