I am not even certain there is a set of firm criteria for boxers or “non-participants.” If there are, I have never seen them. But the boxer category aside, I have an issue with the following category: .
Observer(Print and media journalists, publishers, writers, historians, photographers and artists
Now then, each of the above was great and/or notable in his own field of endeavor, but each field of endeavor probably has its own Hall of Fame or other way to preserve a legacy. Heck, even my High School has one. Let that be their reward--not to mention the compensation they made off of boxing.
These are people who made their living off the blood and sweat of the boxers, trainers, managers, referees and others who had a DIRECT impact on what happens in the ring and on the OUTCOME of what happens in the ring. When boxers like, for example, Davey Moore, Pone Kingpetch, Masamori Tokuyama , and Tony DeMarco, are ignored, while non-participants and observers get close attention, I for one will continue to view this process (and category) with skepticism. Maybe I'm being too petty, but I do think the validity of inluding this category at least warrants some discussion
What really got to me and triggered this post were the recent comments of Colin Hart, the veteran and respected scribe in Britain; who said he would not vote for Mike Tyson. How arrogant is that? Good God. Jimmy Jacobs and Cus D'Amato are in, but he says "no" to Mike Tysotn. Hart, who acknowledges Iron” Mike’s fistic talents is apparently of the opinion that Tyson’s indiscretions rule him out as far as a Hall of Famer.
How do you feel about thess observations? About the "Observer" Category? About the lack of known criteria? About Colin Hart's feelings about Tyson?