It was a bit different with Gatti. He was in wars that many considered Fight Of the Year affairs. He had the famous trilogy with Ward. He pulled upsets and was upset himself. Gatti is one of the most famous brawlers of all time. There is a reason why Lampley named his list of exciting fighters the "Gatti list".
Hopkins did have a good MW reign. No question and I would think that that would get him in the HOF alone, but on the same note Michalczewski had a good LHW reign. If I was to look at their records and resumes in their last fights before each had their reign come to an end Hopkins record at that time was 46-2-1 1NC Michalczewskis record at that time 48-0-0 Hopkins MW reign 19 defences and 1 NC Michalczewski LHW reign was 23 defences Hopkins won IBF WBA WBC WBO titles Michalczewski won WBO WBA IBF titles and beat the fighter stripped of the WBC title I would guess that K Holmes could be Hopkins best MW win. I guess some would say Trinidad but I think Michalczewski beating Hill and Rocchigiani is arguably greater. Then look at Dariuszs wins over Barber, Griffin, Harmon, Hall, Prince, Girard
Dont get me wrong. I liked Gatti also, he was a very exciting fighter but when it comes to accomplishments many dont do as well as Michalczewski and that is why im surprised you wouldnt think he would get in
I think DM should eventually get in. But, there are still some older candidates on the ballot that should get in before him.
What did he accomplish? His resume isn't that great at all. Yes, he did have a long reign but who are the top guys that he beat? I think a lot of people, including you are playing the numbers game. Should a long reign alone get one into the HOF? Let's not forget that for the vast majority, Dariusz held the WBO belt. And that was in the 90s and early 2000s. Yet it was in the early 2000s the WBO found mainstream recognition(so to speak). It was only in 2012 that the JBC recognized the WBO(and IBF)
I remember that too. I wasn't familiar with McCarthy or his hideous spoiling style when I first saw footage of that but now that I am I have some sympathy for his mother. BTW, she was 62 y/o and she actually cut his head open with the her stiletto heel lol. Yep and as I said he was DQ'd against both lol No problem.
He deserves to be put into HOF. No doubt about it. The question is "Why didn't he get the credit that he deserved?"
He had been the Undisputed World Lt.heavy Weight Champion before Roy Jones was. It was pity he and Roy never fought each other.
You could certainly make a case for Dariusz' reign being better. But wins over Harmon and Girard are nothing to highlight.
Because he was seemingly happy enough to just keep his lightly regarded WBO belt, where he milked it for all it's worth in Germany.
if someone today made 20 MW IBO defences, plus they won the actual world title once, beat one HoFer and one elite, that wouldnt make them HoF. It means they are elite, for beating 1 or 2 elites and proving they are above world title level. Loads of people do this, and its excellent of course, it doesnt need me to point that out. But HoF is something higher. Usyk is not HoF for beating the elite CW Gassiev. He is perhaps going to be HoF for winning the first Ali tournie and going on to higher things. But only a fool is going to say someone with 20 IBO defences today is HoF for winninng the world title once. You'd be more likely to say "oh he actually stepped up for once!" Everyone whoever fought for a world title "stepped up for once".
So this here is in your response about Gatti and Michalczewski 2 weight world champ winner of 25 world title fights went 48-0 made 23 title defences won WBO WBA IBF LHW titles, WBO CW title and beat the fighter who was stripped of the WBC title. Also beat the man at LHW Hill and Rocchigiani I think are arguably his top 2 wins Well you tell me. Would Hopkins have got in because of his MW reign? I would think so and I think Michalczewskis LHW reign was more impressive Did V Hill get in from a long reign? So are you one of those fans that think a title makes a fighter? T Fury doesnt have a title but many felt he beat the current longest reigning undefeated on paper HW champ and he also beat the man previously but yet you think not having a title that you rate devalues those achievements? Michalczewski beat the man and won other titles and if you know the full story, would know why they had to be relinquished. I was a big Gatti fan and thought he was great to watch but you argue that because Gatti had losing wars to fighters like Ward, Robinson, Manfredy that it arguably rates higher because his fights were viewed more in America, the country he was fighting out of? Im sure Michalczewski defending his title was viewed more in Germany than Gattis wars. Your argument stems from a fighter being based in America and known for being in wars on American TV compared to a fighter who had many title defences and who beat the man in the division he was in Really your argument is being known in America rather than success
He made the case himself with the wins. Girard was a decent win at that time and Harmon hadnt long beaten G Johnson at that time so wasnt a bad win at all at the time
