I remember Hart was radio commentating on the SRL v Hearns II fight and he had Leonard winning it even with the 2 knock downs and the crowd booing he still did not get it.
I remember Hart was radio commentating on the SRL v Hearns II fight and he had Leonard winning it even with the 2 knock downs and the crowd booing he still did not get it.
Do not let success go to your head and do not let failure get to your heart.
change the crime to murder or kiddy fiddling, would you still be saying let him in?
Hidden Content
Original & Best: The Sugar Man
you're all slating Colin Hart for going with what he believes is right...Pac is guilty based on no evidence...yet a good portion of you are more than happy to disagree with the court/jurors who found Tyson guilty of rape.
Fools
Colin Hart is being asked "Do Mike Tysons boxing acheivments make him deserving of a place in the hall of fame?"
Hes not being asked "Is Mike Tyson a model citizen?"
As for Pacquiao. Hes the one that has refused to take random tests. No other boxer has refused to take random tests.
That makes him as guilty as someone whos driving eraticly and stopped by police and then they refuse a breath test. They havent been proved to have any alcohol in the system but they will still get in shiit!!
they're both the same - based on opinion.
Like I asked if Tyson was a CONVICTED murderer or kiddy fiddler would you all be saying Hart is wrong?
Latent misogyny.
I dont know, it hasnt happened so no one can comment but Mike is a convicted (dubious evidence) rapist but that has no bearing on his fighting acheivments. Regardless of whether he was wrongly convicted for something, he was still youngest ever heavyweight champ.
On the other hand you have Manny Pacquiao who has brought a cloud over all his boxing acheivments by refusing to give blood and clear his reputation. Manny doesnt want to prove to the world that he isnt taking performance enhancing drugs or rather he cant.
Extremely good point. So according to some people Pacquiao is without a doubt guilty because he refused to take a drug test, while Mike Tyson is "innocent" after having been tried and convicted.
Now if Tyson was convicted on let's say molesting and sexually assaulting Teddy Atlas niece, then I would say he doesn't get in. There's just something about child molestation that riles people up.
Jimmy Jacobs is in and so is Cus, but keep Tyson out. Unbelievable.
Was Tyson Famous yes, was he a great heavyweight yes, and should he be in hall of fame yes. I don't think life out side the ring matters when being inducted into the boxing hall of fame. This coming from me who's favorite moment in boxing is when Tyson got his ass kicked by Evander Holyfeild.
Heres an example of olympians being banned for 2 years for just refusing a test.
British Olympic shot-putting hopefuls banned for refusing drug test | Sport | guardian.co.uk
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks