Colin Hart won't be voting Tyson into the HOF

[rjj tszyu]

Esteemed British Boxing Writer Colin Hart Says He Won’t Be Voting Mike Tyson Into The Hall Of Fame


By James Slater: Though it’s possible some American fight fans haven’t heard of Colin Hart, the veteran scribe is a big name in Britain; and a well respected fight expert. One of the esteemed writers asked to cast a vote regarding this year’s Hall of Fame entries, Hart has written in The Sun how he will NOT be voting for a fighter practically everyone sees as a lock to be voted in now that he has been retired for the five necessary years: former heavyweight king Mike Tyson.

Hart, who acknowledges “Iron” Mike’s fistic talents - to the point where he feels Tyson’s reign of terror looks even more impressive in comparison to today’s heavyweights, who don’t do much for him - is of the opinion that Tyson’s indiscretions rule him out as far as a Hall of Famer.

“We always had a good relationship and Tyson gave me some memorable interviews, so I have nothing personal against him,” Hart wrote in The Sun. “But having wrestled with my conscience for several days, he won’t get my vote. Now, The Hall isn’t inhabited by angels. Abe Attell was believed to have thrown a few fights. Jake La Motta admitted to taking a dive and Rocky Graziano had a criminal record.

“Yet they all pale into insignificance compared to Tyson’s outrageous behaviour.”

Hart then took the time to list certain outrageous acts Tyson committed; the ones that bothered/bother him the most.

“For starters, he’s a convicted rapist,” Hart wrote. “And I can never forget that hideous moment when he chewed off the top of Evander Holyfield’s right ear and spat it out on the canvas. Despite Tyson’s formidable talents as a fighter, I strongly believe that incident alone guarantees he has no right to be placed on a pedestal as a hero to young or old.”

Strong words indeed, but who can really disagree with them? Sure, Tyson is still going to get voted in - he has too many writers on his side; fans who choose to ignore what Hart’s conscience cannot. I for one commend Hart and his decision. The Hall of Fame should indeed be for heroes, and Tyson, despite his ring achievements (and let’s not forget, Tyson beat only two greats in his whole career - an ageing and inactive one in Larry Holmes, and a light-heavyweight great in Michael Spinks), is no hero.

I’ll bet Tyson himself would agree he is nobody’s hero. But of course, he will accept his place alongside fistic greats who are heroes: guys like Muhammad Ali, Sugar Ray Robinson and George Foreman. Does Tyson really deserve to be included in such exalted company?


He makes some decent points but for me you have to look beyond his behaviour and at what he achieved and his raw talent!!

[ross]

Colin Hart seems to think hes some sort of social commentator here

The bloke is a sports writer, nothing more. All hes being asked to do is judge whether this particular boxer has acheived enough in his boxing career to earn a place among fellow great boxers.

Didnt Barry MgGuigan get in

Hart has no right to make a judgement on what goes on outside the ring. Ok the ear biting but he better take that in to consideration when hes asked to vote for Holyfield because Evander has also bitten an opponent (amature)

If you are asked what Mike Tyson did to deserve induction to the hall of fame. He is the youngest ever heavyweight champ. He unified all three belts in 9 months with a defence in between!!He made 7 defences of the unified title and none of that will ever be repeated again!

He knocked Holmes stupid

[Mark TKO]

i read this last week and couldn't believe it

far too many people have got into the hall in recent years who shouldn't if you ask me eg Barry Mcguigan (great fighter yes, but HOF ?)

Although he did say was basing his non-vote on the rape conviction and the holyfield bite - even so to omit a figue such as Tyson is a crime.

faux pas by Mr Hart me thinks here

[Dizaster]

On the contrary, I think 20, 30, 40, 50 years down the track, great boxers are remembered and appreciated number 1 for their boxing... I don't think anyone will look at the HOF and be disappointed that certain people who made it in there had issues in their personal lives...

Millions of people all over the world have personal issues, but how many become, behind Ali, the most famous and well known boxer of all time?

We have the same debate over here with our Australian Football League and it's HOF... And certain greats who were almost supernatural while on the field (even to the point one was earnestly nicknames "God"), feel into problems with drugs and booze or gambling, violence etc after their careers ended, and should the be put into a HOF? What example does that set?

Obviously there has to be a line somewhere.. A multiple rapist murderer shouldn't be in any HOF.... But when you think of these people, and the main thing that comes to mind for just about everyone, is how sensational they were as competitors, and how much the brought to the sport...

I know that is what I think of when I think of Tyson... I don't know about others...

Obviously he'll get in there at some stage, as was the case over here with our AFL, the controversy of whether they should be in the HOF happens one year, the next it happens less, then eventually they just put them in there, and give them credit for the 10 to 20 + years they were an icon of the sport... YOu have to reward that..

[El Kabong]

This is a BOXING hall of fame not the GOOD BEHAVIOR AND ROLE MODEL hall of fame, it shouldn't matter unless he cheated on the game like Panama Lewis.

[amat]

Isn't Carlos Monzon in the hall? Colin Hart can make his moral stand elsewhere.