This is another topic that has been widly debated. What attributes or historical impact should determine who gets into the Boxing Hall of Fame and Why? If someone could post just as a review how fighters, are selected, as well as non-ring participants, it may help us dive deeper into this question. But regardless, here are some thoughts to consider:
1.) What is more important for Hall of Fame selection? Historical impact to the sport or how excitable a fighter is to the fans?
2.) Has the Hall of Fame served more as a popularity contest to certain fighters as opposed to fistic merits in the ring? For example, I heard that Gatti was admitted or soon will be based on the Mickey Ward fights. The first fight I thought was classic, but the second and third fights I think were over-rated by the media. Specifically, Jim Lampley's voice inflection when either fighter did anything more than clinch. What about Ward? Does he get in off of the Gatti fights as well. This seems to be overkill
3.) Should a dominating fighter, but with a non-brawling and often boring style be considered for HOF material? (i.e Floyd Mayweather.)
4.) What other qualifications should the HOF consider for boxers?
5.) What about non-ring participants such as referees, promoters, and managers? Don King and WBC President Jose Sulaiman were both admitted, yet both have very controversal pasts. Who would you like to see in the HOF that is currently not included?