Is Miguel Cotto Hall of Fame Worthy?

So Miguel Cotto lost for the 4th time at the weekend and it looks like his career is starting to creep towards the finish line. He has been a 3 weight world titlist and a fans favourite for many years, but is he Hall of Fame worthy?

He enjoyed a great undefeated run in claiming titles at 140lb and 147lb, notable wins coming against Quintana, Malignaagi, Judah and Mosley. The loss to Tony was brutal and in truth his career never recovered. He was handed another beatdown against Manny before moving to 154 where he won a title but victories over Foreman and shot versions of Mayorga & Margarito are certainly nothing special. Now he has suffered consecutive defeats to Mayweather (whom he held his own against) and the relatively unheralded Austin Trout.

Does this career entitle Miguel to a spot in the HoF? On the one hand he is a three weight champion who only lost in questionable circumstances (tony) or to the best (Floyd, manny) prior to Trout. On the other his career best win was Mosley, his 'W' column is good but not great and he suffered some quite one sided beatings.

I know the HoF doesn't exactly cover itself in glory with who it does and doesn't let in, but based on Hamed and (dare I say it) Curry not yet being there I'm gonna say Cotto, on balance perhaps isn't HoF worthy (feels wrong saying it as I'm a fan but trying to be unbiased here). Opinions/shooting down in flames welcome.

Very tough one. He will almost certainly get in there but personally I'm not so sure he should. I've never been his biggest fan which is strange as he has an exciting style and a great willingness to fight the best but I've never really warmed to him. He has a lot of good wins but his best is probably the Mosley fight and by then Shane's form was patchy already. As you say there are a few better fighters not in there but also some worse ones who are.

21 straight world title fights is pretty impressive. I've always liked him. Not quite HoF for me but he always came to fight and ducked no one

Cotto is an excellent example of a guy who should not get in but will in reality sail in. The marks against him for me are that unless I am very much mistaken there was never a point at which he was considered beyond any reasonable argument the man at any weight and he is lacking that big name wow win on his ledger that can set even a belt holder above the pack, can also not put too much stock in the whole three weight world champion thing because alas so is Duke McKensie and nobody is picketing Canastota about his exclusion.

That said he has done enough over the last few years to prove he is one of the better fighters in the world and in his pomp his losses were only to the top tier guys apart from the Marg loss which will always have an asterix against it in the eyes of many, add into that factors which perhaps should not be a factor but tend to such as his ability to put bums on seats and him being decent to watch and whilst I don’t particularly agree with it I suspect he is sailing in without too much hassle.

I feel the Marg fight was the watershed moment in his career. Up til then he was well on course - two weight champ coming off of his best win. He and marg were the two best active welters at that time and if Cotto had won he'd have effectively cleaned out his division. Instead he lost badly and, despite still having some more highs, never really recovered. His post Marg career doesn't impress - life & death with Clottey, battered by manny, a few gimme's at 154lb before defeats to Floyd & Trout, and his pre Marg career whilst good, isn't - in my opinion - good enough.

Nice article, Sugar Boy.

A tricky one, is Cotto. There are plenty of far worse and less successful fighters who have been honoured at Canastota, but then again, is that really any kind of reason to compound the error by including Cotto? To complicate things further, on the other side of the coin we have two fighters in Hamed and Curry who arguably have better claims than Cotto but who haven't been included so far.

My gut feeling is that he'll make it in, however. If the defeat to Trout has indeed signalled the end of his world championship days, then he's had an eight year run in which he has, but for a few months here and there, always held a world title of some sort, and in general his victims have been of a decent rank. He's never been the consensus top man in any of the divisions in which he's won titles, but I suspect that his huge PPV draw will paper over that particular crack for many.

In an ideal world, a proper Hall of Fame wouldn't consider him but it's hard to deny that his career achievements should book him a spot at Canastota.

I think, prior to the Margarito fight there was a fair bit of hype around Cotto that perhaps wasn't merited and it all seemed to centre on the fact that, to those in the know, he was the man to beat Floyd at welterweight. The old 606 site, particularly in the run up to to the Hatton/Floyd fight used to be full of people claiming that Cotto was the real deal at welterweight and that Floyd was ducking him.

To a degree, that pre Margarito hype has perhaps convinced some that Cotto's welterweight career was better than it was.

A very good fighter but not a great one but that won't stop him making it into the HoF.

I think a lot of that was also due to the fact that his name had been linked for so long with Hatton's when they were both still at Light-Welter, Superfly. As such, despite having fought neither at that point, he was seen as a 'rival' to both Hatton and Floyd.

I agree that being a three-weight 'world champion' in today's era, when none of them were bringing acclaim as the division's best, is no grounds to automatically include a fighter in the Hall of fame, and the likes of Duke McKenzie and Iran Barkley are proof of that. However, the comparison doesn't quite stack up. From 2006 to 2009, Cotto was viewed as one of the very, very top fighters in the world, pound for pound. In the build up to the first Margarito fight (which came weeks after Floyd's first 'retirement'), many were understandably saying that a win there would consolidate him as the new number one. On the other hand, the likes of McKenzie, Barkley etc were never anywhere near that status.

I'll forever have misgivings about the Margarito result first time out, of course, but it's all ifs and buts. Cotto will probably get in to Canastota but it says more about their lax standards than it does Cotto's achievments.

If the likes of McGuigan can get in - and no disrespect to him he was very good, then Cotto should be in.

I think McGuigan's inclusion has a lot to do with his overall appeal and ability to transcend the sport within his own era, though, rather than just his boxing achievements. He had a really unique place in the affections of the British and Irish public alike, was extremely popular in the States for a while and had a couple of real barnstormers against Pedroza and Cruz, which were Fight of the Year stuff (I believe the latter actually took that honour for 1986). Keeping in mind that Tyson didn't become world champion until November 1986, there was a period of about a year not long beforehand in which McGuigan was arguably the most talked about and well-known active boxer on the planet.

88Chris05 wrote:I think McGuigan's inclusion has a lot to do with his overall appeal and ability to transcend the sport within his own era, though, rather than just his boxing achievements. He had a really unique place in the affections of the British and Irish public alike, was extremely popular in the States for a while and had a couple of real barnstormers against Pedroza and Cruz, which were Fight of the Year stuff (I believe the latter actually took that honour for 1986). Keeping in mind that Tyson didn't become world champion until November 1986, there was a period of about a year not long beforehand in which McGuigan was arguably the most talked about and well-known active boxer on the planet.

some good points well made.

He's more deserving of HoF status then some of the current guys but on the whole I don't think he deserves to be inducted but as others said, he will.

His biggest win on his record is Molsey which was fairly close but a good win all the same. Looking past Mosley no wins really jump out. He struggled with malignaggi who isn't the best anyway, struggled with Clottey, Judah hit him a lot before he got outmuscled and Margairto was shot I nthe second fight. His opposition at LMW was very weak (excluding mayweather) and Trout exposed how he wasn't big enough to do much to a legit 154lber. His performance vs Mayweather was valiant but it was still a clear points victory and while he started well vs pacquiao he couldn't cope and was eventually stopped.

Margarito took a lot out of Cotto imo and its hard to judge that loss given the accusations of hand wraps. Margarito may have had loaded gloves, or he may not, but regardless Margarito tool Cotto's best shots and never looked hurt and got Cotto to the ropes very easily and Cotto's stamina looked like fading before Marg started to land big

Mosley, Malignaggi, Quintana, Judah, Clottey, Corley isn't enough to warrant HoF

Agree with the general consensus here in that based on achievements he will go down as a very good top fighter but with a few question marks by his name.

The number of title fights he has had is fantastic and whilst he may never have been at the top of the tree in any of the 3 weight classes he fought at, he was always considered one of the top guys.

When looking back at his ledger you would have to say that there is a real top notch at their peak missing...however he never hid from a challenge. Especially when he was coming through the ranks he took a fair few risks against fighters who could have easily derailed his asperations...especially at LWW where he cleared out most of the notable names...

N'Dou, DeMarcus Corley,Carlos Maussa,Ricardo Torres,Pauli Mallignaggi,

Of those 3 were unbeaten at the time of the respective fights & in Torres & Maussa he took on guys who weren't top class but were spoken of as avoided fighters due to there KO ratios.

From Welterweight up his reign was decent but nothing spectacular..the Mosely victory the stand out one but as had been mentioned he was a fading force by that time.

The clear difference maker was the first Margarito fight...which given all the controversy which surrounds it I write off. The problem though is that it was clear that the fight itself took a number of years off Cotto and in my opinion stopped him perhaps becoming the fighter he could of been.

At 28 years of age he should of been looking at a couple of years where he was at his peak...instead he never truly recovered I don't think. The destruction at the hands of Pacman didn't help his cause either.

He did though give Mayweather possibly his toughest test since Castillo which is no mean feat.

Given his willingness to trade, his excitement & no ducking mentality I think he will make it into the HOF. On achievements alone I would say he is probably just shy of HOF material but the all around package will ensure that he does make it in.

Much like Ricky Hatton, fighters like Cotto always make me question whether there should be two forms of the HOF. One for just pure boxing achievements and one which combines a number of factors not just World titles etc.

You should have written this article when Young Towzer was still about, Sugar Boy!

88Chris05 wrote:You should have written this article when Young Towzer was still about, Sugar Boy!

Aye - there's too much agreeing going on here - perhaps someone could threaten to beat me up for daring to question Miguels credentials just to redress the balance in Towzers absence? Cheers.

he is a must for me, he has been successful but more importantly is a huge draw for boxing and has brought it to the masses certain places.

the hof has lowered the standards massively over the years and with that in mind he sails through

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:You should have written this article when Young Towzer was still about, Sugar Boy!

Aye - there's too much agreeing going on here - perhaps someone could threaten to beat me up for daring to question Miguels credentials just to redress the balance in Towzers absence? Cheers.

What was that Sugar Boy? LO....Nah in fact I'm not gonna even bother finishing off saying 'lol' to you cuz you just aint funny mate imo. Not HOF worthy now that is ridiculous, he's world class, is he a 4 time world champion in 3 weight divisions? Hhhmmm thought so. Margarito and Pacquiao losses mean nothing, he'd have battered them in a rematch, and I had him winning the Mayweather fight by a point, maybe you need to come to my gym and watch me box, and you'll see I know what I'm talking about imo, Miguel not HOF worthy!

People keep throwing up the names of Hamed and Curry as non inclusions in the HoF but should remember that the HoF like to uphold some kind of moral standard and so some boxers who are criminals will be omitted despite their accomplishments in the ring.

It may seem like hypocracy because it is but Hamed and Curry I believe have had more than their fair share of problems with the law or have committed serious offences. Being stripped of an MBE for example is not going to go down well in Canastota so no doubt that's why they keep the little toad out of the Hall!

As for Cotto, a far better than average resume, if not elite, not aware of any serious misdemeanours - he'll fly in!

I doubt that Boon - Monzon murdered his wife and Liston was a mob enforcer. Both in.

Mike Tyson is in there and he's a convicted struggle cuddler. I don't think the IBHoF have any such morals.

Cotto will get in. But for those who say that he's a 3 division world title holder and he's had all these title fights, hasn't that been due to the fact that he's had the right promoter? I think so.

Cotto like many 'stars' these days has also been well managed.

That's a spot on assessment in my opinion Ozzy, couldn't agree more.

When looking at his record as a black and white exercise the career peak of the in form top name is missing, but given the factors listed and knowing the context, it changes.

Many of the guys at LWW were thought of in much higher terms at the time he fought them and there is so much suspicion around the Margarito fight. Which let not forgot, was a brilliant fight to watch.

His attitude has alwas been great in an era of BS and over-exaggeration. I like to think he would have taken on Floyd at a younger age had that fight been available to him but we shall never know.

Also against him were the changes of trainers when he should have been hitting peak form. In the lead up to the Manny fight, Roach said the best thing in their favour was Cotto's trainer!

Certainly won't rank highly in any all time great lists for his weight divisions but I'd put him in HoF based on other inductees.

He would have beaten Hatton in my opinion too at any age.

Cotto is the better boxer and the stronger but if they met after Tzysu, 05/06, I think it would have been a hard fight to call. Cotto was quite drained at 140 and had been hurt a couple of times by some if his opponent and while Hatton is fault limited he had a great chin and would he to to a year up with anyone. If cotto didn't make a good impression on Ricky early, Ricky's body attack and workload could have even enough to slow cotto down enough tha he could pull off the upset. I wouldn't make him favourite by any means as Cotto could knock him out with his left hook but I think that he might just be tough enough to exploit Cotto's weakness of being drained

Both like to attack the body and hope to wear you down so whoever breaks first could well be the loser and would have been a real war of attrition

A win over the Hatton who beat Tzysu would have helped Cotto's cause to be worthy of being inudcted into the HoF

I'm a fan of Miguel's so you could say I'm biased, but for me, Cotto is a shoe in for the hall.


Personally don't hold a few losses against him, as to me he's always taken on the best available opposition. He never waits around until somebody is past their best, he fights them at the top of their game. Can't fault him really, his record speaks for itself. 21 straight world title fights, 3 weight champion, takes on all comers, only battered once by a loaded Margarito. Beaten a few times yes, but rarely outclassed or dominated. He also showed that he could rebound from a heavy defeat (or two,) which was a sign of his mental strength.


A resounding yes for me.

I think Cotto is getting under appreciated in this thread.

He is a great natural talent who has a lot of excellent attributes. His biggest problem in the super fights he lost is that he didn't use his best assets and got drawn into wars which exposed him tactically. The big fights also uncovered his biggest weakness, psychological frailty in the face of extreme adversity.

Cotto had skills on a very special level and that can't be said about a lot of the HOF'ers. With more up top I believe Cotto could have pushed Manny very hard. The guy has the ability to get up on his toes and can be very elusive when he wants to be.


On talent I see Cotto as a HOF'er. On delivery of that talent he fell short. Still one of the most popular fighters of the last decade and will sail into the Hall unopposed.

OasisBFC wrote:If the likes of McGuigan can get in - and no disrespect to him he was very good, then Cotto should be in.

THis is why I earlier said the HoF was hypocrisy. The reason Hamed and Curry are not in is because they've been in trouble with the law. Whilst the HoF is not exactly filled with angels they seem to allow some bad ones in (ie. Monzon, Tyson) and some out - Hamed and Curry.

McGuigan is in there on the basis of a lot of the good works he's done for promoting peace in Northern Ireland, broadcasting work, work trying to get pensions for boxers and helping boxers with their finances, all in all McGuigan is one of the good guys and that has helped him enormously in getting the HoF induction.

The hall of fame as it stands is full of it, they can dress it up how they want there is no way on gods green earth that Ingemar Johansen has a better claim to be in there than either Naz or Curry. The problem is they commit themselves to inducting a certain number of fighters every year irrespective of whether the talent pool warrants said number being inducted. A far better process would be not have a set number of inductees and do it once every four or five years, over the last few years the likes of Lopez, Holmes and Tyson have all had the call and for me I don’t think anyone would object to any of those guys, if the four or five yearly induction had been last year and those three had been added everyone would be happy but with the inductions happening annually they have to be propped up by the likes of Kostya Tzysu and Mark Johnson whose claims are tenuous at best.

88Chris05 wrote:

Sugar Boy Sweetie wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:You should have written this article when Young Towzer was still about, Sugar Boy!

Aye - there's too much agreeing going on here - perhaps someone could threaten to beat me up for daring to question Miguels credentials just to redress the balance in Towzers absence? Cheers.

What was that Sugar Boy? LO....Nah in fact I'm not gonna even bother finishing off saying 'lol' to you cuz you just aint funny mate imo. Not HOF worthy now that is ridiculous, he's world class, is he a 4 time world champion in 3 weight divisions? Hhhmmm thought so. Margarito and Pacquiao losses mean nothing, he'd have battered them in a rematch, and I had him winning the Mayweather fight by a point, maybe you need to come to my gym and watch me box, and you'll see I know what I'm talking about imo, Miguel not HOF worthy!

Think we've figured out who Towzer was all along...

Rowley wrote:The hall of fame as it stands is full of it, they can dress it up how they want there is no way on gods green earth that Ingemar Johansen has a better claim to be in there than either Naz or Curry. The problem is they commit themselves to inducting a certain number of fighters every year irrespective of whether the talent pool warrants said number being inducted. A far better process would be not have a set number of inductees and do it once every four or five years, over the last few years the likes of Lopez, Holmes and Tyson have all had the call and for me I don’t think anyone would object to any of those guys, if the four or five yearly induction had been last year and those three had been added everyone would be happy but with the inductions happening annually they have to be propped up by the likes of Kostya Tzysu and Mark Johnson whose claims are tenuous at best.

Ingemar Johanson's claim is as good as Hamed's given he was the man (albeit briefly) in the halcyon days of there being a "Heavyweight Champion of the World" rather than a WBO/WBU Heavyweight Champion or WBC Interim, Diamante champion etc etc. He also doesn't have to carry the ignominy of having mowed down and severely disabled someone.

Ingy was the man in much the way Buster Douglas was though D, he also does not possess a win anywhere near as good as Buster's in Tokyo, he never really dominated the division over a sustained period, which politics aside Naz most assuredly did for a good few years.

Have no real truck with the mowed someone down stuff either, not dismissing what was a thoroughly unpleasant incident but we either apply this sort of thing across the board and exclude the likes of Monzon and countless others or we turn a blind eye, there are enough wrong uns through boxing history to mean we cannot hold this against Naz on a purely HOF basis.

Yeah but Jeff I already said the HoF were hypocrites (I always find that word hard!) . Am just saying that's the reason why Hamed and Curry are out. The HoF like to maintain a moral stance even if it's only every so often.

Is that actually the reason why Hamed and Curry have been shunned so far, though, or is it speculation? Unless Canastota have given reasons for refusing those two entry, then for all we know it could just be a bit of bad luck which has caused them to miss out. I genuinely don't know, but I see no reason why the Hall of Fame would, for no good reason, arbitrarily just decide to employ a high moral code every one year out of five.

Hamed and Curry are angels compared to the Charles McCoys, Esteban De Jesus' and Carlos Monzons of this world, so surely even if Canastota did choose to employ such a daft and random act of moral standards every now and then, surely it'd make more sense to exclude the real wrong'uns such as these men, rather than the, shall we say, misguided types like Naz and the Don?

That's Love sacks curry's failure to pay child support is hardly something anyone would blink at especially since it was because he was left destitute by legal fees, defending himself against the false accusations of drug dealing.

I always thought they did that but I read a lot of it is down to Boxing Writers Association of America that has a big say in it. So in other words Hamed is a victim of typical blinkered American viewpoints and I'm aware that Curry has cheesed off a few boxing afficionados in the past. Probably nothing to do with misdemeanous just blatant ignorance.

Damn! I feel the same way as I did when I learned that Stella Artois only dropped their alcohol volume down from 5.2 to 4.8 to avoid taxes, and it wasn't anything to do with a sense of social responsibility!! Damn this cyncial world!

You do have to think personality plays a bigger part than it should D, you will find no bigger Naz fan than me and even I would have to admit he could be a massive tool in interviews, could be a prickly little bully with journalists when he wanted, you have to think there is an element of settling some scores in his ongoing exclusion, because for me whilst he warrants inclusion in the hall as it stands on merit alone it should not be overlooked the impact and shot in the arm Naz provided the lower weight divisions, the idea of featherweights earning six figure purses was all but unheard of prior to him so if there is an element decided on impact he ticks the odd box on that score as well.

Super D Boon wrote:I always thought they did that but I read a lot of it is down to Boxing Writers Association of America that has a big say in it. So in other words Hamed is a victim of typical blinkered American viewpoints and I'm aware that Curry has cheesed off a few boxing afficionados in the past. Probably nothing to do with misdemeanous just blatant ignorance.

Damn! I feel the same way as I did when I learned that Stella Artois only dropped their alcohol volume down from 5.2 to 4.8 to avoid taxes, and it wasn't anything to do with a sense of social responsibility!! Damn this cyncial world!

A welsh optimist All I need to meet now is a wasteful yorkshireman and I can die happy. Sorry to burst your bubble dear friend