Page 1 of 2
Does Mike Tyson belong in the Hall of Fame???
Posted: 22 Feb 2003, 01:32
by zurdo
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?
Posted: 22 Feb 2003, 01:39
by Tomato-Can
Well he deserves it more than Ingemar.
Posted: 22 Feb 2003, 01:50
by Tomato-Can
Seriously, based solely on what he has accomplished in the ring and if the HOF had some guidlines, he would just barely get in or barely fall short. There certainly more deserving fighters not in yet.
Posted: 22 Feb 2003, 01:50
by zurdo
He certainly does deserve it more than Ingemar...IMO
However, one could make the case for Ingemar by saying that he deseves to be in because he was the greatest fighter that his country ever produced...
The same cannot be said of Mike Tyson..
does Tyson.deresrve it on His own merits???
Posted: 22 Feb 2003, 01:55
by zurdo
Because the HOF guidlines are so subjective It will be another case of style triumphing over substance.... Mike Tyson gets in fairly quickly...
Posted: 22 Feb 2003, 02:01
by Tomato-Can
If entrance was done strictly by accomplishment, Tyson would have to wait for many lighter weight fighters to get in first. And even then he barely makes it.
Posted: 22 Feb 2003, 02:10
by zurdo
I'd say Mike Tyson deseves to be in the HOF just as much as Donald Curry,,,Another fighter who had a spectacular start to his career and then ..unraveled
Posted: 22 Feb 2003, 02:30
by Jaclem
Damn...I wrote one of my windy replies on this,and through a screw up the forum lost it. Phooey. Not much to add now to what others have posted. I'd say put him in. After all it's not a list of "Those Who Have Made a Great Contribution To Society." As someone wrote in another thread, it looks as if just winning a title, especially heavyweight, is an automatic door opener, and sadly that seems to be true .If that's all it takes, then they might as well just put them all in and be done with it. Instead of his gloves, Primo Carnera's jock strap would be his contribution.
Posted: 22 Feb 2003, 03:50
by zurdo
You know Da Preem actually has abetter record in Heavyweight championship fights than Mike Tyson
Primo has 3-1 record
while Mike Tyson has a 3-2 record
And Primo probably has the edge in quality of opposition...
Posted: 23 Feb 2003, 20:38
by matador
of course tyson belongs in the hall of fame. he is the youngest heavyweight champion ever and he beat some pretty good fighters like michael spinks and mitch green. if it weren't for da'mato's death, tyson would've been the best heavyweight ever under his guidance.
Posted: 23 Feb 2003, 21:02
by Tomato-Can
Mitch Green was a pretty good fighter? Michael Spinks was a great lightheavyweight but as a heavyweight.....
Posted: 24 Feb 2003, 01:51
by Jaclem
I haven't checked his age when he beat Spinks, but that's when I consider Tyson having won the heavyweight title, and to hell with the alphabet boys. Spinks beat Holmes, and was champion until he lost. So....maybe Tyson wasn't the youngest. Small point though. While I am not as dazzled by Tyson as his ardent admirers, I do think he belongs in the hall of fame. His record is better than a lot of others who are in there. Again, we get back to the criteria...what are the factors that are involved in HOF voting. Still can't find a pattern. If the qualifications had to be as high as those of Louis,Ali,Robinson and Armstrong, for example, there wouldn't be many members. If Ingo and Lew Jenkins and Zivic (Fritzie Zivic!!!!) are in, then there is still hope for the Strikland boys. okay, that's an exaggeration.....let's say Bruce Seldon instead.
Posted: 24 Feb 2003, 02:05
by Tomato-Can
Maybe Fritzie Zivic's ticket was for the Hall of Shame and the bus dropped him of at the wrong Hall.
Posted: 24 Feb 2003, 03:13
by zurdo
Do you think he should be one of those guys who is automatiacally inducted five years after he retires...
which of his contemporaries should go in first
I'd say chavez,Nelson and whitaker definately and several others get in before Mike Tyson
Posted: 24 Feb 2003, 03:25
by Tomato-Can
Ricardo Lopez and Felix Trinidad.
Posted: 05 Mar 2003, 13:50
by Tomato-Can
undisputedly_pat wrote:He's done about as much as Lennox ever has to deserve getting into the Hall of Fame. Lennox's reigns were cut short by McCall and Rahman just as Tyson's were by Douglas and Holyfield. Mitch Green and Micheal Spinks are cretainly no worse than Frans Botha, who Lewis fought after refusing Ruiz and saying he was too easy. Say what you want about Larry Holmes, he held the title for 7 consecutive years, he would never show up so badly prepared so as to let a Rahman type fighter knock him out. Unlike Lewis, Holmes has actually gotten up from a knock down and went on to beat the other fighter.
I agree with what you say about Holmes but I think Frans Botha is a far more accomplished pro than Mitch Green.
Posted: 05 Mar 2003, 15:18
by dusablon
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.
Posted: 06 Mar 2003, 11:34
by dusablon
You're right, if criminal records were a factor, a lot of the "greats" wouldn't make it in the hall of fame. However, if accomplishments are what we're looking at, I think that the way an athlete behaves IN the ring also counts. Tyson's out... in my hall of fame anyway!
Posted: 06 Mar 2003, 12:26
by Tomato-Can
It's funny, Pete Rose cant get in his HOF because of gambling. O.J.Simpson cut his ex-wifes head off and he is in
Posted: 07 Mar 2003, 02:34
by Jaclem
If the five years after retirement rule stays in effect, larry Holmes may never make it because he may never retire.As far as I know he hasn't made one of his "This was my last one" statements in a while. He's definitely an HOF shoo in...but the 14 year old Muzza may be the only one of us who will be around for the announcement.
Tyson....well, Nat Fleischer used to have "must be a good example to the growing American Boy" as one of his requirements to be named Ring's Fighter of the Year, which seems quaint , sweet and hopelessly naive. I understand where Dusablon as a woman is coming from, but I have to agree that it's what he did in the ring that counts, and if Fritzie Zivic could stick his thumb in an opponents eyes in about a hundred fights, one ear chewing, while it should have banned him for life, shouldn't keep him out of the Hall.
Back to the Dusablon comment...I don't mean to give the impression that I take the rape charge(s) any less seriously because I am a man.
Tomato...do not get me started on Pete Rose!!!! Followed him from his rookie year, was first non-sports radio talk host to interview him, thought he along with Jackie Robinson was the most exciting ball player...now...see what you've done....made me forget this is a BOXING forum!!!!!
Posted: 08 Mar 2003, 03:16
by zurdo
tomato can wrote:It's funny, Pete Rose cant get in his HOF because of gambling. O.J.Simpson cut his ex-wifes head off and he is in
See but the reason they came down so hard on Pete Rose was because gambling by a manager comprimises the integrity of the games themselves....Pete was in a postion where he could decide the outcome of a game through his decisions......
OJ was actually aquitted of the crime of murdering his ex wife ...and weather you agree with that decision or not...The crime itself did not effect the outcome of any football games.....
Besides OJ was already in the HOF when he allegedly whacked his old lady...
Posted: 08 Mar 2003, 03:19
by zurdo
zurdo wrote:tomato can wrote:It's funny, Pete Rose cant get in his HOF because of gambling. O.J.Simpson cut his ex-wifes head off and he is in
The reason they came down so hard on Pete Rose was because he was the Manager of a Big League baseball team gambling by a manager comprimises the integrity of the games themselves....Pete was in a postion where he could decide the outcome of a game through his decisions......
OJ was actually aquitted of the crime of murdering his ex wife ...and weather you agree with that decision or not...The crime itself did not effect the outcome of any football games.....
Besides OJ was already in the HOF when he whacked his old lady
Posted: 08 Mar 2003, 21:41
by zurdo
One could also make a case that Mike Tyson's disgraceful actions in the second Holyfield fight should keep him out of the hall of fame
Posted: 29 May 2004, 23:20
by Iron Mike
What a joke, the most notorious athlete in history, the youngest ever heavyweight champ, an undisputed champ(by way of unfication), and perhaps the most entertaining fighter ever doesn't deserve to be in the hof? He beat possibly the greatest light heavy in 1 round and took 4 to cast aside another great)albeit slightly past it) you morons need to shut the fornicate up, this bias and hate is getting annoying. I guess Evander doesn't deserve a spot because he loses every 3rd bout. if tyson doesn't go in they lose all credibility
Posted: 30 May 2004, 00:27
by gensu3k1
zurdo wrote:Do you think he should be one of those guys who is automatiacally inducted five years after he retires...
which of his contemporaries should go in first
I'd say chavez,Nelson and whitaker definately and several others get in before Mike Tyson
Jung-Koo Chang and Ricardo Lopez as well.