IBHOF - What would you change?

[joseph5620]

You missed my point. I am not comparing anyone to Gatti or Ali.

Okay. My mistake.

[Scott9945]

Chacon?..................he's in! I'm easy, the hall isn't about highly skilled boxers or Willard wouldn't be in there. It's about Fame!!
Whats the big deal anyways, you want a hall that fits 12 guys?
Indian Red Lopez deserves to be in there, Greg Haugen too these guys fought their azzes off and were credits to the game. The fans loved them
for their efforts everytime out.
ray

If you put guys like Ernie Lopez and Greg Haugen in the HOF it becomes an even bigger joke. The WWE HOF would have more credibility. Better to just have a separate HOF for "fan friendly" fighters, if you must.

[Ray Corso]

You miss my point about the title Hall of FAME!
If your Famous your in, have another hall for Greatness, skill levels, ring generalship etc................

It's not a big deal anyways, the people that vote aren't that qualified to begin with. Sports writers are usually the least qualified people to vote about excelling in a sport, they count numbers thats it theres always the intangibles that they know nothing about! Just like fans! HA!!
Ray.

[SaturdaysRadio]

I don't get too worked up about the IBOF doings. I acknowledge that it's a Hall of FAME. I probably get more worked up about the Rock 'n Roll HOF. Both Halls elect the most famous participants; the best-known to the current voters.

Let's say I were given a ballot. My expertise is with the heavyweights. I really don't know that much about the lower divisions pre-1977 or post-2005 (1977-2005 is when I paid most attention to the sport, buying mags, watching anything I could on TV). I could make educated decisions on the heavys, but if I were forced to vote for people in other divisions and didn't have time for research I'd vote for the people I'd heard of. The ethical thing would be not to vote in categories I didn't have a lot of expertise in. But how many people do that? Even in elections I often vote along party lines because I haven't really explored the local & regional candidates. But I feel like I have to vote. I'd imagine the same thing happens to HoF voters. I think human nature dictates that it's a 'hall of people who were famous in boxing'.

Ideally voters could only vote in areas in which they had proven expertise. But that's probably unworkable.

What would I change about the IBHOF? I'd have them put their Ring Magazine archives online for free use, a la Google News.

[joeandthebums]

Ideally voters could only vote in areas in which they had proven expertise.

I think that's a good idea, as you said very few people will know every era of boxing across the weight classes.

A panel for each decade, even by weight class, selecting perhaps the top five and then whittling it down for inductees could be a better system.

What would I change about the IBHOF? I'd have them put their Ring Magazine archives online for free use, a la Google News.

That's why I first took note of them. It would save plenty of time and a small fortune if they did make it available digitally for research.

Though I doubt The Ring Magazine would be happy if that happened.

[SaturdaysRadio]

"Though I doubt The Ring Magazine would be happy if that happened."

I don't know... Does Ring do anything with their archives any more? I haven't read it for years. Perhaps some sort of ad-based revenue, via viewers of Ring archives, could help both the Hall & Ring magazine.

I have no idea when magazines fall into public domain or what constitutes fair use in a situation like this.

[sonnyboyx2]

The Ring Magazine is biased and corrupt

[joeandthebums]

Does Ring do anything with their archives any more?

In the current issues they have a single page or sometimes double page photograph from their archives right at the back of the magazine.

I have no idea when magazines fall into public domain or what constitutes fair use in a situation like this.

I'm no expert but believe 95 years is the maximum copyright period for publications prior to 1976.

Which if correct means the 1920 issues are coming into public domain - but like I said I am no expert and don't put much weight in these comments.

The Ring Magazine is biased and corrupt

Presently, historically - specific time periods?

[Scott9945]

The Ring Magazine is biased and corrupt

Well we found something that we agree on. The supposed sanctity this publication is credited with is a joke. It has been bought and sold several times over the years and has been tarnished by scandals. Currently it is owned by a boxing promoter, which has to be the ultimate conflict of interest.

Ring Magazine once mattered. But it isn't 1960 anymore.

[Humean]

Well we found something that we agree on. The supposed sanctity this publication is credited with is a joke. It has been bought and sold several times over the years and has been tarnished by scandals. Currently it is owned by a boxing promoter, which has to be the ultimate conflict of interest.

Ring Magazine mattered once. But it isn't 1960 anymore.

The magazine did start with the same conflict of interest though didn't it? Tex Rickard helped finance its inception and he apparently decided the rankings in the early years. With the level of corruption during the 30s, 40s and 50s and the way journalists often were then i wouldn't be surprised if the rankings were far from impartial during those years too although I have no concrete evidence to back that up.