Comments Thread For: Fighting Words -- Vinny Pazienza and the long-standing issues with hall of fame voting

[STREET CLEANER]

Vinny was a popular fighter, he even got a movie made from is bio. He was a trash talker and more like a celebrity in the Northeast of the US. His mouth and bravado were more braver than his actual skills. He was a true boxing character but far from a great fighter, there were others more deserving. Don't know if they considering that horrible injury that he had during his car accident and actually came back and continue to fight all those years.

[MalevolentBite]

Very great article. I agree.

[juanpablo]

I disagreed when Gatti was inducted but I do agree that he was more deserving than Paz. Just like the article mentions, this is not a knock on Paz this is more a knock on the garbage selection process that makes the IBHOF way less special compared to other sports

[CubanGuyNYC]

This article contains more misconceptions than a speech by Liz Truss. Once you include promoters, referees and even (absurdly) journalists because of their ‘service to boxing’ you can’t exclude boxers who did a huge amount to popularise boxing (and contrary to the silly comment, Vinny certainly did) because they aren’t exceptional. The perfect example is Rocky Graziano. Was he an ATG? No, I could name at least 30 MWs better than Rocky. does he belong in the HoF? Of course he does because after World War 2 he & Zale did more than anyone to popularise boxing. I know Vinny was not in a fight of the year and, TBH, he is borderline but saying, e.g, that Gatti should not be in the HoF is ludicrous.

Canastota is not Cooperstown. Clearly the boxing HOF’s criteria is simply name recognition. The fans need to understand this, because there will be many more “questionable” selections as time goes on. I made a post a few days ago about this. It would be great if this sport’s shrine were much more selective, but they obviously don’t intend to be. It is what it is.

[joseph5620]

This article contains more misconceptions than a speech by Liz Truss. Once you include promoters, referees and even (absurdly) journalists because of their ‘service to boxing’ you can’t exclude boxers who did a huge amount to popularise boxing (and contrary to the silly comment, Vinny certainly did) because they aren’t exceptional. The perfect example is Rocky Graziano. Was he an ATG? No, I could name at least 30 MWs better than Rocky. does he belong in the HoF? Of course he does because after World War 2 he & Zale did more than anyone to popularise boxing. I know Vinny was not in a fight of the year and, TBH, he is borderline but saying, e.g, that Gatti should not be in the HoF is ludicrous.

Claiming that either belongs in the HOF is much more ludicrous when this is the criteria for selecrion.


the criteria for the IBHOF’s modern category says “Voting shall be based upon a boxer’s achievements in the ring as a professional boxer”.


There were no "misconceptions" in the article unless you look at facts as misconceptions.

[joseph5620]

Canastota is not Cooperstown. Clearly the boxing HOF’s criteria is simply name recognition. The fans need to understand this, because there will be many more “questionable” selections as time goes on. I made a post a few days ago about this. It would be great if this sport’s shrine were much more selective, but they obviously don’t intend to be. It is what it is.

It shouldn't be. That's the whole point. Especially when this is the official criteria.

the criteria for the IBHOF’s modern category says “Voting shall be based upon a boxer’s achievements in the ring as a professional boxer”.

Fans are justified to complain whether it's Coopertown or not. It's also not the most popular fighter hall of fame. Clearly achievments in boxing are the criteria when you have many in the HOF that are not the "names" that a fighter like Gotti was.

[CubanGuyNYC]

It shouldn't be. That's the whole point. Especially when this is the official criteria.

the criteria for the IBHOF’s modern category says “Voting shall be based upon a boxer’s achievements in the ring as a professional boxer”.

Fans are justified to complain whether it's Coopertown or not. It's also not the most popular fighter hall of fame. Clearly achievments in boxing are the criteria when you have many in the HOF that are not the "names" that a fighter like Gotti was.

You do realize that “a boxer’s achievements in the ring” can be interpreted very broadly, don’t you? Along with boxing, I’ve been a baseball fan all my life; I’m accustomed to a very stringent HOF criteria, so Canastota’s inductions rubbed me the wrong way from the start. But their leanings are evident at this point. It’s too late to go back now.

[Baba K]

This article is on point. Pazienza doesn't deserve to be mentioned with the great ones like Joe Gans, Arguello, Pryor, Duran, Whitaker & Chavez, man...exciting fighter and courageous man, but he's just many levels below the true legends. HoF is for the elites, or should be...putting him there says his statue should be next to theirs and it shouldn't even be in the same building. We are living in the Age of Mediocrity and the Boxing Hall of "Fame" is playing itself by taking away its own shine.

And though he has a better case than Pazienza, Michael Nunn doesn't deserve HoF induction either. Good fighter but not legendary. This year should have been ONE inductee - Pacquiao.

And some years...none.

[macmike100]

Vinny Pazienza and Greg Haugen were the king of trash talkers. If there were ever an award for that, they'd get it. I know how old this makes me. But I have fond memories of these two in and out of the ring.

[BritJimbo]

Room for Vinny, but not for Nigel Benn, Chris Eubank, Wilfredo Vasquez(!), Marlon Starling. Also, who are the women?