Why is Michael Moorer in the Hall of Fame

Hes got an additional issue.

He reigned in a tweener division and just a tweener division. How many guys have gotten in just off 140/154/168/CW runs? 168 is between MW and LHW and not winning a belt in either might be a little problem. Not that he doesn't deserve to get in just saying.

Also I do not expect that "Norton exception" to hold. Fultons got to get in sometime. Witherspoon will get in at some point. When this generation of fans who hate padded records pass Tucker should get in etc.

I consider Peter Jackson a lineal champion but most don't and I think hes in? Langford, Jeanette and McVea? Are you sure this exceptions a thing? A big part of this exception is there was only one world champ for most of the 1938-1978 period. Non lineal champs are rare and someone like Archie Moore won a belt at LHW. Bivins won a belt at LHW as did a lot of the early HW claimants. Lee Savold plainly isn't a HOFer. You might just be reading too much into this and putting up a standard that isn't there.

 

In the Modern category. The pioneer and old timers category is different. But the modern category the first HW in is, Max Schmeling. Since him until Wlad. Every single HW inducted in the modern era, was the lineal HW champion. With the exception of Ken Norton. 0 contenders inducted in 95 years and 0 belt holders since the explosion of the alphabets in the 70s/80s unless they were also lineal. Jimmy Biven is in but that’s because he had a HOF body of work at light Heavy.
I find it egregious if Wilder becomes the first man to get in as a non lineal HW

 

It's already happened.

Ken Norton was handed the WBC belt because the World Champion Leon Spinks decided to rematch Ali instead, and Norton held the WBC belt (he never won in the ring) for a WHOLE THREE MONTHS before he lost to Larry Holmes, who had a torn bicep and still won.

In WBC/WBA title fights, Norton is 0-3.

Ken Norton is the first NON-LINEAL "modern" to get in. And going 0-3 in title fights and getting into the Hall of Fame is hardly a HIGH BAR.

And he wasn't exactly a LATE ADDITION. He was in the THIRD class of fighters ever inducted in 1992 (it opened in 1989).

So don't get bent out of shape if Wilder, who fought in 13 WBC title fights, went 10-2-1 (as opposed to 0-3) and held the WBC title for five years (as opposed to three months) and made 10 consecutive successful defenses (instead of zero) gets in.

It will hardly be "egregious."

Wilder is in the top five on the all-time most consecutive title defense list, and is in the top all-time among heavyweight champs with the longest single title reign .. and his name is included with all those fighters currently in the Hall of Fame.

Where is Norton on those all-time lists -- with his no title wins and zero defenses?

I'm not here to bash Norton. I always rooted for him when Ken was active. But enough of the false outrage. Norton is hardly setting a high-bar.

 

Yes I’m the person that has pointed out that Norton is the only non lineal with entry. I should have stated it will be Egregious if Wilder becomes the second man to be inducted having been non lineal. At least Norton beat Ali and arguably won all 3 fights. Wilder got bounced around twice by Fury. Anyway my point stands. I can’t reward Wilder with the lackluster names on his resume.

 

Bivins interim HW title reign was much longer then his LHW one where he popped in won the belt and left the division. It was the other way around.

When I think pioneers and old timers I'm thinking 1800s and handlebar mustaches.

 

Fair enough but I think he’s in for his achievements in both divisions combined.

 

Well, unless you're a voter, what you can or can't do doesn't really matter.

But no title wins and a three-month title reign with a belt someone just presented to you in a board room, isn't a high bar, regardless.

 

True but in early times this would apply to most of the non lineal crowd.

 

I think Moorer is in the IBHOF because the entry requirements have become less stringent over time. And I don't think Moorer is even the weakest fighter in the IBHOF. Pazienza was inducted this year. Did he have a better career than Moorer? In my opinion no. But not even a great warrior like Gatti, in my opinion, had a better career than Moorer, who, in fact, has a very important victory against Holyfield.

 

And Mancini and Liston and Johannson., While Santos Laciar, Jose Luis Ramirez, Betulio Gonzalez and the 4 Puerto Ricams (Vazquez, Escalera, Serrano and De Leon) keep getting ignored. Maybe Serrano for example, was protected, but that is not t.heir fault, but they fought what was available and beat them mos butt hey what do I know.!

Michael Moorer beat most of the guys of his era except Foreman and Tua and a few others, but he was world Heavyweight champion twice in an excellent era. That counts for something. And he was the Tyson of the Light Heavies too.