Five gripes in the wake of the IBHOF induction announcement

We’ve had a week to process the International Boxing Hall of Fame’s annual induction announcement. And we have another week-and-a-half to get ready for Festivus, which is on the calendar for Monday, December 23.

Well, this year, Festivus comes early at Boxing Scene. I’ve absorbed the results of the IBHOF voting, and I’m ready now for the airing of grievances.

I’ve got a lot of problems with you people! And now you’re gonna hear about it!

In all seriousness, I love the Hall of Fame. I have nothing but admiration for the Brophy family and everyone else involved in running it, Induction Weekend is one of the best times a boxing fan will ever have, and I view earning a plaque on the walls of that building to be the highest career honor there is in our sport.

But after a week of seeing social media backlash to some among the latest batch of inductees, and hearing talk on various podcasts about the honor of induction becoming “watered down,” it’s time for me to pile on too.

I will do so gently — because I love the Hall, and because I really don’t want to rain on anyone’s forthcoming parade down Main St. in Canastota by singling them out. Hey, some (well, at least one) of the new inductees, I voted for. And some (well, at least one), I did not. I’m not going to name any names. The honorees are presumably all gushing with pride right now, and it’s inappropriate for me to plug up that gushing at this time by saying this person or that person was unworthy of induction.

But I will nevertheless air five grievances that perhaps speak to broader problems with the process without targeting any of the individuals being honored.

I’ll go get the aluminum pole. Feats of strength to follow.

1. The voting body tilts too American.

My colleague David Greisman touched on this a few days ago in his more immediate reaction piece. We don’t know the complete makeup of the group of people voting, but we know a good chunk of it overlaps with the Boxing Writers Association of America, and we know most members of that group are American, and the evidence over the years suggests it’s harder for a candidate with a borderline resume to get voted in if they didn’t fight frequently in the U.S., or at least appear frequently on major U.S. boxing networks.

It pains me to say it, but I think a lot of voters don’t take the time to thoroughly research each candidate, and instead look over the names and say, “Oh, that guy, I remember him!”

And that’s really bad news for a fighter like Pongsaklek Wonjongkam, who fought exclusively in Asia as he posted a record of 91-5-2 (47) — with two of those losses in his first 11 fights and two in his last 10 — made 17 successful alphabet title defenses in an uninterrupted 6½-year reign, and later scored an upset win to begin a second reign and made four more defenses. I’m not naming any names, but I dare say there are Hall of Famers elected in recent years who can’t come close to comparing with that resume. Those Hall of Famers did fight regularly, however, on the TV screens of the American voters.

Look, there are far worse biases out there in other systems employed by other halls of fame. For years, the way the Poker Hall of Fame worked was that all the living inductees would vote for the next inductees. So, to an extent, it was the good ol’ boys getting together and agreeing to elect their friends, who would then help perpetuate the skew toward more good ol’ boys. Good luck ever cracking it if you weren’t a good ol’ boy.

This isn’t like that. It isn’t a tiny group of voters electing their friends. It’s just not as balanced as it needs to be for an institution that starts with the word “International.”

2. There still isn’t a single British trainer in the IBHOF.

I didn’t realize this until a colleague pointed it out to me, and I hardly believed it until I re-scoured the list of “non-participants” in the Hall, but indeed, it’s true. So this is partially a continuation of the previous gripe: The electorate veers too far into the American lane.

But it’s also a very specific gripe: How has Brendan Ingle — who is on the ballot, for whom I’ve voted several times — not a Hall of Famer? He taught Hall of Famer “Prince” Naseem Hamed everything he knew and trained him from age 7 to the featherweight championship, plus he was head trainer for Herol Graham, Johnny Nelson, Kell Brook, Junior Witter, and Clinton Woods. His imprint on boxing well exceeds some of those who have plaques in Canastota.

There are British managers, British promoters, and British matchmakers in the Hall. But no British trainers. Ingle isn’t alive anymore to appreciate an induction, but that’s no reason not to correct this oversight.

3. Release the vote totals!

This particularly applies to the “modern” category, but I wouldn’t mind seeing tallies for all ballots. Transparency is almost always for the best. The more that people know about the numbers, the less mystery about the process, the less there is for anyone to be suspicious about, the more we can identify what needs fixing.

And I just find Hall of Fame vote totals fascinating from a stat-nerd perspective. The Baseball Hall of Fame does this part right. The voters may have lost their way in terms of morality plays and falling in love with sabermetrics, but at least we get to see the exact manner in which they’ve lost their way. It’s eye-opening to be able to assess each nominee’s vote percentages and identify whether they’re trending up or down, whether they just missed by a couple of votes, and so forth.

Wouldn’t you like to know if Antonio Tarver got more votes than Santos Laciar? Aren’t you curious to know if Sven Ottke has ever received a vote in his 15 or so years on the ballot? Don’t you want insight into how close Israel Vazquez came on the final vote before his passing, to help us predict his likelihood of being inducted next time around?

And don’t you want to know if Manny Pacquiao was a unanimous selection? (In part so you can commit random acts of violence if he wasn’t?)

I’m not a fan of open scoring for individual fights. But I’m eager to see it implemented for Hall of Fame voting.

4. The “women’s modern” category is, frankly, a mess.

From the moment this category was introduced, in 2019, heading into the 2020 inductions (which didn’t happen until 2022 thanks to COVID), I said two inductees each year was too many. The creation of the category was very much warranted, perhaps even a tad overdue. But there just isn’t a rich enough history of elite women’s boxers to keep inducting two of them every year.

One per year is plenty. One every other year would be fine, in fact. But two per year? Predictably, after the first two or three years, the pickings were slimmer than Gabriella Fundora. We’re now left to debate between female fighters whose career accomplishments are comparable to, say, Regis Prograis — a fine boxer, but a longshot to even make the Hall of Fame ballot by the criteria male fighters face. Slap his record on a female boxer, though, and he skates right in.

And here’s maybe the most frustrating part: The best, most accomplished fighter on that women’s modern ballot, Sumya Anani, keeps getting overlooked. Her record, her achievements, are actually vaguely HOF-worthy. But three ladies are going in next June, and Anani somehow isn’t one of them.

There’s no returning the train to the station when it comes to the women who have already received the honor. But it’s not too late to at least slow down said runaway train by reducing to one inductee per year in this category. Even when the outstanding currently active fighters like Claressa Shields, Amanda Serrano, and Katie Taylor become eligible, electing one of them each year will not cause a bottleneck.

And even if it did, a bottleneck situation is better than a rubberneck situation, which is what this has turned into.

5. I get the sense some voters don’t even know who John Sheppard is.

Yeah, I see you sheepishly raising your hand right now. Sheppard is the founder of BoxRec. He’s the reason we have access to boxing records and data at our fingertips. Other than Boxing Scene (I know where my bread is buttered, dammit), his is the most vital boxing website on the internet.

I’ve been voting for Sheppard in the “observer” category for years. To me, he’s the easiest name to check off on that ballot every October. Nothing against any other candidates in that category who did or didn’t get in this year, but none of them has meant more to the sport than Sheppard.

And I can’t help but wonder how many voters even realize who he is when they glance past his name. “John Sheppard (Record Keeper).” That’s all it says. I bet a lot voters have never heard of him and have no idea where he keeps these records he’s keeping.

Sheppard falls short with the “Fame” thing. He needs to stop falling short with the “Hall” thing.

Eric Raskin is a veteran boxing journalist with more than 25 years of experience covering the sport for such outlets as BoxingScene, ESPN, Grantland, Playboy, Ringside Seat, and The Ring (where he served as managing editor for seven years). He also co-hosted The HBO Boxing Podcast, Showtime Boxing with Raskin & Mulvaney, The Interim Champion Boxing Podcast with Raskin & Mulvaney, and Ring Theory. He has won three first-place writing awards from the BWAA, for his work with The Ring, Grantland, and HBO. Outside boxing, he is the senior editor of CasinoReports and the author of 2014’s The Moneymaker Effect. He can be reached on X or LinkedIn, or via email at [email protected].