Is Arturo Gatti worthy of the Hall of Fame?

First topic message reminder :

Everyone loves Arturo Gatti. I cant think of a more exciting and inspirational fighter in the last 20 years. Always gave his all and had the most amazing courage in the ring but does someone like him deserve a place in the HOF?

Some will say the halls a place for those who had an influence and an impact on the sport. Theres no doubt that Gatti did this. 2 weight world champ who was involved in 4 Ring fights of the year including that trilogy. Had an enormous fan base and always gave his all never letting the side down win or lose. Wasn't the most talented but that makes his impact even more impressive and based on some who have made it he deserves a spot.

Others will argue he lost to every elite opponent he faced. That his exiting performances came against the average and mediocre boxers he faced. The HOF should be for the absolute cream, great fighters who did special things and beat other great fighters. Being entertaining or popular is simply not enough.

Despite not being the most talented I think he managed to carve himself a memorable legacy as a must see fighter and achieved much more than he should have. Was never in a dull fight and kept many people interested in boxing. Perhaps the HOF should be completely elitist but it hasnt been up to now and based on some in there already Arturo would get my vote.

What do you think? Is providing great entertainment and being involved in great fights enough or does Gatti miss out on the Hall?

Would recommend watching the documentary on him in the boxing documentary thread for those who havent.

Cheers.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:It's not because literally two posts ago I said TYson deserves a place..

Merely suggesting it can't be hard for Rowley to decide with the guys who are already in..

Dumbass.

I'm not the dumbass because you don't understand my point.

Why should it worry him who else is in? He can't vote them out, but look at whether he thinks Tyson deserves it.

I think he should be anyway.

I can see the reservations with Tyson, but put simply: Ask a man on the street to name two boxers, and Tyson will be one of them. The HOF hasn't taken a moral stance (Monzon is there for e.g.) so Tyson should be in. It's not based purely on resumé, nor should it be.

I just think Tyson is someone that has to be there regardless of whether his career stacks up (and it's by no means bad: youngest WC, 2x WC, 9 straight defenses, mainly against former or future WCs). Heavyweights are always more likely to get in, especially one with the impact of Tyson.

Well Jeff leaving Tyson out is an easy one for me. His record is as good as any heavyweight champ. He unified the division at a young age and remember he was facing guys bigger then him, much bigger and therefore had to adjust to a fighting style that was most effective. He was the shortest heavy ever that merits inclusion.

If it was a good HOF you'd be right Scotty....The fact that Zaragoza is already in there to me suggests Tyson is a shoe in...

I don't believe Mancini should be there or Gatti..which is why I said two wrongs etc...

You cheapen yourself throwing insults, especially when you complain that I ruin your threads.

ONETWOFOREVER wrote:Well Jeff leaving Tyson out is an easy one for me. His record is as good as any heavyweight champ. He unified the division at a young age and remember he was facing guys bigger then him, much bigger and therefore had to adjust to a fighting style that was most effective. He was the shortest heavy ever that merits inclusion.

Maybe so but suggesting his record is as good as Ali's is a joke right?

Marciano was shorter and his record wasn't as good as some other heavy champs...weight wise they weren't much bigger..

Apart from that you're spot on..

Tyson and Rocky both 5'10 but Tyson faced much taller and bigger opponents.

Truss I was not debating whether the likes of Zaragosa and McGuigan deserve to be in because clearly they don't. However the fact that guff is already in there means Mike deserves to get in is different to saying Mike will get in (or did as is probably more appropriate) Ultimately far worse fighters than Mike have gone in before and I suspect will continue to go in, however my debate on Mike was whether he deserves to go into what my concept of what the Hall of Fame should be in a perfect world and it is that basis that he is borderline, an opinion that has not changed in the 20 minutes since I posted it.

Onetwo to argue Tyson has a record comparable to Ali or Jeffries is beyond ridiculous. Ali has Liston, Patterson, Frazier, Foreman and Norton, Ali has Spinks, Holmes (semi retired) and Berbick, hardly comparable is it.

And Jeffries has Boston Tom McMoustache, Sailor Jim Finnerson, Phil the Plumber and Slashing Stevens.

Scottrf wrote:And Jeffries has Boston Tom McMoustache, Sailor Jim Finnerson, Phil the Plumber and Slashing Stevens.

All of whom were alcoholics who trained by eating trees or some such, Azania told me.