If Montiel beats Donaire is he HOF worthy ??

Fernando seems to think so.

http://www.boxingscene.com/montiel-believes-donaire-win-cements-hall-fame-tilt--35620

he better plan on beating Donaire and then wiping out some of the guys from the tournament if he wants to get there.

captainanddew wrote:he better plan on beating Donaire and then wiping out some of the guys from the tournament if he wants to get there.

..i agree captain..here we go again the sports guys talking about another fighter thats going to cement the hall of fame..read my post under the football topic on footballs hall of fame and compare it to boxings membership...stats stats 4 titles hes after..titles are common place .and with BS divisions ever 3 pounds.gain 6-7 pounds from 112-119 and you can win 4 titles but in reality your litterly fighting in the same division or 2..soo many title fights hes had but half the oposition were stiffs and or inexperienced fighters..the other half good fighters yes.
montiel is good..a very good fighter but not yet the caliber of a REAL hall of fame which boxing is not..there are too many mediocre fighters in there and yearly the standard gets lower and lower..if montiel fights and beats donaire and 3 other guys in the tourney then another top tener then he will establish himself indeed as a hall worthy canidate..untill then he is not..of course when you have writers that vote like dan r who says gatti will get his hall vote or winky wright is a lock and a peds user in his prime years like mosley is a lock and dans not alone thats the reason the hall has a good percentage of unworthy fighters that are not even legit canidates..soo by the logic or todays voters yes montiel is a hall of famer with this win..with the logic of footballs hall of famer a real hof he is not..ask jerry kramer or roger craigs and there titles to see why..

I think he is closing in on it but wouldn't cement it. Win the Ring belt at bantam or go up and fight legit competition and he would clinch it for me. I would say any of Nishioka, Shimoda, or possibly Rigondeaux or WV2. Both those guys could be ready for him soon.

UBeeg9cats wrote:I think he is closing in on it but wouldn't cement it. Win the Ring belt at bantam or go up and fight legit competition and he would clinch it for me. I would say any of Nishioka, Shimoda, or possibly Rigondeaux or WV2. Both those guys could be ready for him soon.

I would rather he take on the tournament winner first.

Let's see.

He's 6-2 against ranked guys. 6-2. He is a linear champ at 118 and has a single defense.

I love the guy but there are literally 200 guys in history who have done that and aren't in the HOF.

marbleheadmaui wrote:Let's see.

He's 6-2 against ranked guys. 6-2. He is a linear champ at 118 and has a single defense.

I love the guy but there are literally 200 guys in history who have done that and aren't in the HOF.

Dont grade on a curve? In this era, that seems to fit the bill to get into the HOF

I know its not close to what fighters in the past have accomplished, but I mean when Cotto thinks he's HOF worthy, fucking Montiel is MILES ahead of him lol

gomez1012 wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:Let's see.

He's 6-2 against ranked guys. 6-2. He is a linear champ at 118 and has a single defense.

I love the guy but there are literally 200 guys in history who have done that and aren't in the HOF.

Dont grade on a curve? In this era, that seems to fit the bill to get into the HOF

I know its not close to what fighters in the past have accomplished, but I mean when Cotto thinks he's HOF worthy, fucking Montiel is MILES ahead of him lol

the benchmark for the HoF is so broad though. i mean is Hatton going to get in to the HoF. afterall Sylvester Stallone is in the HoF albeit in a different category to fighters. i just think it strange that guys that dedicate their lives to the sport and risk their health for it don't get recognised yet actors portraying these guys do. Ricky Hatton took 20'000 people to Vegas with him on several occasions. that's got to be a recognisable achievement surely. if Cotto gets in Hatton should too IMO..... there will always be some people less deserving than others, this all comes down to those that elect these fighters into the HoF and i'm pretty sure that there are some decisions made that carry more bias than others

Hatton will get in

cotto dont belong either..will most of the guys or even all of them mentioned in these posts get in..probably..as of now do they realy deserve it..nope ..instead of the voters looking at past mistakes and saying letting guys in like braddock norton ingo and others was a huge mistake and realize they have begun a crieria of mediocrity that should stop but thell continue lowering the standards by saying hey if braddocks in or ingo then surely cotto and others belong...thats the ignorant mentality of many baseball writers i read on the net justifing there vote..hey if bill mazeroskis in then so should so and so be in...reasoning that justifing a mistake is ok and should now be our criteria..

dmar5143 wrote:cotto dont belong either..will most of the guys or even all of them mentioned in these posts get in..probably..as of now do they realy deserve it..nope ..instead of the voters looking at past mistakes and saying letting guys in like braddock norton ingo and others was a huge mistake and realize they have begun a crieria of mediocrity that should stop but thell continue lowering the standards by saying hey if braddocks in or ingo then surely cotto and others belong...thats the ignorant mentality of many baseball writers i read on the net justifing there vote..hey if bill mazeroskis in then so should so and so be in...reasoning that justifing a mistake is ok and should now be our criteria..

but is it a Hall that recognisies notoriety and fame (as it describes) or is it a Hall that purely recognisies achievement. James Braddock's story of his career inside the ring was good enough to be made into a Hollywood movie and people still know he is today so in my opinion he deserves to be in the hall... imo

any hall should be reserved for the best of the best..cotto hatton winky montiel and others are not that..floyd pac bo-hop are that..cotto in the 50s would be a lower end top ten at best and at his best and briefly..i feel hed be a also ran at best comparing him to the best of the best..this goes for the others..the hall is what it is..a mixture of all time greats near all time greats and mediocre fighters and a few stiffs ..just being decent today folks scream hall of fame and so do writers..the hall should mean great ..it doesnt..

dmar5143 wrote:any hall should be reserved for the best of the best..cotto hatton winky montiel and others are not that..floyd pac bo-hop are that..cotto in the 50s would be a lower end top ten at best and at his best and briefly..i feel hed be a also ran at best comparing him to the best of the best..this goes for the others..the hall is what it is..a mixture of all time greats near all time greats and mediocre fighters and a few stiffs ..just being decent today folks scream hall of fame and so do writers..the hall should mean great ..it doesnt..

shouldn't it be called the Hall of Greatness then

dbudge wrote:

dmar5143 wrote:any hall should be reserved for the best of the best..cotto hatton winky montiel and others are not that..floyd pac bo-hop are that..cotto in the 50s would be a lower end top ten at best and at his best and briefly..i feel hed be a also ran at best comparing him to the best of the best..this goes for the others..the hall is what it is..a mixture of all time greats near all time greats and mediocre fighters and a few stiffs ..just being decent today folks scream hall of fame and so do writers..the hall should mean great ..it doesnt..

shouldn't it be called the Hall of Greatness then

or Champions

dbudge first folks today do not know who braddock is without the movie..he wasnt even popular in his fighting days nor famous..making a movie about him is not a criteria for the hall or then lets induct club fighter mickey ward for the same reason or buster douiglas on his devotion to overcoming odds and the death of his mother that motivated him to dedicate the tyson fight to her..we can make a human interest story-movie on that..if you wish to except or justify mediocrity thats ok and your not alone..hall voters join you as well as other fans..

hall of greatness is what it was ment to be or suposed to be..its a better name yes..if its based on so called fame or a recognizable name thats attached to the sport and brought up over time then arnold rothstein belongs in baseballs hall and frankie carbo in boxings hall..then we can call it the hall of the infamous..

of course Fernando thinks so. what he gonna say "you know, if I beat Donaire I think I'm overrated."

dbudge wrote:

dmar5143 wrote:any hall should be reserved for the best of the best..cotto hatton winky montiel and others are not that..floyd pac bo-hop are that..cotto in the 50s would be a lower end top ten at best and at his best and briefly..i feel hed be a also ran at best comparing him to the best of the best..this goes for the others..the hall is what it is..a mixture of all time greats near all time greats and mediocre fighters and a few stiffs ..just being decent today folks scream hall of fame and so do writers..the hall should mean great ..it doesnt..

shouldn't it be called the Hall of Greatness then

It sees its job as to Our mission is to honor and preserve boxing's rich heritage, chronicle the achievements of those who excelled and provide an educational experience for our many visitors.

Seems to me you can mention Gatti-Ward without having either inducted.

I mean Eddie Gaedel is famous for being the shorstest baseball player an d his story is discussed in the Baseball HOF. But NOBODY would actually INDUCT him.

dmar5143 wrote:hall of greatness is what it was ment to be or suposed to be..its a better name yes..if its based on so called fame or a recognizable name thats attached to the sport and brought up over time then arnold rothstein belongs in baseballs hall and frankie carbo in boxings hall..then we can call it the hall of the infamous..

EXACTLY! If it really is about FAME? Buster Douglas has gotta go in.

marbleheadmaui wrote:

dmar5143 wrote:hall of greatness is what it was ment to be or suposed to be..its a better name yes..if its based on so called fame or a recognizable name thats attached to the sport and brought up over time then arnold rothstein belongs in baseballs hall and frankie carbo in boxings hall..then we can call it the hall of the infamous..

EXACTLY! If it really is about FAME? Buster Douglas has gotta go in.

that was one of the biggest upsets in Heavyweight World Title history, it was kind of a historical moment in the sport so i guess James Buster Douglas' win over Tyson deserves historical recognition, but i get what you're saying that James Buster Douglas' career doesn't deserve to be recognised for it's outstanding greatness. would you say, though, that there have been occasions of fighters being inducted based off their notoriety/ celebrity status and not essentially their boxing accomplishments? if so then do you think that this is something that has become more common in more recent years?

No

hardcorebee24 wrote:No

that's a pretty definite answer, i mean.. wouldn't there be any way we could negotiate perhaps a more positive answer???

dbudge wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:No

that's a pretty definite answer, i mean.. wouldn't there be any way we could negotiate perhaps a more positive answer???

No

dbudge wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

dmar5143 wrote:hall of greatness is what it was ment to be or suposed to be..its a better name yes..if its based on so called fame or a recognizable name thats attached to the sport and brought up over time then arnold rothstein belongs in baseballs hall and frankie carbo in boxings hall..then we can call it the hall of the infamous..

EXACTLY! If it really is about FAME? Buster Douglas has gotta go in.

that was one of the biggest upsets in Heavyweight World Title history, it was kind of a historical moment in the sport so i guess James Buster Douglas' win over Tyson deserves historical recognition, but i get what you're saying that James Buster Douglas' career doesn't deserve to be recognised for it's outstanding greatness. would you say, though, that there have been occasions of fighters being inducted based off their notoriety/ celebrity status and not essentially their boxing accomplishments? if so then do you think that this is something that has become more common in more recent years?

Here are the guys over the past decade who I'd argue don't belong. Orlando Canizales, Jeff Fenech, Laszlo Papp, Terry Norris, Brian Mitchell, Barry McGuigan, Paul Berlenbach, Rocky Kansas, Billy Miske and Dave Shade . Of these guys Montiel only measures up, even a little bit, to Mitchell, McGuigan and Papp. While I feel these guys aren't deserving, I think only McGuigan really got in due to outside the ring issues. In his case of course the unifying role he played in Ireland during the Troubles.

Two additional thoughts. I don't like to use one mistake to justify another and second there are plenty of ways to teach boxing history etc. without inducting the fighter who caught lightning in a bottle.

hardcorebee24 wrote:

dbudge wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:No

that's a pretty definite answer, i mean.. wouldn't there be any way we could negotiate perhaps a more positive answer???

No

well that makes me sad.....