Should Only The Greatest Boxers of All Time Be In International Boxing Hall of Fame?

Yes. In all halls, entrance should be only high up in rare air. Now they are a popularity palace.

 

The purist in me says yes: keep it restricted to the truly special fighters.

The realist in me says: the IBHOF is ultimately a money making venture, just like any other hall of fame (albeit less lucrative than most). It makes sense that lower the bar is better for business, since Induction Weekend would probably be sparsely attended if the directors said 'sorry, no nominees met the cut. Check back in three or four years when Roy Jones or James Toney are eligible.'

As much as people gripe about guys like Gatti or McGuigan getting in, the IBHOF typically gets things right. I think Morales, V. Klitschko, & Winky Wright were all inductees who met a reasonable standard, and that's usually true, for me at least. My issues are usually never to do with the guys they let in; it typically has to do with setting an inconsistent standard for excellence that leads to fighters deserving according to that standard being left off. E.g. Ernesto Marcel > Buddy McGirt

 

I'm sure I'm more on the liberal side of this debate. Since I want to get a better idea of how the forum feels about their ideal minimum bar for induction I want to post some names. Let me know if they'd make it into your hall:

Jose Torres
Chiquita Gonzalez
Bob Montgomery
Curtis Cokes
Lew Jenkins
Dwight Qawi
Terry Norris
Willie Pastrano
Beau Jack

 

I'm always shocked by the amount of importance many people seem to put onto this "achievement". The selections seem somewhat inconsistent and the criteria seems to be a bit all over the place too.

I guess the concept is a good thing as it promotes boxing and gets these guys out there.

 

The PROFESSER RIGHT ON, Cuevas common best of the best not really good they have their own hall

 

Cogent point!

 

Just to warn ya, the R&R HofF is a complete expensive joke. Waste of time. Pick up any good pictorial history of any sport (or rock & roll) and you are seeing more than in a hall of fame. I got Flieschers "A Pictorial History of Boxing" in 75 and to this day in 19 it is still the best most info packed picture wise I have ever seen. And magnificent pictures.
Burns' "Baseball" is alike for that sport.

 

In my opinion only the best of the best of the best .

 

It's a moot question.

It's already been watered down by politics and like others have said, it's a money making venture, so popularity will always play a role.

 

I mean, how do you really define 'GREAT'?

H2H ability? Resume?

Does the HOF have a criteria for this?

 

Nonsense! Boxing is a sport unlike any other and as such the criteria is more subjective. In other sports the criteria is pretty clear: hit 500 homeruns, win 300 games as a pitcher, pass / rush for x amount of yards etc.
With boxing it’s different. IMO, the impact a fighter has on the fans should be taken into consideration, as well the other standards of greatness. Watching Floyd shoulder roll, pot shot and jab to the body against guys like Guerrero and Victor Ortiz was impressive- like watching a musical savant play Haydn (with the smell of ass in the air), but watching Gatti or Chico was primal! Arturo and Diego were levels below Floyd, Oscar, SRL etc but the Hall is big enough for all of them. Every fan with a room temperature IQ knows there’s levels to greatness and nobody will confuse Boom Boom and Arturo with SRR and Pep, but the latter made their contributions to sport and deserve their place, too.

 

I would personally favor a slightly looser definition.

 

I agree. It's also called Hall of Fame. If they wanted to be purist about it, they could have called it something else to denote "greatness" in terms of career achievement. But I think popularity and the mainstream exposure that some fighters get is bound to play a part. I don't have a problem with that.