# Evan Tanner: Hall OF Fame



## NikosCC (May 16, 2007)

Should he be inducted into the UFC Hall of Fame? i thought this was a good idea to be asking whats your opinions?


I believe he should be He was Middle weight champion he always came into fight and left bleeding from his face he had a record of 12-5 in UFC him vs Franklin for the Title was a great fight. I think he should be inducted


----------



## dontazo (Feb 29, 2008)

i think YEs , if they put marc colman in HOF than why not even?


----------



## Steph05050 (Jun 4, 2008)

dead or alive he deserves it...was a great fighter in and out of the ring....big heart....he def should be in there


----------



## -GSP- (Dec 31, 2006)

No way. Simply put, for a fighter out of his era, he was a great fighter but never truly dominate. He compiled something like 8 wins but never was able to defeat the elites like Tito Ortiz at that time. I don't think it's even close, but that's just my personal opinion.


----------



## Shamrock-Ortiz (Sep 22, 2006)

Well the guys in it at the moment are pioneers of the sport pretty much.

I don't know if Evan should be in there, the guy was a champion, and always came to fight. I don't think he has the same legendary status of any of the guys in it at the moment.

It really depends on the extent they want to induct guys into the UFC Hall Of Fame, what qualifies them? We don't really know yet. Based on the guys that are in there at the moment, I'd say no.

Much love to Evan though.


----------



## Steph05050 (Jun 4, 2008)

-GSP- said:


> No way. Simply put, for a fighter out of his era, he was a great fighter but never truly dominate. He compiled something like 8 wins but never was able to defeat the elites like Tito Ortiz at that time. I don't think it's even close, but that's just my personal opinion.


but i dont think that determines if ur hall of fame worthy or not...wins and losses shouldnt matter, dominance shouldnt matter, yes those can play a part...he did earn the championship belt...and his heart, and just warrior spirit is worthy...TO ME and was a good definition of a fighter and that is hall of fame worthy


----------



## -GSP- (Dec 31, 2006)

Steph05050 said:


> but i dont think that determines if ur hall of fame worthy or not...wins and losses shouldnt matter, dominance shouldnt matter, yes those can play a part...he did earn the championship belt...and his heart, and just warrior spirit is worthy...TO ME and was a good definition of a fighter and that is hall of fame worthy


So, you want him to be selected into the HOF primarily because of his heart? Just throw Forrest Griffin in there now then.


----------



## Steph05050 (Jun 4, 2008)

-GSP- said:


> So, you want him to be selected into the HOF primarily because of his heart? Just throw Forrest Griffin in there now then.


no not just for that...he was a fighter too u know his record was what like 32 and 8...he did fight good guys and was a champion...i was just saying he is more than just that and that hall of fame shouldnt be just based on fight records


----------



## Dan0 (Aug 22, 2008)

Hes an icon, therefore worth being a Hall Of Famer.


----------



## ThaFranchise (Dec 24, 2007)

I'll prob get hated on for this, but no way should he be in the hall of fame. He was a decent fighter and he was a champion (very briefly though), but he didnt really progress anything nor could he hang wit the big names (ace or tito). This is jus gonna be a case of a guy dying too young with decent credentials, but is made bigger than he was due to his death (i.e. Tupac). I think its Jimi Hendrix who said "Once your dead, you've got it made."


----------



## -GSP- (Dec 31, 2006)

ThaFranchise said:


> I'll prob get hated on for this, but no way should he be in the hall of fame. He was a decent fighter and he was a champion (very briefly though), but he didnt really progress anything nor could he hang wit the big names (ace or tito). This is jus gonna be a case of a guy dying too young with decent credentials, but is made bigger than he was due to his death (i.e. Tupac). I think its Jimi Hendrix who said "Once your dead, you've got it made."


I agree whole-heartedly. I loved Tanner as a person & as a fighter but I don't feel he's worthy of being in the hall of fame.


----------



## Steph05050 (Jun 4, 2008)

well i guess it honestly depends on how ufc and dana white view it...they are the ones who choose...but anyways i think it would be great if he ever was


----------



## Chrisl972 (Oct 5, 2006)

ThaFranchise said:


> I'll prob get hated on for this, but no way should he be in the hall of fame. He was a decent fighter and he was a champion (very briefly though), but he didnt really progress anything nor could he hang wit the big names (ace or tito). This is jus gonna be a case of a guy dying too young with decent credentials, but is made bigger than he was due to his death (i.e. Tupac). I think its Jimi Hendrix who said "Once your dead, you've got it made."


I think that you're missing what Evan brought to the UFC. It was long before he died that he had fans that cared for him and longed for his return. 

It seems that this is more of a case of people thinking that just because someone died, they did nothing while they lived, and that's pretty sad. 

To say that he couldn't hang with Tito is quite silly. Evan got KOed by a slamming of heads during a slam. Tito won it fair and square, but to say that's reason enough to claim that Evan "couldn't hang" is quite moronic.

If you really look at Evan's life. The ups and downs, the way that he fought in and out of the ring, you would realize that his praise has very little to do with his death. 

Go watch his fights, read up about him, and study the things that he said. THAT'S what we are talking about.


----------



## jdun11 (Apr 23, 2006)

Im sorry to say this but in no way does he deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.


----------



## Steph05050 (Jun 4, 2008)

Chrisl972 said:


> I think that you're missing what Evan brought to the UFC. It was long before he died that he had fans that cared for him and longed for his return.
> 
> It seems that this is more of a case of people thinking that just because someone died, they did nothing while they lived, and that's pretty sad.
> 
> ...


exactly


----------



## Spit206Fire (Jul 17, 2006)

I didn't read all the posts but let me make this statement.

-UFC Middleweight Champion, he didnt win his defence but, a champions a champion.
-17 UFC Fights (think thats 2nd most in the UFC)
-Most heart in a fighter EVER in my book. I dont remember EVER seeing Forrest Griffen look like Evans did after the Louasu(sp?) and Franklin fight. 
-Started in 1997 by beating Buntello and faught in tourniments.

I think the guys a HoF'er for sure dead or alive. I mean, imo, he faught tougher guys then Ken Shamrock, who's a hof, and he CERTANLY faught tougher guys then Coleman did in the UFC>

Anyways, give the guy his due, he's earned it.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

I'm a big Evan Tanner fan. And the fact this happened breaks my heart. However if he goes in the HOF then I think you will have to make the UFC HOF huge.

I mean lets be honest although he deserves to be in Frank Shamrock will never get in.

At some point Tito, Liddell, and Hughes all have to get in. 

However if you put Tanner in then guys like Franklin, BJ, GSP, and Anderson have already done enough to get in. And guys like Sherk, Forrest, etc.... will have a real solid case.

Now If you think the Hall of Fame should have a ton of fighters in it then yea Tanner should be in.

But personally I think only the greatest fighters of all time should be in the HOF kinda like Cooperstown and in that case Tanner really isn't close.


----------



## Scarecrow (Mar 20, 2008)

Spit206Fire said:


> I didn't read all the posts but let me make this statement.
> 
> -UFC Middleweight Champion, he didnt win his defence but, a champions a champion.
> -17 UFC Fights (think thats 2nd most in the UFC)
> ...


17 fights in the UFC is pretty awesome. I think it would be good for the UFC to induct him posthumously. It would be construed differently by everyone, but it would show respect to somebody who gave the UFC and his fans 100% every time he stepped into the octagon.


----------



## Chrisl972 (Oct 5, 2006)

bbjd7 said:


> I'm a big Evan Tanner fan. And the fact this happened breaks my heart. However if he goes in the HOF then I think you will have to make the UFC HOF huge.
> 
> I mean lets be honest although he deserves to be in Frank Shamrock will never get in.
> 
> ...


So, I take it you didn't vote for Coleman to get in...


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

I don't think he should be in the Hall of Fame, however, I do think the UFC should do something special for him.

Not exactly sure what though...


----------



## cplmac (Nov 14, 2007)

I've always been a big fan of Tanner, and his death is absolutely tragic but it does not in any way shape or form somehow qualify him for the UFC HOF. He's been a good fighter for a number of years with a huge heart and fan following, but his accomplishments in the Octagon just don't justify an HOF nod. Again, I really like Tanner and his death just flat out sucks but no on HOF.


----------



## GMW (Nov 15, 2006)

No, he shouldn't be.


----------



## ThaFranchise (Dec 24, 2007)

Chrisl972 said:


> I think that you're missing what Evan brought to the UFC. It was long before he died that he had fans that cared for him and longed for his return.
> 
> It seems that this is more of a case of people thinking that just because someone died, they did nothing while they lived, and that's pretty sad.
> 
> ...


All Im saying is Evan never really beat a premier fighter so I dont think you could ever have him in the HOF.


----------



## xeberus (Apr 23, 2007)

cplmac said:


> I've always been a big fan of Tanner, and his death is absolutely tragic but it does not in any way shape or form somehow qualify him for the UFC HOF. He's been a good fighter for a number of years with a huge heart and fan following, but his accomplishments in the Octagon just don't justify an HOF nod. Again, I really like Tanner and his death just flat out sucks but no on HOF.


I agree. Its a damn shame he died. Much respect to him, he brought it every time he fought.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Chrisl972 said:


> So, I take it you didn't vote for Coleman to get in...


I didn't think he was a great selection at all. Although I would say that Coleman is ahead of Tanner as far as deserving to be in the HOF.

I don't think Severn belongs in the HOF to.


----------



## Toxic (Mar 1, 2007)

It really could go either way but personally because its close I think they should induct him due to the tragic circumstances surrounding his death and the fact he died while under contract to the UFC,


----------



## Chrisl972 (Oct 5, 2006)

bbjd7 said:


> I didn't think he was a great selection at all. Although I would say that Coleman is ahead of Tanner as far as deserving to be in the HOF.
> 
> I don't think Severn belongs in the HOF to.


Coleman had 9 fights in the UFC and won 6 (66.666%). His best wins were Frye, Goodridge and Severn. He fought in the UFC from 1996 - 1999.

Tanner had 17 fights in the UFC and won 11 (65%). His best wins were against Lawler, Baroni (twice) and Terrell. He fought in the UFC from 1999 - 2008.

Both were Champions in their division. 

I think Tanner deserves it more for actual UFC stats.


----------



## vandalian (Oct 14, 2006)

I think Evan Tanner was a great fighter and I'll miss him very much.
But judging by the current standard, he isn't a hall-of-famer.
Right now, there's Ken Shamrock, Royce Gracie, Dan Severn, Mark Coleman and Randy Couture. It's a very short list of guys who were instrumental in making UFC what it is today.
Tanner's own accomplishments, while impressive, don't quite put him him in that league. 
Maybe down the line, as the criteria widen and more deserving fighters have been inducted, adding Tanner will be more appropriate. But not yet.
I do, however, think UFC should pay tribute to him. He and his family deserve that.


----------



## illmatic (Sep 23, 2007)

While its sad we lost him I don't think someone who did something silly to get himself killed deserves a special place when he wouldn't have been considered for it if he were alive today. Don't say this is regardless of his life or death, because all the huge Tanner fans that magically appeared in the past two days sure weren't around singing his hall-of-famer praise before this happenned. You're reacting emotionally.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

I liked Tanner and voted just came up short but think about how many votes this guy would have had if this poll had been posted a few days ago and I think you have your answer. No way at all tbh.


----------



## rdrush (Mar 5, 2007)

I think a fighter has to be inducted based on credentials. Tanner was a great fighter to watch and I was really pulling for him in his last two fights against Okami and Grove. There isn't really a basis right now which makes a HOF fighter other then they made the sport into what it is today (UFC wise). And even though Evan didn't help develop the sport that much, his credentials aren't good enough imo either. The prime of his career came when the UFC was at its weakest, and he still didn't have the career that Tito or Hughes did. Great fighter and he will be missed, but not worthy of HOF as of right now.


----------



## UFC TAPOUT (Sep 7, 2008)

*Tanner HOF*

First, what are the UFC's requirements for entry into the HOF? I don't know what they are. But, *if* Tanner meets them, then yes.

Tanner was one of the first guys I watched fight in the UFC who impressed me with his heart. I had seen some of the earlier shows with Gracie, Shamrock etc.. but, watching fights like Tanner's made me a UFC fan. I watched UFC 51 at home and decided to attend UFC 54. I've been hooked ever since.

I am sure the UFC will do a tribute to Tanner. He did give them some exciting fights to watch.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Chrisl972 said:


> Coleman had 9 fights in the UFC and won 6 (66.666%). His best wins were Frye, Goodridge and Severn. He fought in the UFC from 1996 - 1999.
> 
> Tanner had 17 fights in the UFC and won 11 (65%). His best wins were against Lawler, Baroni (twice) and Terrell. He fought in the UFC from 1999 - 2008.
> 
> ...


But it's a completly differnt situation.

Coleman invented GnP and was the first HW champion.

Tanner was a great fighter but never really one of the best in the world or the UFC.

He won the title and that's great but he won it in a divison that lacked fighters.

If you look at Coleman's impact on fighting and Tanner's it's not even close.

I don't even like Coleman and I like Tanner a lot but Coleman is more deserving then Tanner.


----------



## valrond (Nov 26, 2007)

I'm with Chrisl972.

Those are the facts, if coleman with half the fights and the same titles than Tanner is a HOF, so is Tanner. So Coleman was the first HW champion, is the first time more important than the second, third or any other time you are champion? It's the same, and Tanner is one of the only five middlewight champions in UFC history. Tanner has fought a lot more fights and for a much longer time than Coleman, he may not have "invented" Ground and Pound, but he was an excellent and corageous fighter, all heart, ala Rocky.

Oh, and, of course I think that GSP, Anderson Silva, Matt Hughes, Tito Ortiz, Sean Sherk, BJ Penn, Chuck Lidell, and Forrest Griffin will be Hall of Famers.

Oh, and talking about other HOF, the Naismith Memorial Basketball HOF (sometimes badly referred as the NBA HOF) just inducted Adrian Dantley. If Dantley, an excellent scorer but not even a 1st NBA team player, gets to the HOF, why not Tanner?.


----------



## mrmyz (Nov 23, 2006)

yeah why the hell not


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Being the first champion does mean more then being the 2nd. It's like Royce winning UFC 1 means more then if he had just won UFC 2. Coleman was considered the one of the top 3 if not the best HW in his divison during his career in the UFC. Can you say the same about Evan?

Having Heart is great but inventing something that redefined MMA is very important.

So basically you want the UFC HOF to be like the basketball HOF and mean almost nothing.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

It's not the same at all, Coleman was there from the beginning and helped form this sport, make it what it is today. If we put Tanner in there we might as well out in anyone who has ever held a championship belt at any weightclass tbh.

This is frankly ridiculous and there would maybe be two or three yes votes on that poll if Tanner hadn't kicked the bucket.


----------



## Lotus (Jul 4, 2007)

I think he should absolutely be inducted. For starters he still has an impressive record in the ufc, but more-so than that he epitomizes what a true fighter/champion should be, he was highly respectful and respected, he always trained diligently and he never backed down from a fight he was a true fighter one with fighting ability and a damn huge heart to go with it. 

When I say heart to i don't mean how we use heart during a fight like "this kid ha s a ton of heart to keep it together in the cage" i mean this guy had a ******* huge heart and I hope a lot of the yes votes are not because he just died, but i hope his passing has let many see his true qualities. He is someone I look up to and have looked up to for a long time.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Tanner always trained diligently? Wtf?

Seriously, how many times do any fighters "back down form fights":confused02:

This *is* ridiculous and I hope the people who voted yes in that poll can honestly say to themselves that they would have done the same thing two days ago, but I doubt it.


----------



## Diokhan (Jul 8, 2008)

I have to go with no too. Nothing but <3 for him and I loved his fights, but there are so many guys who deserve it more but aren't added there either. 
Hughes will be added eventually, same with Chuck and possibly even Tito. All 3 were dominant champs on their prime time who did (and keep doing) alot for both the sport and ufc. 
I also see Griffin being added there eventually (say in 10 years or so) if he sticks around for a while. Like it or not TUF had huge impact on MMA and ufc. Forrest is the winner of season 1 with most success in ufc amongt all tuf members of any season (well lets exclude Serra for argument's sake).

Basically I think HoF members are supposed to be people that have had huge impact on the sport and ufc, or long dominant careers. Sadly this is something Tanner doesn't have. If we add every ex or current champ in HoF its just a big list of names with less importance.

I do agree though that some sort of tribute is expected, but I think Hall of fame "just" because of his sudden death is bit too much.


----------



## Lotus (Jul 4, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Tanner always trained diligently? Wtf?
> 
> Seriously, how many times do any fighters "back down form fights":confused02:
> 
> This *is* ridiculous and I hope the people who voted yes in that poll can honestly say to themselves that they would have done the same thing two days ago, but I doubt it.



Actually in smaller shows up here it happens quite often when it's a bit of a one sided fight and if it happens where i live which is a decent sized city it happens everywhere at some point in time.

It's only ridiculous in your own opinion, In my opinion and if you had asked me 2 days ago, two weeks ago, or even 2 months ago i would of said the exact same thing as I did 45 minutes ago. What I said about tanner is what I think of him unfortunatly this had to be the time to talk about him in such a way. I would have prefered different circumstance I'm sure we all do.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

I am not singling you out, but can you honeslty say that you think the results of this poll would look anything, anything like they do now if this had been made the day after Okami KTFO his ass or Grove beat him?

It wouldn't, and the votes or him being placed in the HOF wouldn't have reached double figures in all probability.

He simply has not had a HOF worthy career. Like....at all, no matter how much you liked him.


----------



## Lotus (Jul 4, 2007)

In all honesty i could care less about your views because they are pretty much meaningless to me, as I'm sure everyone else's views are to you. However I do agree with you I don't think the yes votes would be as high which is a shame but regardless I would still be here supporting it with others or not.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Your view isn't meaningless to me, I just don't think it makes any sense.

You believe we should include every fighter who has a lot of heart in HOFs? Anyone who wins a title has heart.

Why don't we induct Matt Serra? I mean, the guy won a title and has heart:confused02: Rampage? Frank Mir? Vitor Belfort? Jens Pulver?

I have zero understanding of how Evan Tanner qualifies having won a championship in a weak divisiona and then immediately losing it and by being respectful and having heart, and if you could explain that to me I'd be much obliged.


----------



## Couddell (Jun 24, 2007)

Its a terrible thing that happend.. Although at the end of the day did Tanner really compair too guys such as Randy Couture? 

No.. So sure its a terrible thing but nah


----------



## G-S-P (Sep 1, 2007)

I don't see why a loss to Tito, wars with Franklin, and a recent slide in the latter end of his career should prohibit him from entering the HOF. Sure he wasn't the greatest fighter of all time, but he has a formidable resume in the UFC along with attaining ultimate triumph after defeated David Terrell, who had been highly touted at the time coming off a tremendous win over Lindland. He, by all means, deserves the benefit of the doubt.


----------



## Lotus (Jul 4, 2007)

I would actually like to apologize I came off a little to harsh on my previous post. Got a little worked up over nothing. 

I think he deserves it because he has a strong record in the ufc and outside as well, 13 wins in a row is hard for anybody to accomplish. 

If the HOF is just about the guys who started the ufc fine then don't induct because he doesn't belong there. 

Looking at the list of the inductees though shows me a few fighters who were good and a few that were great but never reached the pinnacle we see people like fedor, or anderson silva. I mean heres one for example ken shamrock a very overrated fighter IMO good? yes great? no, he has fought weak competition in his career quite a bit, I mean otsuka really?! How about dan severn a man who has padded his record with so many one sided fights and weak competition it is saddening. A lot of the inductees faced less stellar opposition than the guys that fight nowadays. 

I think that if they were inducted for doing what they did in their time in the ufc, tanner should be inducted for what he did in his time in the ufc. That's just me though


----------



## mtxsub7 (Jun 2, 2008)

No Doubt. He was very active on the UFC site, awesome wins, was the title holder. Was a warrior and one of the most interesting characters I've seen. I hate seeing him go out, but it was something he loved so that helps. He should be inducted in my opinion.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

dontazo said:


> i think YEs , if they put marc colman in HOF than why not even?


I voted just short, but your right. If Coleman deserves it, Tanner definetly does.


----------



## Zender (Dec 15, 2006)

I'd say yes. I totally agree the pole wouldn't have looked the same a few days ago but I do think it's also relevant to his induction. It's arguable his credentials merit him to be in there & most probably guys like A. Silva, GSP, BJ etc. will be inducted in due course (unless they fall out with Dana). But his tragic death while under contract should justify a place in the HOF if only for remembrance of a guy that was held in high esteem by most (if not all) & was the epitome of fighting spirit. I think it would be fitting for the UFC to honour his life in that manner.


----------



## G-S-P (Sep 1, 2007)

His conjuring, free spirited personality and death alone would possibly regard him in the HOF, although his resume and triumph in the organization should substantiate his spot. He's among a slim few that have compiled a formidable resume with the UFC, which includes significant wins over the highly-regarded David Terrell, Baroni 2x, Lawler and Levens (prior to drifting towards mediocrity), in addition to having wars with Franklin.

He more than deserves his due.


----------



## Lotus (Jul 4, 2007)

This man also fought at heavyweight beating paul buentello and heath herring. Just a lil sumthin' sumthin' lol


----------



## GMW (Nov 15, 2006)

IF mark coleman deserves it tanner does? Are you guys implying Coleman may not have deserved it? Coleman is so far above Tanner it's not even comparable (easily).


----------



## Lotus (Jul 4, 2007)

I only said dan severn and ken shamrock. Coleman is the shit. That's all I got to say.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Yay lets make the HOF worhtless and meaningless. I mean, two of you said it right there, that basically his death is reason enough to put him in, which is quite frankly both very stupid and the reason he has so many votes in this poll.

The guys who are in their are different, they were the greats of their time, legends of the sport. The were there at the beggining and made this sport what it is today, that's why they are there. Not because Dan Severn is to this day beating up cans or because Ken Shamrock keeps getting beaten up.

I hope in ten years Anderson Silva, GSP, BJ guys like that will have made it in there, buut not Tanner. He isn't deserving.

People whop get into HOFs should be people who have made an impact on the sport, a big damn impact, not guys like Tanner.

If we put Tanner in, then why don't we put all the people I just mentioned in, never mind all the really great champions? Answer that.


----------



## Darkgecko (Apr 21, 2008)

I really liked Tanner, but I don't think he belongs in the Hall of Fame. If he was still alive I don't think anyone would be implying he should be. The vote is about 50/50 for yes and no, but the legitimacy of a Hall of Fame is reduced if you adjust the standards for special cases.


----------



## R.v.B (Aug 16, 2008)

I voted Yes, but I'm not really sure if he did enough to earn it...by all accounts was a great guy though

I'll be pissed off big time if the UFC don't do a tribute to him in some way at the next PPV or UFN 

R.I.P Evan Tanner

WAR TANNER!!!raise01:


----------



## Godzuki (Feb 26, 2007)

Shit, I've only just found out he died (through this thread!). This is a big shock, he's always been one of my favorite fighters. I've always loved fighters that can take a beating or "Take a lickin' and keep on tickin'" as Rampage says. That was Evan Tanner all over. He makes THOF all day, as far as I'm concerned. RIP Evan.


----------



## Biowza (May 22, 2007)

Don't think he made it into the Hall of Fame. Just came up short.


----------



## Chrisl972 (Oct 5, 2006)

TheNegation said:


> Yay lets make the HOF worhtless and meaningless. I mean, two of you said it right there, that basically his death is reason enough to put him in, which is quite frankly both very stupid and the reason he has so many votes in this poll.
> 
> The guys who are in their are different, they were the greats of their time, legends of the sport. The were there at the beggining and made this sport what it is today, that's why they are there. Not because Dan Severn is to this day beating up cans or because Ken Shamrock keeps getting beaten up.
> 
> ...



Not everything has to be such a blanket statement. Evan Tanner getting into the HoF doesn't equal everyone getting in. 

Once again, you guys are acting like he was just some fighter in the UFC. That's just not the case. 

He fought in the UFC for 9 years. He fought 17 times. He walked away and decided to come back to the sport that he loved so much, and they loved him enough to have him back. 

Would the vote have been the same three days ago? Probably not. But that doesn't mean that certain events can't change the way things play out. 

He died, he was a long time UFC fighter. Proven and loved by his fans. There's no shame in putting him in the HoF.

If other fighters want to get killed in the desert after fighting for the UFC for 9 years and 17 fights to make sure that they get a HoF bid, let them.


----------



## Davisty69 (May 24, 2007)

Had he not died, I would say no. However, his death puts him in a place where he can't improve his record and standing to solidify his way into the HOF.

That being said, he was a former UFC champion and deserves all the respect that the UFC can give him.


----------



## wukkadb (Jan 1, 2007)

He definitely should be in the HOF


----------



## IronMan (May 15, 2006)

Evan Tanner is a legend in this sport, but there are a half-dozen fighters that I can think of who deserve to be in the Hall-of-Fame ahead of Evan Tanner.

I have alot of respect for his game, and he was a great guy with an interesting story, but to suggest that a one time middleweight champion with a 9-6 UFC record deserves a Hall-of-Fame spot seems a little ridiculous.

I said the same thing when everybody was talking about how Heath Ledger deserved an Oscar. If you're going to give someone a posthumous award, it should be because they deserve it, not because they're dead.

Evan's death is a tragedy, as he was still active and a great fighter, but to suggest that his career, as fought, deserves to be recognized in the Hall-of-Fame ahead of Tito Ortiz, Pat Miletich, Randy Couture, Matt Hughes and so on down the list of many time champions, is absurd.

Sorry guys. We all think highly of Evan and want him to rest in peace, but this is not realistic.


----------



## mattandbenny (Aug 2, 2007)

Not for me. although he was a top ifghter back in the day and a former champion, he's not hall of fame worthy. If he didn't die then he wouldnt have even been considered, so just because he died shouldnt mean he gets a free pass into the hall of fame.


----------



## AmRiT (Apr 23, 2007)

IronMan said:


> Evan Tanner is a legend in this sport, but there are a half-dozen fighters that I can think of who deserve to be in the Hall-of-Fame ahead of Evan Tanner.
> 
> I have alot of respect for his game, and he was a great guy with an interesting story, but to suggest that a one time middleweight champion with a 9-6 UFC record deserves a Hall-of-Fame spot seems a little ridiculous.
> 
> ...


Hughes is pretty much guaranteed a spot in the HoF, Couture is already in the HoF


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

IronMan said:


> Evan Tanner is a legend in this sport, but there are a half-dozen fighters that I can think of who deserve to be in the Hall-of-Fame ahead of Evan Tanner.
> 
> I have alot of respect for his game, and he was a great guy with an interesting story, but to suggest that a one time middleweight champion with a 9-6 UFC record deserves a Hall-of-Fame spot seems a little ridiculous.
> 
> ...


Totally off topic, but I went into the Dark Knight thinking "there is no way Ledgar can do a better job than Jack". Boy, did I ever change my mind.

He doesn't deserve an Oscar because hes dead, he deserves it for playing the creepiest character of all time.

Just my two cents.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

I couldn't have given two shits about Ledger when I heard he died and I certainly think his performance was Oscar worthy.

Back on topic I seriously can't believe a majority of people here think he deserves a place in the HOF. This is worse than when Dimebag was the greatest metal guitarist of all time:confused03:


----------



## IronMan (May 15, 2006)

xAmRiT said:


> Hughes is pretty much guaranteed a spot in the HoF, Couture is already in the HoF


And yet, Tito, Chuck and Pat are not going to get a spot with absolute certainty.



Apecity said:


> Totally off topic, but I went into the Dark Knight thinking "there is no way Ledgar can do a better job than Jack". Boy, did I ever change my mind.
> 
> He doesn't deserve an Oscar because hes dead, he deserves it for playing the creepiest character of all time.
> 
> Just my two cents.


That's fine. If his performance merits the award, it should be given (I happen to agree that Heath's performance does merit an Oscar), but his personal status (that he's dead) should have no affect on that.

That was my point.


----------



## AmRiT (Apr 23, 2007)

IronMan said:


> And yet, Tito, Chuck and Pat are not going to get a spot with absolute certainty.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think Tito will get a spot, I think Chuck will, Dana loves him but hates Tito


----------



## IronMan (May 15, 2006)

xAmRiT said:


> I don't think Tito will get a spot, I think Chuck will, Dana loves him but hates Tito


And I think that's bullsh*t, because Tito had one more belt win and Dana built much of the UFC empire on his charisma.

While I do think that Chuck deserves a Hall-of-Fame spot, to ignore Tito's contribution to the UFC is just retarded.


----------



## Ape City (May 27, 2007)

IronMan said:


> That's fine. If his performance merits the award, it should be given (I happen to agree that Heath's performance does merit an Oscar), but his personal status (that he's dead) should have no affect on that.
> 
> That was my point.


Yep, I agree totally. That's what I was trying to articulate.

It actually bothers me that his performance might be tainted by his tragic death, and thus recognized for the wrong reasons.


----------



## IronMan (May 15, 2006)

Apecity said:


> Yep, I agree totally. That's what I was trying to articulate.
> 
> It actually bothers me that his performance might be tainted by his tragic death, and thus recognized for the wrong reasons.


Yup. I complete agree.


----------



## GKY (Jun 3, 2007)

Chrisl972 said:


> So, I take it you didn't vote for Coleman to get in...


OK I just read up until hear. First of all I would like to say I have a lot of respect for Tanner, but no way in hell does he deserve this. The hall of fame should be left for the elite and memorable (yes Tank is a HOFer because he brought entertainment and carried the UFC for a while). If Tanner gets in, were looking at about 100 people in the HOF in the next 10 years, it's just too much. 

I honestly think only half those votes that say yes would say yes if he was still alive(RIP). 

A case could be made for Coleman because he is the originator of ground and pound, so he's tolerable but not exactly necessary. (either way he is ahead of Tanner)

The UFC HOF ATM is only really missing
-Frank Shamrock
-Tito Ortiz
-Chuck Liddell 
-Tank Abbot
-Matt Hughes
-Maybe Vitor just because he's the first true MMA fighter but everyone forgets about him

Some others have cases but for now those are the definites


----------



## CopperShark (May 13, 2006)

I think his induction should be considered. Though, it might not happen. Him being under contract with the UFC at the time of his death, and having been as classy as he was, may be enough of a reason. But, who am I to say.


----------



## Emericanaddict (Dec 31, 2006)

Holyshit man ive been in the hospital with my Fiancee who has been ill and jsut found out Evan passed on. God this sucks man but yeah i definitly think he belongs in the HOF the dude earned it and was a great and respectable champion you know.

Anyways RIP Evan you wont be forgotten and you legacy will live on because as Harold Hunter used to say. "Legends Never Die".


----------



## MJB23 (Jan 26, 2007)

He definetly deserves to be in the HOF. If the UFC doesn't put him in it's a real shame and something should be done.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Let's really think about this, how many times has Evan Tanner and being in the HOF ever been mentioned before this? Matt Hughes, Chuck Liddell, Randy Couture (before he was put in) always had it mentioned whenever they fought/fight that they were future HOF'ers but no one ever mentioned Tanner. You can chalk that up to those guys being poster boys for the UFC but it is relevant in this case and I highly doubt if this poll was put up a week ago that it wouldn't look anything like it does now. This just seems like a case of being caught up in the moment, I mean 6 of the guy's 8 losses were in the UFC.

Edit: Alright someone is gonna say something about Randy having 5 of his 8 losses in the UFC although one was the cut against Vitor but he also won the belt in two weight classes and actually defended his title something Evan did neither.

Mark Coleman may be a suspect HOF'er but he did revolutionize a part of MMA which again is something Evan didn't. He was also the first UFC HW champion which when you are the first to do something that holds serious weight and he also won 2 UFC tournaments. Not trying to downplay Evan's accomplishments but trying to look at this realistically.


----------



## G-S-P (Sep 1, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Yay lets make the HOF worhtless and meaningless. I mean, two of you said it right there, that basically his death is reason enough to put him in, which is quite frankly both very stupid and the reason he has so many votes in this poll.
> 
> The guys who are in their are different, they were the greats of their time, legends of the sport. The were there at the beggining and made this sport what it is today, that's why they are there. Not because Dan Severn is to this day beating up cans or because Ken Shamrock keeps getting beaten up.
> 
> ...



Goddamn get off your high horse you condescending prick. Just because he isn't a 'legend' in your terms doesn't mean he doesn't qualify to be HOF worthy. As previously mentioned, he has a formidable resume with the organization and barring the latter end of his career, accomplished feats many simply couldn't.

Wins over Terrell, Lawler, Baroni 2x and Levens, in addition to wars with Franklin, all came of substance at that time and you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who would disagree if they followed the sport intimately then.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

G-S-P said:


> Goddamn get off your high horse you condescending prick. Just because he isn't a 'legend' in your terms doesn't mean he doesn't qualify to be HOF worthy. As previously mentioned, he has a formidable resume with the organization and barring the latter end of his career, accomplished feats many simply couldn't.
> 
> Wins over Terrell, Lawler, Baroni 2x and Levens, in addition to wars with Franklin, all came of substance at that time and you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who would disagree if they followed the sport intimately then.


He isn't a "legend", and he wasn't before this happened. Seriously, MLS brings up a very good point. Has Tanner, ever, ever been considered, by anyone, anyone at all to be a HOF canditate? I don't think so, I sure as **** can't recall it.

To be blunt, he got himself killed in pretty stupid fashion and now all of a sudden there are legions of Evan Tanner supporters all over the place and I find it kind of sickening. Lets remember him for what he was, not for what some of you seem to want to remember him as after this weeks tragic events.

Lets not cheapen the HOF by including a good fighter who didn't have any real impact on the sport simply because he got himself killed while under contract.

This thread:thumbsdown:


----------



## Chrisl972 (Oct 5, 2006)

TheNegation said:


> He isn't a "legend", and he wasn't before this happened. Seriously, MLS brings up a very good point. Has Tanner, ever, ever been considered, by anyone, anyone at all to be a HOF canditate? I don't think so, I sure as **** can't recall it.
> 
> To be blunt, he got himself killed in pretty stupid fashion and now all of a sudden there are legions of Evan Tanner supporters all over the place and I find it kind of sickening. Lets remember him for what he was, not for what some of you seem to want to remember him as after this weeks tragic events.
> 
> ...


OK, now you are just spewing venom. 

There are MANY people that have been really big fans of his long before he died. Me for one. 

If you look back, there were many people that talked and talked about him coming back and hoping that he'd straighten his life out so they could see him fight again. 

This was just a catalyst for the conversation. I'm willing to bet that if he finished off his last two fights and decided to retire, there would be a Should Tanner Be In The HoF thread going right now. 

Just because your vote is no, doesn't mean that we are cheapening anything. Not the Hall Of Fame, not the way he's remembered, nothing. 

If you're vote is no, then please tell us over and over why you think that's the case, but do it without acting like we are all thoughtless sheep that follow the obituaries to see who to worship next. 

Tell me two other fighters that have had 17 fights in the UFC, been a Champion there, fought in two different weight classes in the UFC and had the kind of following outside of the cage that he did. 

Just because he died, doesn't mean that he wasn't a true warrior and it sure doesn't mean that we are stupid for thinking of as someone who should be honored with the Hall Of Fame.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Chrisl972 said:


> Tell me two other fighters that have had 17 fights in the UFC, been a Champion there, fought in two different weight classes in the UFC and had the kind of following outside of the cage that he did.


Just gonna address this since all the other stuff is for someone else.

The two weight classes is impressive but has been done before and will be done after. He was a champion but he never defended his belt because he lost his first title defense and never regained it. The 17 fights is impressive but is that really HOF worthy? If you want to say it's accumalative ok, but again 6 of his 8 losses were in the UFC and his record isn't that impressive in the UFC. Oh yeah, I have never seen anyone mention him as a HOF'er until this I maybe wrong but this is just something I haven't heard or seen by anyone including the UFC.


----------



## G-S-P (Sep 1, 2007)

> He isn't a "legend", and he wasn't before this happened. Seriously, MLS brings up a very good point. Has Tanner, ever, ever been considered, by anyone, anyone at all to be a HOF canditate? I don't think so, I sure as **** can't recall it.



That's irrelevant. Just because names like Hughes, Liddell and Couture have been brought up for HOF purposes, shouldn't transgress Tanner from entering the same class. Now don't get me wrong here, I'm not comparing him to any of them by any means, however certain precedents need to be established before conspicuously throwing out the 'never' card.





> To be blunt, he got himself killed in pretty stupid fashion and now all of a sudden there are legions of Evan Tanner supporters all over the place and I find it kind of sickening. Lets remember him for what he was, not for what some of you seem to want to remember him as after this weeks tragic events.



I won't argue the stupidity of his death, but given Tanner's personality it was something of the norm to him and at the very least he went out challenging himself, for what it's worth.





> Lets not cheapen the HOF by including a good fighter who didn't have any real impact on the sport simply because he got himself killed while under contract.
> 
> This thread:thumbsdown:



I would whole-heartily agree if Tanner died and left the sport in somewhat of a mere view from a fighting standpoint, although he has an imposing resume to boot, compelling wins and exciting wars that would impel even the most marginal fan, enough to validate him as a definite candidate. While this may not be exactly pertinent, he also has a very inspiring story to compliment his achievements in the sport.


----------



## Chrisl972 (Oct 5, 2006)

MLS said:


> Just gonna address this since all the other stuff is for someone else.
> 
> The two weight classes is impressive but has been done before and will be done after. He was a champion but he never defended his belt because he lost his first title defense and never regained it. The 17 fights is impressive but is that really HOF worthy? If you want to say it's accumalative ok, but again 6 of his 8 losses were in the UFC and his record isn't that impressive in the UFC. Oh yeah, I have never seen anyone mention him as a HOF'er until this I maybe wrong but this is just something I haven't heard or seen by anyone including the UFC.


I don't think you understand what I'm saying. It's not those seperately, it's all those things together. 

You guys can argue all you want, but the man was able to accomplish a group of things that noe one else has, at least no one I can think of. 

How does this list look to you?

*Most wins in the UFC*

No. of wins Fighter 


16 Chuck Liddell 


15 Matt Hughes 


14 Tito Ortiz 


13 Randy Couture 


11 Evan Tanner 


11 Georges St. Pierre 


11 Rich Franklin 


11 Royce Gracie 


10 Andrei Arlovski 


9 BJ Penn 

http://www.sportsline.com/mmaboxing/history/mma/ufc_wins

There are guys that are still climing, but he has had a great career.


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

think the dude was awesone but he's not a hall of famer...he won a belt once and didnt hold it long so NO.....I AM not bein a dick i loved the guy as a fighter his heart and what he stood for but in 5 yrs alot of the people that are advocating for him to be in the hall of fame might look back and realize emotion is playing into people voting yes right now.....But I diod the love the dude's heart and he will be sadly missed.......:thumb02:


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Chrisl972 said:


> OK, now you are just spewing venom.
> 
> There are MANY people that have been really big fans of his long before he died. Me for one.
> 
> If you look back, there were many people that talked and talked about him coming back and hoping that he'd straighten his life out so they could see him fight again.


Yeah, and I was one of those people. He was a good, possibly even great fighter, and for the most part a pretty cool guy with some nice philosophy. Thats it.




Chrisl972 said:


> This was just a catalyst for the conversation. I'm willing to bet that if he finished off his last two fights and decided to retire, there would be a Should Tanner Be In The HoF thread going right now.


There wouldn't have been, and I don't see why anyone thinks there would have been. It's not like he was even considered to be a future HOF'er by anyone. I never remember it being said/posted etc. by anyone at any point. I would bet however, that had Frank Mir, Vitor Belfort, Rampage or even Serra for all taht people hated him, gotten killed i the last few daysthis thread would almost definitely exist with their names on it and a similar amount of votes in favour.




Chrisl972 said:


> Just because your vote is no, doesn't mean that we are cheapening anything. Not the Hall Of Fame, not the way he's remembered, nothing.


My vote has nothing to do with it. Nominating/inducting a fighter based mostly(yes, as a few people in this thread have even shown themselves) because he died tragically does cheapen the entire concept of a HOF, as would say an actor getting an Oscar based on the same as opposed to their performance.



Chrisl972 said:


> If you're vote is no, then please tell us over and over why you think that's the case, but do it without acting like we are all thoughtless sheep that follow the obituaries to see who to worship next.


You and lotus might not be, I don't know, maybe if there had been even a single mention of Tanners eligibility for the HOF before this I would be more inclined to believe you weren't all a bunch of mindless sheep caught up in the moment.




Chrisl972 said:


> Tell me two other fighters that have had 17 fights in the UFC, been a Champion there, fought in two different weight classes in the UFC and had the kind of following outside of the cage that he did.


I'm not proposing we induct two different people instead of Tanner:confused02:




Chrisl972 said:


> Just because he died, doesn't mean that he wasn't a true warrior and it sure doesn't mean that we are stupid for thinking of as someone who should be honored with the Hall Of Fame.



Well who the hell thought he belonged in there before he died then?


People belong in HOFs for having true and important impacts on the sport or for being members of a sports few, select elite. Neither of these things are true for Tanner.


----------



## G-S-P (Sep 1, 2007)

coldcall420 said:


> think the dude was awesone but he's not a hall of famer...he won a belt once and didnt hold it long so NO.....I AM not bein a dick i loved the guy as a fighter his heart and what he stood for but in 5 yrs alot of the people that are advocating for him to be in the hall of fame might look back and realize emotion is playing into people voting yes right now.....But I diod the love the dude's heart and he will be sadly missed.......:thumb02:



Winning a title aside (I'd say defeating Terrell has much more weight considering he came off of a win over the perennially ranked Lindland), his life-story in having gotten into MMA to begin with is truly inspiring, let alone what he did in his career. I'm not saying that he's a shoe-in for HOF aspirations, but it's beyond ignorant to simply cast the 'he's not deserving' card, especially when his resume shows otherwise.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Chris I got what you were saying that's why I said if you want to look at it as accumulatively that's fine but he still isn't that impressive. His best wins in the UFC were against Lawler (who was still very one dimensionial) and Baroni (guy is pretty much a career .500 fighter). I mean really wins over, Darrel Gholar, Valeri Ignatov, Lance Gibson, Homer Moore, Elvis Sinosic, Chris Haseman, Justin Levens are impressive? That's 7/11 of his wins against some sub par fighters. You can give him credit for Lawler, Baroni, Terrell, but that resume is HOF worthy?

Based on that we could induct Anderson right now and it seems his career as of now warrants it more than Tanners: won the title, defended it 3 times (should of been 4 but the whole Lutter thing), moved up in weight and won, has 7 wins in the UFC, fought almost all guys in the top 10 (Leben was there when they fought I believe or close. Lutter and Irivn being the exceptions.) and he has been more dominate in the UFC than Tanner was.

Again I'm not trying to downplay Tanner's career but I just don't think he is HOF worthy.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

G-S-P said:


> but it's beyond ignorant to simply cast the 'he's not deserving' card, especially when his resume shows otherwise.


How so exactly, given his resume? How is that ignorant, given what lets say(for arguments sake) I believe qualifies you for a HOF position.


----------



## G-S-P (Sep 1, 2007)

MLS said:


> Chris I got what you were saying that's why I said if you want to look at it as accumulatively that's fine but he still isn't that impressive. His best wins in the UFC were against Lawler (who was still very one dimensionial) and Baroni (guy is pretty much a career .500 fighter). I mean really wins over, Darrel Gholar, Valeri Ignatov, Lance Gibson, Homer Moore, Elvis Sinosic, Chris Haseman, Justin Levens are impressive? That's 7/11 of his wins against some sub par fighters. You can give him credit for Lawler, Baroni, Terrel, but that resume is HOF worthy?
> 
> Based on that we could induct Anderson right now, won the title, defended it 3 times (should of been 4 but the whole Lutter thing), moved up in weight and won, has 7 wins in the UFC, fought almost all guys in the top 10 (Leben was there when they faught I believe or close) and he has been more dominate in the UFC than Tanner was.
> 
> Again I'm not trying to downplay Tanner's career but I just don't think he is HOF worthy.



To be fair, the win over Levens was quite significant at the time considering he was regarded as a prospect with a wealth of potential. Although things started to go downhill for him after the Tanner loss, and he hasn't recovered since...

It's quite evident that different people have diverse prerequisites on what embodies a HOF spot. I tend to believe that Tanner is a definitive candidate provided his resume is above average in terms of quality, ranked wins, but even more so when you factor in his life-story and how he got into the sport after watching instructionals and training in his garage.


----------



## G-S-P (Sep 1, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> How so exactly, given his resume? How is that ignorant, given what lets say(for arguments sake) I believe qualifies you for a HOF position.



How so? Because _simply_, as initially stressed, casting him as anything but a viable addition to the HOF is exactly that, ignorant. He may not have the most embellished record in the world, he was never the greatest fighter either. But when factoring in the essence of his triumphant moments in the sport, it's awfully hard to argue his bearing as HOF worthy.

Everyone have different prerequisites on what defines HOF bound anyway, so this argument is nullified in that regard.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

G-S-P said:


> To be fair, the win over Levens was quite significant at the time considering he was regarded as a prospect with a wealth of potential. Although things started to go downhill for him after the Tanner loss, and he hasn't recovered since...
> 
> It's quite evident that different people have diverse prerequisites on what embodies a HOF spot. I tend to believe that Tanner is a definitive candidate provided his resume is above average in terms of quality, ranked wins, but even more so *when you factor in his life-story and how he got into the sport after watching instructionals and training in his garage*.


Levens was a prospect who got exposed, impressive not really. If it was then I could say Breidis Prescott is an impressive fighter because he just exposed Amir Khan as nothing more than hype.

How many ranked fighters did he beat in the UFC?

All the bolded stuff has no bearing on whether or not someone is a HOF'er.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

G-S-P said:


> How so? Because _simply_, as initially stressed, casting him as anything but a viable addition to the HOF is exactly that, ignorant. He may not have the most embellished record in the world, he was never the greatest fighter either. But when factoring in the essence of his triumphant moments in the sport, it's awfully hard to argue his bearing as HOF worthy.


It's anything but Ignorant. I know what his resume is, I know what conditions I fell need to be met in order to be HOF worthy. Tanner doesn't fit them. Therefore he is not a viable addition tot he HOF. There is no ignorance there. Do you uderstand what the word means?


Being an alcoholic who trains in his garage may be the merits you require to enter the HOF, but thats a whole other story.



G-S-P said:


> Everyone have different prerequisites on what defines HOF bound anyway, so this argument is nullified in that regard.


That would be why I put "Lets say" and "for arguments sake" in my post.


----------



## cdnbaron (Jan 17, 2007)

I think Evan was a good, nearing great, fighter, but there are great athletes in every sport who don't get inducted into the HOF. I think it would be a disservice to MMA to conduct itself any differently, especially when the sport is still fledgling in the general public's eyes.

The people who say that this discussion wouldn't even be happening if it wasn't for Tanner's death are right. Sure, it may have come up by the time he retired, but with his recent performances I don't even think that's a given.

My condolences go out to Tanner's family, and I respect the man himself for the things he's overcome in his life and also the way he lived his life. However, I think our feelings regarding his passing, and our view of his accomplishments and HOF worthiness need to be two separate entities.

I haven't read every post of this thread, so I hope nobody has mentioned this already, but I'm going to liken this to another sports tragedy. Any basketball fans out there will recognize the name Reggie Lewis (for those of you who don't, Wikipedia it). Reggie Lewis was an All-Star for the Boston Celtics, and died at the age of 27. Despite being a great player (anyone who makes an All-Star team usually fits that description), Lewis was never inducted into the Basketball HOF. The Celtics honoured him by retiring his number, much like the UFC will honour Tanner with a tribute of some sort (I think putting his name/initials on the mat or fighters' trunks would be a nice gesture, in addition to the video they'll likely have prepared), however Lewis was not deserving of the HOF, and thus didn't get inducted simply based on his early demise. I don't think it would be right to induct Tanner simply based on that reason.

This last part is probably going to draw a lot of heat on me, but I always saw Tanner as just a step above Gary Goodridge or Akira Shoji in PRIDE. He wasn't really a gatekeeper, but at the same time he wasn't elite either. He was around for a long time, won more fights than he lost, and accumulated a big record because of the length of time/amount of fights he had in the organization.


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

G-S-P said:


> It's quite evident that different people have diverse prerequisites on what embodies a HOF spot. I tend to believe that Tanner is a definitive candidate provided his resume is above average in terms of quality, ranked wins, but even more so when you factor in his life-story and how he got into the sport after watching instructionals and training in his garage.


Are we basing the HOF candidates off of what they did before they even really got into the sport? If that's so, I believe the UFC has no choice but to throw Roger Huerta in there immediately.

Look, this is a HOF for the UFC, Ultimate FIGHTING Championship. It should be based on what the fighter has accomplished in his UFC career, what impacts he has made and how much those impacts have changed the sport.

I cannot think of anything about Evan that makes me vote to put him in the HOF. He was a good fighter, put on some good showings, was a nice guy, had an interesting philosophy, was rocking some awesome cornrows at one point along with a beard that Arlovski could only dream of.

None of the above should make anyone consider him for HOF status. 

With all that said, I think the UFC should do something for him. A real tribute would be nice, but to put him in the HOF is a bit much since the only reason people are talking about it is because he passed away.


----------



## FedorsFan (Jul 19, 2008)

Definitely yes in my books.


----------



## G-S-P (Sep 1, 2007)

> Levens was a prospect who got exposed, impressive not really. If it was then I could say Breidis Prescott is an impressive fighter because he just exposed Amir Khan as nothing more than hype.



Exposed after the Tanner fight, for all intents and purposes. Never said it was impressive, although the win had weight at the time and that much should be distinguished.





> How many ranked fighters did he beat in the UFC?



That's beside the point. I know I brought up his ranked wins, while scanty at that, but they don't have a majestic role in terms of defining his placement. Coleman's only significant win in the UFC was over Frye; Ken had absolutely no prominent wins in his UFC tenure to say the least, however they were revered are pioneers of the sport that resulted in HOF openings for them. MMA has only been around for 15 years and change, and while Tanner may not have many emphatically impressive wins in the UFC, it shouldn't inhibit him as a potential candidate which is what I've been arguing since my initial post.





> All the bolded stuff has no bearing on whether or not someone is a HOF'er.





> While this may not be exactly pertinent, he also has a very inspiring story to compliment his achievements in the sport.


I didn't feel like repeating myself, however it was duly noted throughout this thread.





> It's anything but Ignorant. I know what his resume is, I know what conditions I fell need to be met in order to be HOF worthy. Tanner doesn't fit them. Therefore he is not a viable addition tot he HOF. There is no ignorance there. Do you uderstand what the word means?



First and foremost, the ignorant branding was given to the peons on the first page that opted against defending their respective opinion. Secondly, you seem to have some sort of dire alienation in having to achieve an imperial amount of success, that only a slim few could ever attain, in order to be HOF bound. Tanner happens to hold a formidable list of wins in the UFC and while they may not be anywhere near the extent of fighters like Anderson Silva, GSP, or BJ, nor should they, it’s enough to give him proper recognition.





> Are we basing the HOF candidates off of what they did before they even really got into the sport? If that's so, I believe the UFC has no choice but to throw Roger Huerta in there immediately.



A HOF may be comprised primarily for what one did inside the ring or the cage but it would be fitting for the UFC to honor him in that manner. His inspiring story may not have a whole lot of substance on a general HOF outlook, but his distinct aptitude on life and experiences, overcoming of alcoholism and personal demons should at least warrant some sort of points toward a placement. It may not be cliche, but it's only fitting.


----------



## Godzuki (Feb 26, 2007)

TheNegation said:


> Y
> Well who the hell thought he belonged in there before he died then?


I did for one. When I first came on this thread to give Evan my vote, I didn't even know he'd died. It wasn't until the second page I realised what had happened.


----------



## valrond (Nov 26, 2007)

MLS said:


> Chris I got what you were saying that's why I said if you want to look at it as accumulatively that's fine but he still isn't that impressive. His best wins in the UFC were against Lawler (who was still very one dimensionial) and Baroni (guy is pretty much a career .500 fighter). I mean really wins over, Darrel Gholar, Valeri Ignatov, Lance Gibson, Homer Moore, Elvis Sinosic, Chris Haseman, Justin Levens are impressive? That's 7/11 of his wins against some sub par fighters. You can give him credit for Lawler, Baroni, Terrell, but that resume is HOF worthy?
> 
> Based on that we could induct Anderson right now and it seems his career as of now warrants it more than Tanners: won the title, defended it 3 times (should of been 4 but the whole Lutter thing), moved up in weight and won, has 7 wins in the UFC, fought almost all guys in the top 10 (Leben was there when they fought I believe or close. Lutter and Irivn being the exceptions.) and he has been more dominate in the UFC than Tanner was.
> 
> Again I'm not trying to downplay Tanner's career but I just don't think he is HOF worthy.


Then I guess than being 6-3 in the UFC beating Horstein, Goodridge, Frye, Julian Sanchez, Brian Johnston and Severn and then proceed to lose consecutively to Maurice Smith, Petey Williams, and Pedro Rizzo and running away to Pride is worthy of HOF...


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

G-S-P said:


> Winning a title aside (I'd say defeating Terrell has much more weight considering he came off of a win over the perennially ranked Lindland), his life-story in having gotten into MMA to begin with is truly inspiring, let alone what he did in his career. I'm not saying that he's a shoe-in for HOF aspirations, but it's beyond ignorant to simply cast the 'he's not deserving' card, especially when his resume shows otherwise.


 
dude his resume doesnt show other wise and he just got schooled on his come back, the hall of fame isnt based on his "life-story" its based on how dominant you are as a fighter and your ability to reign at the top for a sustained period of time....


Now Im startin to feel bad, I loved the guy as a fighter but seriously....Chuck, Gracie. Randy, Hughs(cant stand) these guys are hall of famers....where does even tanner fit in with those names in terms of long reign dominance....:dunno:


----------



## M.C (Jul 5, 2008)

G-S-P said:


> A HOF may be comprised primarily for what one did inside the ring or the cage but it would be fitting for the UFC to honor him in that manner. His inspiring story may not have a whole lot of substance on a general HOF outlook, but his distinct aptitude on life and experiences, overcoming of alcoholism and personal demons should at least warrant some sort of points toward a placement. It may not be cliche, but it's only fitting.


His outlook on life is not unique, or special. Many, many people view life the exact same way as he does. Everyone on this planet has personal demons, difficult times, etc. It is nothing special, in fact, it just crossing the line of Normal.

I'm not saying he wasn't a good guy, or that he doesn't deserve respect, all I'm saying is this is a HOF for Fighters, not for people who have struggled once or twice in their life or started their career with instructional tapes. It is there for Fighters who Earned their place by having a large impact on the UFC, large accomplishments in the UFC, nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

G-S-P said:


> Exposed after the Tanner fight, for all intents and purposes. Never said it was impressive, although the win had weight at the time and that much should be distinguished.


Beating a prospect that never panned out does not hold any weight when you look at his resume for the HOF. All it shows is that Tanner beat someone who was all hype and nothing else.






> That's beside the point. I know I brought up his ranked wins, while scanty at that, but they don't have a majestic role in terms of defining his placement. Coleman's only significant win in the UFC was over Frye; Ken had absolutely no prominent wins in his UFC tenure to say the least, however they were revered are pioneers of the sport that resulted in HOF openings for them. MMA has only been around for 15 years and change, and while Tanner may not have many emphatically impressive wins in the UFC, it shouldn't inhibit him as a potential candidate which is what I've been arguing since my initial post.



Did Coleman and Shamrock not help revolutionize a huge part of MMA while in the UFC? This is something Evan did not do so he does not have that going for him so his only real way into the HOF is based off his resume which is where beating ranked guys comes into play. Evan did not beat many ranked guys so how do you justify a guy who lacks big wins, did not even defend his title once nor did he regain it, has a padded record in the UFC, and where 6/8 losses came in the UFC, as being worthy of the HOF?







> I didn't feel like repeating myself, however it was duly noted throughout this thread.


You don't have to because his story has no reason to even be mentioned which you did.




valrond said:


> Then I guess than being 6-3 in the UFC beating Horstein, Goodridge, Frye, Julian Sanchez, Brian Johnston and Severn and then proceed to lose consecutively to Maurice Smith, Petey Williams, and Pedro Rizzo and running away to Pride is worthy of HOF...


I guess you don't like to read posts since I have already explained this topic in a prior post in this thread and explained it again above. But since you have already show that you don't read posts before you try and comment on something I'll just assume you won't read my above comment on Coleman so I'll post my orginal statement.



> Edit: Alright someone is gonna say something about Randy having 5 of his 8 losses in the UFC although one was the cut against Vitor but he also won the belt in two weight classes and actually defended his title something Evan did neither.
> 
> Mark Coleman maybe a suspect HOF'er but he did revolutionize a part of MMA which again is something Evan didn't. He was also the first UFC HW champion which when you are the first to do something that holds serious weight and he also won 2 UFC tournaments. Not trying to downplay Evan's accomplishments but trying to look at this realistically.


----------



## vandalian (Oct 14, 2006)

I believe what's being debated here is whether or not Tanner should be inducted into the Hall of Fame. I don't think there should be _any_ argument over whether Tanner was a great fighter. 

He was UFC middleweight champion and many of his wins in UFC are very solid.

Terrell has been derailed by injuries, but the man smoked Lindland and at the time he was regarded as a top 185-pounder. 

Baroni was a legit contender when Tanner beat him. So was Lawler. 

And, as was pointed out, Levens was considered a big-time prospect when Tanner beat him.

The man also has wins over several other accomplished fighters, including heavyweights. He defeated Buentello, Herring and McCully.

This is the resume of a _great_ fighter, not some B-level guy. But does it get him into the Hall? Not judging by the current criteria. The guys in there now are icons in the sport. Tanner is not.

As I said before, he might deserve a spot once the criteria widens, but that hasn't happened yet. 

_Basically, If UFC does decide to induct him, I have no problem with that, as long as they induct several others as well._


----------



## G-S-P (Sep 1, 2007)

Let me throw this out to everyone: Did I ever say he was a lock to be in the HOF? Did I ever say he was a shoe-in? Defeating David Terrell at that time spoke volumes considering he had already been known as an up and coming prospect with serious skills, who had just come off of putting the perennially ranked Lindland on queer street. Enough to validate a HOF spot? No, but it's certainly significant and was a monumental moment in MMA at the time.

Again, let me clarify, I never said that he should be a definite lock in a HOF predicament, however he deserves recognition and given his track record on paper, it's above-average to most and actually quite reputable if you look at the magnitude of some of his fights.





> Did Coleman and Shamrock not help revolutionize a huge part of MMA while in the UFC? This is something Evan did not do so he does not have that going for him so his only real way into the HOF is based off his resume which is where beating ranked guys comes into play. Evan did not beat many ranked guys so how do you justify a guy who lacks big wins, did not even defend his title once nor did he regain it, has a padded record in the UFC, and where 6/8 losses came in the UFC, as being worthy of the HOF?



He also only lost to Franklin barring the latter end of his career. Was defeating David Terrell not a big deal? Was defeating serious prospects like Baroni and Lawler not a big deal? Was jumping in between divisions and achieving success not a big deal? How many can lay claim to fighting 17 times in such a domineering organization? It isn’t just accumulative to have been apart of that many fights, no marginal fighter has ever reached that feat to begin with but having more than twice as many cards as they did only a few years ago will change that, though.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

G-S-P said:


> He also only lost to Franklin barring the latter end of his career. Was defeating David Terrell not a big deal? Was defeating serious prospects like Baroni and Lawler not a big deal? Was jumping in between divisions and achieving success not a big deal? How many can lay claim to fighting 17 times in such a domineering organization? It isn’t just accumulative to have been apart of that many fights, no marginal fighter has ever reached that feat to begin with but having more than twice as many cards as they did only a few years ago will change that, though.


Well your statement about Franklin means nothing seeing as how he lost to Franklin 2 years before the title fight, so it safe to say that Franklin is to Tanner what Silva is to Franklin.

Again, when you look at someone's resume for a HOF you look at what their oppenents ended up doing in their career. David Terrell, never panned out, Baroni is almost a career .500 fighter, Lawler was his best win but he beat Robbie on the ground where at the time Robbie had no game but still his biggest win, Levens again never panned out. Would you consider Kevin McBride a great fighter since he beat Tyson, I mean Tyson is a good name to have on your resume but does it matter that Tyson was a shell of himself when they fought or does the fact that it was Tyson hold more weight? The success between weight classes was against what type of competition because most of his UFC wins were against unranked guys, impressive, not really. 17 fights impressive as I have stated before but the competiton leaves something to be desired.


----------



## G-S-P (Sep 1, 2007)

I’m not arguing that Evan should be a shoe-in to be privileged into the HOF, I’m arguing that his credentials are good enough to be elected into that elite group and I honestly don’t see why not. He has the big marquee wins, longevity, championship experience, and having compiled an above-average, formidable record in the UFC.

Say what you want, but this entire argument predicates on where you value HOF worthy fighters, therefore having much of a void interpretation to those that see the complete contrary.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Comparing Evan Tanner's stats to Coleman or Shamrock doesn't make sense they fought at a different time.

Tanner was never a dominant fighter. He was very good for a long time but never really that great.

Rich Franklin who I personally think is a borderline HOF was obviously a better fighter then Tanner. 

Tanner's biggest career moment was really a 4 fight run in which he beat Baroni twice, Lawler and Terrell. 

No offense but looking at that doesn't make me think he is a HOF. And when you consider most of his other wins are over scrubs he's defiantly not.

I'm sorry guys I was a huge Tanner fan but he's not a HOF'er. He shouldn't even be borderline.

Comparing guys from the this generation which even though Tanner fought at UFC 18 he is a more modern fighter to guys Coleman and Shamrock record wise is unfair. There weren't many guys in the old days to beat but the revolutioized the sport.

Tanner didn't do that and his resume isn't close to the other top guys of this era. How many guys from this time period do you want to put in 20 because by my count that's where Tanner is in this era.


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

I like how most of the people who voted yes did so without actually giving any reasons.

Tanner was not a HOFer, and to put him in there simply because he died(and a few of you have already said it's a primary reason for you) does tarnish the whole idea of a HOF, which should obviously be based on merit.

He had no real impact on the sport in the way Shamrock, Coleman or Gracie did, and doesn't have the accomplishments of a guy like Couture.

In short if you include him you lower the bar allround for who can be considered a HOFer.


----------



## valrond (Nov 26, 2007)

coldcall420 said:


> dude his resume doesnt show other wise and he just got schooled on his come back, the hall of fame isnt based on his "life-story" its based on how dominant you are as a fighter and your ability to reign at the top for a sustained period of time....
> 
> 
> Now Im startin to feel bad, I loved the guy as a fighter but seriously....Chuck, Gracie. Randy, Hughs(cant stand) these guys are hall of famers....where does even tanner fit in with those names in terms of long reign dominance....:dunno:


That theory would put Mark Coleman in the HOF. He wasn't dominant (ok, he dominated scrubs, big deal), and he lost the title in his first defense. Whenever he fought a good fighter he lost. But he is a HOFer because he "invented" Ground and Pound ?


----------



## TheNegation (Jun 11, 2007)

Yes. he redefined the sport, played a part in turning it into what it is today. That means a ******* lot.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

valrond said:


> That theory would put Mark Coleman in the HOF. He wasn't dominant (ok, he dominated scrubs, big deal), and he lost the title in his first defense. Whenever he fought a good fighter he lost. But he is a HOFer because he "invented" Ground and Pound ?


Ok, this is the fourth time I have posted this and the 3rd time since you tried to question my reasoning even though I had already explained it. Let me know what you don't understand because if you look at what Coleman did and think Evan is on par then I'm wasting my time.



> Mark Coleman maybe a suspect HOF'er but he did revolutionize a part of MMA which again is something Evan didn't. He was also the first UFC HW champion which when you are the first to do something that holds serious weight and he also won 2 UFC tournaments.


----------



## Damone (Oct 1, 2006)

> Coleman's only significant win in the UFC was over Frye


Not really, he did beat Dan Severn to win the title. That was a nice win for the Hammer.



> He was UFC middleweight champion and many of his wins in UFC are very solid.


Murilo Bustamante was also a former MW champion and had better wins than Matt Lindland. Why isn't he given this kind of treatment?



> Terrell has been derailed by injuries, but the man smoked Lindland and at the time he was regarded as a top 185-pounder.


He then did nothing else. He's wasted talent.



> Baroni was a legit contender when Tanner beat him. So was Lawler.


The first time Tanner beat Baroni, yes, but not the second time. Also, Lawler was a WW before he faced Tanner.



> And, as was pointed out, Levens was considered a big-time prospect when Tanner beat him.


Not really, Justin Levens was just seen as an exciting fighter. Nothing more, nothing less.



> The man also has wins over several other accomplished fighters, including heavyweights. He defeated Buentello, Herring and McCully.


None of these happened in the UFC. Also, those happened early in their careers. Can't really judge that.



> This is the resume of a great fighter, not some B-level guy. But does it get him into the Hall? Not judging by the current criteria. The guys in there now are icons in the sport. Tanner is not.


If you want to see great resume's, look at Penn's, Gomi's, Hansen's and Nogueira's. Tanner's best win was against Phil Baroni during that time period. Not exactly HOF material right there.



> As I said before, he might deserve a spot once the criteria widens, but that hasn't happened yet.


The criteria could be as wide as Jenna Jameson's snatch, and Tanner still wouldn't deserve to be in the HOF.


----------



## TERMINATOR (Jul 6, 2008)

Simply put absolutely not. To be in the hall of fame you should be considered one of the best hands down, and unfortunately he wasnt. If you put him in you have to start putting everyone in.


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

valrond said:


> That theory would put Mark Coleman in the HOF. He wasn't dominant (ok, he dominated scrubs, big deal), and he lost the title in his first defense. Whenever he fought a good fighter he lost. But he is a HOFer because he "invented" Ground and Pound ?


 
I never mentioned Mark Coleman.........this WAS an Evan Tanner thread:thumb02:


----------



## vandalian (Oct 14, 2006)

Damone said:


> Murilo Bustamante was also a former MW champion and had better wins than Matt Lindland. Why isn't he given this kind of treatment.
> 
> He then did nothing else. He's wasted talent.
> 
> ...


I appreciate your response Damone, but I think perhaps you've missed my point. Either that, or I didn't make it clear enough. 
As I said, these points are meant to prove Evan Tanner was a _great fighter_, at least in his day. 
I wasn't making his case for the UFC Hall of Fame. Otherwise, I wouldn't have mentioned his fights outside UFC in my post.
Nowhere did I compare him to Busta, nor did I try to.
As far as the last bit about the criteria is concerned, if the UFC was to open HOF inductions to say, _all_ former champions, then Tanner would have to be there. 
But as it stands, as I said, he doesn't deserve it.


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

vandalian said:


> I appreciate your response Damone, but I think perhaps you've missed my point. Either that, or I didn't make it clear enough.
> As I said, these points are meant to prove Evan Tanner was a _great fighter_, at least in his day.
> I wasn't making his case for the UFC Hall of Fame. Otherwise, I wouldn't have mentioned his fights outside UFC in my post.
> Nowhere did I compare him to Busta, nor did I try to.
> ...


 
I think its an emotional time and many people just feel like its the right thing....I agree that all past champs are not in the Hall of Fame so Tanner shouldnt be either....still a terrible time for mma and all the best to his loved ones......He wasnt a Hall of Famer..:dunno:


----------



## southpaw447 (Mar 21, 2007)

I think he deserves it but I doubt they will give it to him.

Heart of a Lion, man


----------



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)

Definatly In my opinion he belongs in the Hall of Fame.


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

J.P. said:


> Definatly In my opinion he belongs in the Hall of Fame.


Why definatly?


----------



## valrond (Nov 26, 2007)

coldcall420 said:


> I never mentioned Mark Coleman.........this WAS an Evan Tanner thread:thumb02:


Well, the bar is set with Mark Coleman, a man with half the fights than Tanner in the UFC and only for 3 years, with maybe 2 significant wins, is a Hall of Famer. According to that, Tanner is more than deserving.

And for Damone, you can't compare it with Murilo Bustamante, the guy has just FOUR fights in the UFC. Tanner has 17.


----------



## nissassagame (May 6, 2008)

I really like Tanner but don't personally thin he should get in. If he hadn't dies this conversation would never happen. It would be, IMO, insulting to Evan's memory to add him to the HOF.He never felt he was a fighter and knew full well that he wasn't one of the greats.

With all that said, if it happened I would not be offended. I would still be happy someone did something out of respect for the man.


----------



## RushFan (Aug 25, 2007)

If the criteria for HOF depended on how many cheesy, knee-jerk avatars and sigs there are dedicated to you on forums then Tanner would be the #1 pick. Alas, it's not.
C'mon people! Let's not let emotion cloud our judgement so completely. Geez, Who's next? ..Serra? :confused02:


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

valrond said:


> Well, the bar is set with Mark Coleman, a man with half the fights than Tanner in the UFC and only for 3 years, with maybe 2 significant wins, is a Hall of Famer. According to that, Tanner is more than deserving.
> 
> And for Damone, you can't compare it with Murilo Bustamante, the guy has just FOUR fights in the UFC. Tanner has 17.


Doesn't it say something that at 3-1 Bustamante his better wins then Tanner does in 17 fights?


----------



## JuggNuttz (Oct 5, 2006)

http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/evantanner


already a petition to have him added.


HoF is a very tough thing to decide, givin his record, his popularity and tragic passing, i think he does deserve it.

in all HoF's there are always people who should be in that arent, and ones who are in that probably shouldnt. I really dont think it should be that big an issue, even if they call him an Honerary Member.


----------



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)

coldcall420 said:


> Why definatly?



First started fighting UFC in '99. 
16 UFC fights, 11 UFC victories
Victories over Robbie Lawler, Heath Herring, Paul Buentello. 
Fought at two weight classes.
Challegenged for LHW title.
Captured the MW title.
32-8 record.
Died at 37 while still fighting under UFC banner.

He's been a fixture to UFC fans. Not dominant but consistant. Consistant while more than 100 fighters have come and gone. So that's why many of us think he deserves it.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

His victories over Heath Herring and Paul Buentello have no bearing on whether he should be in the UFC HOF because those fights were not in the UFC.


----------



## IronMan (May 15, 2006)

J.P. said:


> First started fighting UFC in '99.
> 16 UFC fights, 11 UFC victories
> Victories over Robbie Lawler, Heath Herring, Paul Buentello.
> Fought at two weight classes.
> ...


And yet, he goes in ahead of Tito, the man who smashed him for the LHW title (literally smashed him), Chuck Liddell, Matt Hughes and Pat Miletich, all of whom have many, many more title wins that Tanner.

I am a huge Evan Tanner fan, but this is ridiculous.

Still f*cking absurd.


----------



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)

IronMan said:


> And yet, he goes in ahead of Tito, the man who smashed him for the LHW title (literally smashed him), Chuck Liddell, Matt Hughes and Pat Miletich, all of whom have many, many more title wins that Tanner.
> 
> I am a huge Evan Tanner fan, but this is ridiculous.
> 
> Still f*cking absurd.



Gimme a break Ironman you know Liddell will be inducted. He's still fighting right now. When he hangs up his jersey Dana will Put Liddell in front of our countries founding fathers.

And he won't to Ortiz. I think Tito should be there too, but his tiff with the company will have put a stop to it.

Hughes will make it also. Miletech should. The issue at hand is that Evan is dead and, the question is do I think he should be inducted. Yes I think he should be.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Honestly, if there was so much support for Tanner and this isn't people being caught up in them moment why were there only TWO posts prior to this that mentioned Tanner as a potential HOF'er (and one of those post came from someone who claimed Tanner would be a good matchup for Franklin and this was after their two fights). This includes any "Who should go into the HOF" type threads.


----------



## Damone (Oct 1, 2006)

> First started fighting UFC in '99.


Jens Pulver started in the UFC in 2000 and has better wins than Tanner. Why aren't you saying he should be in the HOF? Oh, I forgot, Jens Pulver's still alive.



> 16 UFC fights, 11 UFC victories


Best victory was against Phil Baroni during that time period. Sorry, not HOF worthy.



> Victories over Robbie Lawler, Heath Herring, Paul Buentello.


A WW at the time, a HW who was awful during that time period (Didn't get good until 2000), and a HW slugger who hasn't done much of anything. The last 2 didn't even happen in the UFC, mind you.



> Fought at two weight classes.


Because he had no choice. He couldn't cut it at 205.



> Challegenged for LHW title.


He challenged after beating no one of note and got demolished by Tito.



> Captured the MW title.


Good accomplishment.



> 32-8 record.


Good record.



> Died at 37 while still fighting under UFC banner.


This is why many want him in the HOF. Unfortunately, this happens all the time. 



> He's been a fixture to UFC fans. Not dominant but consistant. Consistant while more than 100 fighters have come and gone. So that's why many of us think he deserves it.


Consistent, yes. HOF material, no.


----------



## valrond (Nov 26, 2007)

MLS said:


> Honestly, if there was so much support for Tanner and this isn't people being caught up in them moment why were there only TWO posts prior to this that mentioned Tanner as a potential HOF'er (and one of those post came from someone who claimed Tanner would be a good matchup for Franklin and this was after their two fights). This includes any "Who should go into the HOF" type threads.


Of course there weren't, the guy was alive and active, you don't begin to talk about HOF until he retires, at least in the most respectable sports. Just look at who entered the basketball this year, Olajuwon, that has been retired for a long time. If you only consider the best of the best and the "pioneers" worthy of HOF, then it would be a very, very short HOF. But the bar is set with Mark Coleman, if he gets in, Tanner gets too.


----------



## _RIVAL_ (Mar 7, 2008)

MLS said:


> Honestly, if there was so much support for Tanner and this isn't people being caught up in them moment why were there only TWO posts prior to this that mentioned Tanner as a potential HOF'er (and one of those post came from someone who claimed Tanner would be a good matchup for Franklin and this was after their two fights). This includes any "Who should go into the HOF" type threads.





Damone said:


> Jens Pulver started in the UFC in 2000 and has better wins than Tanner. Why aren't you saying he should be in the HOF? Oh, I forgot, Jens Pulver's still alive.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Send in backup, J.P.s being bombarded. 

I gotta get to work, I'll post later. Reguardless of the dispute, In my opinion Tanner should get it.

Solid enough good wins, good victories, former title holder and such. I vote YES. 

Im sure Damone and MLS agree with me, they're just playing hard to get.


----------



## IronMan (May 15, 2006)

J.P. said:


> Gimme a break Ironman you know Liddell will be inducted. He's still fighting right now. When he hangs up his jersey Dana will Put Liddell in front of our countries founding fathers.
> 
> And he won't to Ortiz. I think Tito should be there too, but his tiff with the company will have put a stop to it.
> 
> Hughes will make it also. Miletech should. The issue at hand is that Evan is dead and, the question is do I think he should be inducted. Yes I think he should be.


My point is that these are the guys we should be pulling into the Hall of Fame. These are the fighters that define our sport, the Frank Shamrocks, the Tito Ortizs. For those of us who are fans of the sport on a deeper level, we appreciate fighters like Evan Tanner, the relative unknown warriors who bring it every time.

Still, the guys that should be in the HOF are not the guys who are one time or two time title holders. They're guys who have shown that they are forces in this division, men with staying power that sets them apart from the rest of their generation.

If Georges St. Pierre had never won another title after losing to Serra, and he had dropped off the face of the earth, we would never have talked about him as a future Hall of Famer, unless, apparently, he had lost his life in this kind of tragedy.

There are lots of great fighters, lots of inspiring stories in the sport. Evan Tanner is definitely one of them. That does not make him a Hall-of-Famer.

His career was intriguing, but not epic. There's a difference.

I agree that all of the guys I mentioned should be in the HOF, as should Anderson Silva and Frank Shamrock (who's names I left off for brevity), and those are the kind of fighters that should be given spaces: the constant champions.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

valrond said:


> Of course there weren't, the guy was alive and active, you don't begin to talk about HOF until he retires, at least in the most respectable sports. Just look at who entered the basketball this year, Olajuwon, that has been retired for a long time. If you only consider the best of the best and the "pioneers" worthy of HOF, then it would be a very, very short HOF. But the bar is set with Mark Coleman, if he gets in, Tanner gets too.


Olajuwon's last year in the NBA was 2001-2002 season and the Basketball HOF makes a player wait a MANDATORY 5 YEARS BEFORE THEY CAN BE EVEN NOMINATED. So Olajuwon is a first ballot HOF'er so your point about him being retired for a long time is baseless.

So if you only talk about guys being in the HOF after they retire why (and I'm just going to talk about those threads since that is what you are trying to refute) were Chuck, Tito, Matt, and Randy, all guys who were active the ones whose names were the ones most said should be in the HOF? Also, you never heard people say Jordan was a future HOF'er or is basketball not a "respectable" sport? The greats always get talked about for the HOF before they retire because THEY ARE GREAT.

Also if you are still claiming Tanner and Coleman are on par with eah other you really don't know anything about the sport. Again COLEMAN HELPED REVOLUTIONIZE A PART OF MMA, he was the FIRST HW Champion, he won 2 UFC tournaments.

If Evan is a HOF'er then we could induct, BJ, Anderson, and Rich all right now in the midst of their careers because they would be more deserving then Tanner based on this criteria.


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

J.P. said:


> First started fighting UFC in '99.
> 16 UFC fights, 11 UFC victories
> Victories over Robbie Lawler, Heath Herring, Paul Buentello.
> Fought at two weight classes.
> ...


I just think thats a long list of nothing terribly noteable other than winning a belt once......love the guy but not a HOFer....


MLS said:


> His victories over Heath Herring and Paul Buentello have no bearing on whether he should be in the UFC HOF because those fights were not in the UFC.


Exactly...


IronMan said:


> And yet, he goes in ahead of Tito, the man who smashed him for the LHW title (literally smashed him), Chuck Liddell, Matt Hughes and Pat Miletich, all of whom have many, many more title wins that Tanner.
> 
> I am a huge Evan Tanner fan, but this is ridiculous.
> 
> Still f*cking absurd.


agreed totally i think if this question were asked 5 yrs from now alot of people would say no.....:dunno:


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

coldcall420 said:


> agreed totally i think if this question were asked 5 yrs from now alot of people would say no.....:dunno:


This is the exact reason most sports HOF's make you wait a grace period before you can even be nominated so that people don't just get caught up in the moment and vote people in that don't really belong.


----------



## valrond (Nov 26, 2007)

Well, to put things in perspective, I searched in the Forum for UFC records, look who is in Tanner's company:

Most Wins
Rank Fighter W L D

1 Chuck Liddell 16 5 0
2 Matt Hughes 15 5 0
3 Tito Ortiz 14 6 1
4 Randy Couture 13 5 0
5/ Royce Gracie 11 2 0
5/ Evan Tanner 11 6 0
5/ GSP 11 2 0
5/ Rich Franklin 11 2 0


It is a nice company to be with, Some of those guys are HOFers already, others will be 100%, like Tito, Hughes or Chuck, and unless something really weird happens, GSP and Franklin will be in the HOF. Tanner is right there with those guys, it's not easy to make 17 fights in the UFC, you have to be good enough to stay in the UFC. Tanner was.

Look, I'm not a Evan Tanner fan, I like how he fought and the heart he did put in his fights People mention that Coleman made a revolution by "inventing" Ground and Pound (yes, you have to be some kind of a luminary to think in hitting the other guy when he's on the ground). Ok, he did that and was the first champ (that to my account it's the same as the last one, it counts as one, btw, who was the first heavyweight boxing champion, anyone?). That would compensate for having only a 6-3 record and losing to every decent half rounded fighter he fought, and the fact that he ran away to pride. I wouldn't say Tanner deserved to be in the HOF with a 6-3 record, a championship and no significant wins.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Of the people on that list anner has the most losses and the least good wins.

Comparing him to Coleman doesn't make sense. Royce Gracie doesn't have a lot of good wins either but they fought in a different time then Tanner did.

Compare him to Tito Hughes, Frank, Randy, and Liddell.

Listen if we are just comparing fighters to Coleman why not put Pulver in.

I mean he had two title defenses was 6-2-1.


----------



## MLS (Jul 18, 2007)

Again, lets look at who those guys fought:



> Liddell: Noe Hernandez, Jermey Horn x2, Paul Jones, Jeff Monson, Kevin Randleman, Murilo Bustamante, Amar Suloev, Renato Sobral x2, Randy Couture x3, Tito Ortiz x2, Vernon White, Rampage Jackson, Keith Jardine, Wanderlei Silva, Rashad Evans
> 
> Matt Hughes: Valeri Ignatov, Marcelo Aguiar, Dennis Hallman, Carlos Newton x2, Hayato Sakurai, Gil Castillo, Sean Sherk, Frank Trigg x2, BJ Penn x2, Renato Verissimo, GSP x3, Joe Riggs, Royce Gracie, Chris Lytle, Thaigo Alves
> 
> ...


GSP and Franklin can still improve upon their resume even though right now they are pretty impressive. Even Randy can improve his if he gets to fight Fedor but again as of now, it's impressive. Chuck and Matt most likely can't improve their's just as Evan wouldn't be able to if he hadn't of died but it's not even fair to compare Chuck's and Matt's to Evan's. Tito is in between whether or not he can still improve his that depends on where he signs but as of now his resume is still better than Evan's. Then if you look at guys not listed such as Anderson and BJ their resumes are better than Evan's.

So, is Tanner really "right there with those guys"?


----------



## valrond (Nov 26, 2007)

bbjd7 said:


> Of the people on that list anner has the most losses and the least good wins.
> 
> Comparing him to Coleman doesn't make sense. Royce Gracie doesn't have a lot of good wins either but they fought in a different time then Tanner did.
> 
> ...


9 fights, 6 wins, he's not in Tanner's league.


----------



## Damone (Oct 1, 2006)

Who's not in Tanner's league? Pulver? The guy was a smaller guy who beat great fighters. He's also the first UFC LW champion and was dominant.


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

valrond said:


> 9 fights, 6 wins, he's not in Tanner's league.


He beat BJ Penn who is 10x the fighter any of Evan's wins are over.

He also has a win over Caol Uno who's a better fighter then Baroni.

Also my point was that Pulver compares well to Coleman. You can't just put guys in because they compare well against Coleman's record. It was a different time.


----------



## Guest (Sep 12, 2008)

valrond said:


> 9 fights, 6 wins, he's not in Tanner's league.


Higher than tanner.


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

bbjd7 said:


> Of the people on that list anner has the most losses and the least good wins.
> 
> Comparing him to Coleman doesn't make sense. Royce Gracie doesn't have a lot of good wins either but they fought in a different time then Tanner did.
> 
> ...


 
Hillarious......its really true the guy was a journyman...thats all there is to it, again people right now will give him more credit than in the future imo:thumb02:


----------



## joey__stalin (Dec 31, 2006)

I'm with IronMan on this. No he shouldn't be put into the HOF. So he won the UFC middleweight belt, but lost it on his first defense. So if Matt Serra died tomorrow, I suppose he should be a HOF'er because he beat GSP. (Not that great of an example but it works for me) Was he a good fighter? Yes. Was he entertaining to watch? Yes. And he was pretty consistent. But he wasn't great and he didn't have the accomplishments other HOF'ers have done.


----------



## Cochise (Aug 3, 2007)

If Tanner died when he was at his peak, he would of been inducted immediately. But, in a time where "slow and steady wins the fight, brutally". And whre there are giant numbers of organizations and fans rather than not that many, I just don't know.


----------



## valrond (Nov 26, 2007)

bbjd7 said:


> He beat BJ Penn who is 10x the fighter any of Evan's wins are over.
> 
> He also has a win over Caol Uno who's a better fighter then Baroni.
> 
> Also my point was that Pulver compares well to Coleman. You can't just put guys in because they compare well against Coleman's record. It was a different time.


At the time BJ Penn wasn't that good a win. Heck, even Matt Serra had a very close match with BJ Penn. In fact, Penn wasn't LW champion until he beat Joe Stevenson. BJ was just 3-0 when he fought Pulver.

Baroni was 5-2 at the time he fought Tanner, his 2 losses to Matt Lindland, and a MW contender after beating (more like destroying) former champ Dave Mene. He has beaten guys like Amar Suloev and Yuki Kondo, guys that Tito fought to defend his LHW title. So Baroni is NOW an average fighter, he wasn't at the time, same as BJ Penn wasn't as good a fighter as he is now, and he proved it beating Pulver last year.

A HOF is not about how many quality wins you have. It is a Hall of FAME. Well, Tanner deserves it, he was a famous UFC fighter.


----------



## Maniac (Oct 31, 2006)

I would like to see him inducted but i dont think he will be im pretty dissapointed that hes dead i allways like watching him fight that fight when he bashed Phil Baroni good ahh i liked that fight and that flying arm bar was awesome


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

valrond said:


> At the time BJ Penn wasn't that good a win. Heck, even Matt Serra had a very close match with BJ Penn. In fact, Penn wasn't LW champion until he beat Joe Stevenson. BJ was just 3-0 when he fought Pulver.
> 
> Baroni was 5-2 at the time he fought Tanner, his 2 losses to Matt Lindland, and a MW contender after beating (more like destroying) former champ Dave Mene. He has beaten guys like Amar Suloev and Yuki Kondo, guys that Tito fought to defend his LHW title. So Baroni is NOW an average fighter, he wasn't at the time, same as BJ Penn wasn't as good a fighter as he is now, and he proved it beating Pulver last year.
> 
> A HOF is not about how many quality wins you have. It is a Hall of FAME. Well, Tanner deserves it, he was a famous UFC fighter.


BJ Penn was considered basically unstoppable when Pulver fought him he was a great BJJ guy who had just KO'd two top contenders easily.

BJ Penn was still at that time a great fighter. You say he fought a close fight with Serra like thats a terrible thing only one guy has dominanted Serra and he lost to him earlier. He also not to much later beat Gomi.

He wasn't that famous. He didn't have that many fans. The guy wasn't a main eventer and really wasn't that well known.

He had a good amount of die hard fans and a bunch of people who liked him and now that he died a lot of those people who liked him have decided they loved him and he was one of their favorite fighters.


----------



## Damone (Oct 1, 2006)

Penn demolished Din Thomas and Caol Uno before facing Pulver. Dude was a really good fighter when he faced Jens.


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

bbjd7 said:


> BJ Penn was considered basically unstoppable when Pulver fought him he was a great BJJ guy who had just KO'd two top contenders easily.
> 
> BJ Penn was still at that time a great fighter. You say he fought a close fight with Serra like thats a terrible thing only one guy has dominanted Serra and he lost to him earlier. He also not to much later beat Gomi.
> 
> ...


 
BBJD...I just wanted to tell you that even though i will always consider you a brazillian top team or chute box genius.....i have to say dude you are very good at putting things into a context that peple can relate too and identify with....your way of explaining Evan Tanner and this situation is right on and I think that people should take what you say into consideration but ...but i doubt it will happen....


----------



## bbjd7 (Apr 9, 2007)

Thanks a lot Coldcall. I'm not trying to say Tanner wasn't a good fighter or that people didn't like him but trying to pretend this guy was a top fighter or that he was loved by fans like Tito or Liddell it just isn't true.


----------



## coldcall420 (Aug 2, 2007)

bbjd7 said:


> Thanks a lot Coldcall. I'm not trying to say Tanner wasn't a good fighter or that people didn't like him but trying to pretend this guy was a top fighter or that he was loved by fans like Tito or Liddell it just isn't true.


 
no need to explain i agree totally he was a great fighter and his spirt was even greater but....and right now its a big BUT....He's not up there with the HOF talk......


----------



## Bazza89 (Dec 31, 2006)

I actually voted yes, and if I had my own little UFC HOF Tanner would def be in there as he's always been one of my favourite fighters.

However, the more I think about it the more he doesn't deserve it based on accomplishments. (Neither does Coleman IMO).

I think the worst thing that would come from Evan being inducted would be it because of his death not his career.

To put Tanners career to one side and remember and honour him for his death would be a shame because he was IMO a great fighter, not HOF worthy but great nonetheless.


----------



## 69nites (Jul 28, 2008)

Steph05050 said:


> but i dont think that determines if ur hall of fame worthy or not...wins and losses shouldnt matter, dominance shouldnt matter, yes those can play a part...he did earn the championship belt...and his heart, and just warrior spirit is worthy...TO ME and was a good definition of a fighter and that is hall of fame worthy


you do NOT throw every champion in the hall of fame.


----------



## Rygu (Jul 21, 2008)

I may get neg repped for this, but oh well. 

If Ken Shamrock was such a clinch for the HOF with his mediocre UFC record (1-4 in his final 5 UFC fights) then to me its not a far stretch to let Evan in. He beat Severn, Kimo 2 times and thats about it. Tanner also 1-4 in his last 5 fights beat Baroni twice, Lawler, Terrell. Both were champs briefly. 

Also Evan unlike Ken didn't pull off retarded fits of rage, didn't look like a child who had just soiled himself either, something Ken was known for. Their accomplishments were similar, Tanner had more class. 

For that reason, i voted yes. Sorry if i offended any Shamrock fans.


----------

