Does Mike Tyson belong in the Hall of Fame???

[gensu3k1]

Tyson DOES NOT deserve to be in the hall of fame. I think this kind of priviledge should be reserved for fighters who have had a positive impact on the sport of boxing as well as had impressive boxing abilities.
Tyson has shed a dark light on boxing in every way possible. I'm really disapointed in him.

Wther he was a good or bad guy doesn't have nay effect on wether he should get a spot in the hall of fame or not. Hall of fame is based on accomplishments only. Dennis Rodman is in the hall of fame for being the best rebounder in professional basket ball and we all know that he did nothing postive for the sport other then help his team win.

Rodman is not in the hall of fame and probably will not make it (though I think he should; I actually think the NBA hall of fame is a little too exclusive).

[harley_man]

1986-91 Tyson definitely deserves consideration. As you've all acknowledged, youngest ever HW champ, through a unification series no less, and then defeated the linear champ who refused to participate in the late stages of the tourney because Tyson was looming. On technical proficiency alone, the D'Amato/Rooney trained fighter from that period was HOF fame worthy.

HOFs tend to judge careers though, and Tyson has a few things working against him: Douglas (never avenged - Holyfield took care of him); unable to make the Holyfield fight before going to prison at his peak; Holyfield 1 & 2, especially 2; failing to fight or win against big name contemporaries Bowe and Lewis; etc.

But he has spectacular wins against some HOF and future HOF fighters. Great details to debate but my gut is he gets in, unless the sport of bosing suddenly becomes politically correct.

[Eric the Viking]

Tyson doesn't deserve to be in the top-10 all-time greats at heavyweight (and one can legitimately question whether he deserves to be in the top 20), but c'mon, this guy was the youngest HW champ in history. That by itself is enough for the HOF.

[knockout artist]

With all this Talk about Tyson,Tyson, Tyson I'll think i'll add a little bit more...

I say that he doesn't really deserve to get in based on his accomplishments ...but he WILL get in because he was a big celebrity....

Comments?

Youngest Hw champ ever.

Only man to stop Larry Holmes.

Tyson trancended the sport.

He should be in as soon as he is eligible.

[Jaclem]

..i'm too lazy to look this up..so i'm hoping somebody else will. if you consider tyson as having won the heavyweight championship the night he beat michael spinks....and NOT until then....would he still be the youngest to have won the title?

[harley_man]

..i'm too lazy to look this up..so i'm hoping somebody else will. if you consider tyson as having won the heavyweight championship the night he beat michael spinks....and NOT until then....would he still be the youngest to have won the title?

I'm not sure that's relevant. It's not any fighter's fault (at least ones not tossing belts aside) that the "title" is fractured. Tyson went the long and hard route to get them all. It wasn't his fault Spinks ducked him. I say he's a champion - no asterisk - with the first win, just like anyone else. If you want to put an asterisk beside his youngest-ever notation, explaining the whole undisputed, linear champ thing, well that's a good purist kind of argument.

Regardless, what he did as a teenager was scary. With that, we're getting into the how-would-that-Tyson-have-fared-against-greats-from-other-eras debate. That's got to give his HOF credentials some juice.

[Jaclem]

...not questioning his HOF credentials...he belongs there youngest or not youngest. just asking if he actually WAS the youngest using my criteria. if someone will look at the dates and give his age i will appreicate it as it will keep from having to do it myself...which i will do if i must. fooey.

[zurdo]

[Regardless, what he did as a teenager was scary. With that, we're getting into the how-would-that-Tyson-have-fared-against-greats-from-other-eras debate. That's got to give his HOF credentials some juice.

No, you have to base Tysons HOF credentials upon what happened in the ring not on speculation....

[knockout artist]

..i'm too lazy to look this up..so i'm hoping somebody else will. if you consider tyson as having won the heavyweight championship the night he beat michael spinks....and NOT until then....would he still be the youngest to have won the title?

Yes, he was still only 21 when he beat Spinks

[dempseyfire]

..i'm too lazy to look this up..so i'm hoping somebody else will. if you consider tyson as having won the heavyweight championship the night he beat michael spinks....and NOT until then....would he still be the youngest to have won the title?

Yes, he was still only 21 when he beat Spinks

No, Patterson (also 21) beats him by a couple of months.

But Mike is still HOF, 2nd youngest champion, dominated division for 4 years. Yeah he didn't fight the best comp but Tony Tucker, Pinklon Thomas, Michael Spinks, and Tony Tubbs were all solid contenders. It puzzles me that people say Lewis's competetion was much superior to Tysons, while a good argument can be made that Tyson fought the better fighters . . .

[knockout artist]

..i'm too lazy to look this up..so i'm hoping somebody else will. if you consider tyson as having won the heavyweight championship the night he beat michael spinks....and NOT until then....would he still be the youngest to have won the title?

Yes, he was still only 21 when he beat Spinks

No, Patterson (also 21) beats him by a couple of months.

But Mike is still HOF, 2nd youngest champion, dominated division for 4 years. Yeah he didn't fight the best comp but Tony Tucker, Pinklon Thomas, Michael Spinks, and Tony Tubbs were all solid contenders. It puzzles me that people say Lewis's competetion was much superior to Tysons, while a good argument can be made that Tyson fought the better
fighters . . .

Agreed.

Also Lewis lost to guys who couldnt carry Tysons's gym bag.

[The Keed]

If Ingo and Lew Jenkins and Zivic (Fritzie Zivic!!!!) are in, then there is still hope for the Strikland boys.

The funny thing is, Zivic had FIVE wins over clear-cut Hall of Famers (and that's NOT counting his win over Jenkins)... that's THREE MORE than Tyson ever had!

[ThirdPartyView]

If Ingo and Lew Jenkins and Zivic (Fritzie Zivic!!!!) are in, then there is still hope for the Strikland boys.

The funny thing is, Zivic had FIVE wins over clear-cut Hall of Famers (and that's NOT counting his win over Jenkins)... that's THREE MORE than Tyson ever had!

Ah, but Tyson has one more HOFer win on his record than HOFer Ken Norton does. ;)

[harley_man]

[Regardless, what he did as a teenager was scary. With that, we're getting into the how-would-that-Tyson-have-fared-against-greats-from-other-eras debate. That's got to give his HOF credentials some juice.

No, you have to base Tysons HOF credentials upon what happened in the ring not on speculation....

Perhaps I should have said "more" juice. I'd argue that stretch of time is worthy of HOF consideration in itself. He did earn that in the ring. The fact we might speculate on Tyson's greatness at least separates him from the pugs who won't ever get mentioned, even the champs Tyson and others beat for titles.

As for the Patterson argument, that's a tough call and worthy of an asterisk. I say Tyson is youngest with his Berbick win, let alone the unification. Beating Spinks at an older 21 than Patterson is a bit of a nit to pick, fine hair to split etc. Again, his road lead to multiple titles, through muddled politics and back room wrangling. The good old days saw mostly unified titles. One fight and one punch could make you the linear champ. So I say Tyson's in, regardless of the 90s and 00s.

[zurdo]

Well most people reckon that Tysons "prime" was from late 1986 to early 1990 (febtruary 11 to be excact) A relitively short time ,slightly over three years in that time he had a few impressive performances over questionable competition interspersed a couple of spotty ones. Plus ,Patterson was younger when he won the championship...then He got pounded by Douglas.(never avenged that defeat BTW).. I don't think Tyson's a lock by any stretch of the imagination..

[dan1030]

Good point about nevr avenging his defeat by Douglas (or Holyfield, or Lewis). That's certainly a good reason--among others--to leave him off your all-time greats list, but not so convincing for keeping him out of hte HOF. He may not be a lock, but he's the next best thing to it, and I figure he did enough to deserve it--despite the fact that I believe even a prime Tyson has been over-rated.

[Marciano Frazier]

With all this Talk about Tyson,Tyson, Tyson I'll think i'll add a little bit more...

I say that he doesn't really deserve to get in based on his accomplishments ...but he WILL get in because he was a big celebrity....

Comments?

Oh come on. Any linear heavyweight champion of the world belongs in the HOF. Even Jess Willard is in the HOF, and he didn't accomplish as much as Tyson, nor was he as good a fighter.

[zurdo]

It is the called Hall of fame you know..
And Tyson is certainly the most famous boxer of the last 20 years....

[Eric the Viking]

OK, so the general consensus (if I may be so bold ;)) is that he belongs in the HOF, but his status among the ATGHWs is dubious. I say on a good day, when I'm feeling very generous towards Mikey and focusing on his early career and promise more than the last 15 years, he just might crack the top 20. (I have Lewis and Holyfield at #11 and #12, by way of contrast.)

Another fighter who hit his all-too-brief prime in the same era and who it would be interesting to judge in a similar fashion as one does Tyson is Bowe - I need to think about him some more before rendering my verdict, as it were.

Opinions?

[TheRiverCityHippy]

interesting as ever eric,
what criteria are you using to compile your heavy list, how they would fare head to head or how they did against their contemporarys.
either way i would be interested whom you consider the ten heavyweights who would beat lennox lewis or the ten heavyweights who dominated the division better than lennox?

[harley_man]

Viking,

Are you plucking fighters out at their prime and dropping them into a fantasy tournament to determine your top 20? If so, Tyson's last 15 years mean nothing. If you grant he had potential on top of what he showed in the late '80s then he has to be a solid top 20. Otherwise, comparing careers can quickly become mind boggling. '96 Holffield beat Tyson. Would '86 Holyfield (still a cruiserweight) have beaten '86 Tyson? No way. Not even in '96. Of course this speculation quickly becomes mired in subjectivity, my own included. Even in one's own era it becomes difficult. As Thomas Hauser said recently, Frazier and Norton gave Ali fits but Foreman destroyed them. And, of course, Ali felled Foreman.

That said, Holyfield's accomplishments outstrip Tyson's because he did fight all his contemporaries and deserves a better ranking than Iron Mike. But prime Tyson and Lewis never happened. Nor did Lewis-Bowe. I wonder how low Bowe or Lewis would fall if that fight had happened.

[zurdo]

Eric The Viking brings up an interesting point ..Tyson was very impressive for a short period of time but so was Riddick Bowe...

You could make a strong case that Bowe's best three years were just as good as Tysons best three years...

[Eric the Viking]

what criteria are you using to compile your heavy list, how they would fare head to head or how they did against their contemporarys.
either way i would be interested whom you consider the ten heavyweights who would beat lennox lewis or the ten heavyweights who dominated the division better than lennox?

I don't believe mythical head-to-head is an appropriate way to judge the historical greatness of a fighter, *especially* at heavyweight, where better nutrition, healthcare and training gives most of the modern-era guys a massive size advantage over the oldtimers. IMO the only fair way to judge a fighter is how he fared vs. his contemporaries, of course factoring in the perceived strength of his competition and the stage of his career when he fought the various notables on his re'sume'.

There was a nice thread along these lines in the British Scene Forum a few months ago:

http://www.boxrec.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=14921

My top-20 list (or at least nearly 20) is in a long post I made there. Here's the gist - see the actual post for my reasoning:

Who the hell is left that rates above Lewis?

These nine guys definitely do:

Ali
Louis
Holmes
Marciano
Johnson
Foreman
Liston
Frazier
Dempsey

These guys (together with Lewis) are on the cusp of top-10 greatness (I list them in strictly alphabetical order):

Charles
Corbett
Holyfield
Jeffries
Lewis
Sullivan
Tunney
Walcott

(I may have forgotten one or two guys who should be in that second list - I hope not, but I'm not ruling it out.)

And one guy I did forgot to put in the second tier above at the time of the original post: Floyd Patterson. that makes 18, and I'm sure I can come up with at least two more guys who deserve to be in the top 20 more than Tyson and Bowe, based on actual career accomplishments vs. their peers. I'm tempted to say Norton belongs in the top 20, but need to think about that some more - Norton was known mainly for his performances vs. Ali, but the only other top heavies he beat were Jimmy Young and Jerry Quarry.

So now that I've had time to think about it, I'd say that neither Tyson nor Bowe was at his respective peak long enough to make the top 20 ATGHW, though both clearly are in the top 50.