BoxRec

JamesH wrote:Have to say I didn't think he came across badly at all, and I don't think he mentioned Ali once.

BIGMARK wrote:I have never been a fan of the man but dont hate him like others, however i thought he came across very well on Ringside. Still 10 mins to go so that could change

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The thing is, there are few heavyweights who were at the top of the pile for long.

Ali, Lewis, Holmes, Louis are the exception. Most of the rest had few years at the top.

When we look at records, the likes of Dempsey had more soft touches than a virgins muff.

Autobarn wrote:

jamesmcdonnell wrote:The thing is, there are few heavyweights who were at the top of the pile for long.

Ali, Lewis, Holmes, Louis are the exception. Most of the rest had few years at the top.

When we look at records, the likes of Dempsey had more soft touches than a virgins muff.

a fighter with tyson's build, at heavyweight, was always going to have a short prime. he unified heavyweight, he scored some great KOs and had massive profile so there shouldn't be any doubt, despite the massive disappointments that came after his late '80s title reign, the question marks about his toughness, etc.

the spinks fight has become a bit undervalued, despite being a big deal at the time and given that spinks had performed well as a heavyweight in fights with holmes and cooney.

nobby_nobbins wrote:

oliverfennell wrote: We've all heard them. One of my favourites was overhhearing some blokle insisting "I know my boxing, mate, and this David Kane..." (he meant Haye, but it wasn't just a slip, as he said "Kane" every time. Wouldn't mind some random guy getting a name wrong if he didn't particularly follow the sport, but it was his insistence that "I know my boxing" that got me!

I think some boxers get each others' names wrong - even their own opponents. I also remember some boxer referring to an up and coming guy as a "good container". I think he meant "contender".

Lionel

mickey1975 wrote:The Spinks fight shouldnt be undervalued considering Spinks never fought again.Spinks was what he was,its not like when Calzaghe beat Lacey and then everybody else did.

Deserter wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:The Spinks fight shouldnt be undervalued considering Spinks never fought again.Spinks was what he was,its not like when Calzaghe beat Lacey and then everybody else did.

I think that's a flawed comparison given it's perfectly plausible that if Spinks had carried on at Heavy post-Tyson he could have suffered a similar fall from grace to Lacy's.
What we'll never be able to establish conclusively is how much of Lacy's subsequent loss of standing was due to him being over-rated all along or because the Calzaghe beating took so much out of him, particularly mentally.

gobbles wrote:Apart from the fact that Hart is Jewish and grew up in the East End in the years after the war

Horse wrote:

gobbles wrote:Apart from the fact that Hart is Jewish and grew up in the East End in the years after the war

Jewish people can't be middle class?

gobbles wrote:Jewish, East End, born in the depression..... If you think that's middle class, you should learn some history

mickey1975 wrote:

Deserter wrote:

mickey1975 wrote:The Spinks fight shouldnt be undervalued considering Spinks never fought again.Spinks was what he was,its not like when Calzaghe beat Lacey and then everybody else did.

I think that's a flawed comparison given it's perfectly plausible that if Spinks had carried on at Heavy post-Tyson he could have suffered a similar fall from grace to Lacy's.
What we'll never be able to establish conclusively is how much of Lacy's subsequent loss of standing was due to him being over-rated all along or because the Calzaghe beating took so much out of him, particularly mentally.

A lot of my posts have been spent defending Calzaghe so i wasnt meaning to devalue his victory,which i was present for,just saying that there is no grounds to do that with Spinks for those who enjoy doing such things.Tyson-Spinks was a huge superfight at the time and he won inside a round.Nothing can change that.

Horse wrote:

gobbles wrote:Jewish, East End, born in the depression..... If you think that's middle class, you should learn some history

So Jewish people from the East End were less likely to be middle class than non-Jewish people from the same area?

gobbles wrote:Yes.
The East End was a very depressed area anyway. And Jews in the East End, were the equivalent of the Bangladeshi community there now.
The history of Jews in the East End is that the ones that made it on to better things moved to more leafy parts of London, most notably in north London.

Trojans44 wrote:So nobody thinks that biting a man's ear off during a championship fight and then spitting it out it in the middle of the ring should be taken into account when assessing whether Tyson's career should be honoured by entry into the HOF? Again, Tyson raped a woman while he was the most famous boxer on the planet. In my opinion these two factors demonstrate that Tyson brought the sport into disrepute in just about the most abhorrent way possible. He disgraced himself and the sport in an unforgiveable fashion. Clearly I'm in a minority of one who will find it slightly unsavoury seeing this man's career lauded and honoured.

The Hopkins scenario is entirley different. Hopkins found redemption through boxing. His story honours the sport by demonstrating its reformative powers. Through boxing Hopkins has lived a life of discipline and achievement. His career encapsulates everything that is good about boxing.

As regards LaMotta, King and Liston they'll already in for good or ill. When addressing the question of Tyson's inclusion its surely not enough to cite examples of other unsavoury characters who are already in. The question is whether or not such characters should be admitted in general. I'm not saying inductees must be angels, but Tyson is a convicted rapist! What if Valero had achieved more in the ring? Would people be happy with his inclusion?

As regards Margarito, Jones and Mosley, anybody who cheats in the fashion these men have forfeits any right to fight again never mind entering the HOF.

Ezzard wrote:
As for the drug cheats… I think drug abuse is rife in all sports. Getting caught is the crime. In Jones’ case his lawyers always had a silver bullet for the tests right up until Tarver. At least Moseley admitted it.

Horse wrote:

gobbles wrote:Yes.
The East End was a very depressed area anyway. And Jews in the East End, were the equivalent of the Bangladeshi community there now.
The history of Jews in the East End is that the ones that made it on to better things moved to more leafy parts of London, most notably in north London.

Okay.

Matt W wrote:I don't think Tyson ranks amongst the top heavyweights in history and am annoyed that many people's mythical match-ups go along the lines of 'the Tyson that fought Spinks vs the Lewis that lost to McCall'. So many excuses are made for him yet with other fighters the complete opposite is true. Part of the mystique I guess.

However he does deserve to be in the HOF on achievement, and his biggest achievement for me was unifying the titles at only 21 after only 2 years as a pro. I didn't appreciate the significance of this as a 12 year old at the time but f*ck me that's some achievement.

jamesmcdonnell wrote:
Yes, but Hart is a journalist - so there's an onus on him to know how to pronounce the fighters names. Boxers are paid to fight, not write or speak.