Should Sot Chitalada be in the Hall of Fame?

I have two ways of looking at this.

1. He is more deserving than quite a few fighters already in the hall. He is a two-time world champion who had 10 successful defenses in six different countries. His four losses were all to world champions.

2. I think all Halls of Fame are watered down with those are very good and I think they should be reserved for great fighters. Chitalada is only very good.

I voted that he should be in. I wish number two was the case, however, that's not how Halls of Fame operate.

 

There is a 3rd way and that is to take a literal interpretation of the term "fame". Gatti is more famous than Chitalada. Hes neither greater nor better. This is probably the closest criteria that is de facto applied.

I'm with you btw, I'd prefer greatness rather than fame was the criteria and ATG fighters, or borderline ATG as a minimum, only were admitted.

 

Salt Ciabatta.

 

I don't think it means you get in because your famous. I think it means your famous because you get in. Then again, Gatti and Mancini are in and both of them were definitely more famous than they were great.

 

I dont understand the distinction you're making in your first sentence. I agree with your 2nd sentence.

 

He’s a very good fighter. Not a great one. But there are plenty less then Sot in there… In my opinion, If I had a HOF. Sot would make it. Sot was probably pretty much a finished product despite his low fight count against Jung first time around, Thai fights and all that. Both Jung and Sot where pretty past it in the end for the rematch weren’t they?

 

If you like that sort of word play, here’s a thread I think you’ll enjoy: https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/boxers-who-were-fruits.655385/

 

Purely on the basis of fame, no. That generally seems to be the IBHOF’s criteria.