Colin Hart won't be voting Tyson into the HOF

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!!

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

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;D

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;D

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

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..

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

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

---

Exactly. Do the hall of fame do a police check on the voters? No because they want a boxing journalists view. They dont care if Colin Hart got in to a scuffle in a pub 40 years ago and dropped the nut on someone.

Tyson deserves to be in the Hall for his accomplishments inside the ring. And that's what it should be. Youngest HW champ, cleaned out a division in the 80s with ease, helped revive boxing to a mainstream sport in America in the 80s because he was so sensational.

It's funny how some people make a moral stand on one person but isn't consistent to any other person who may have broken that "moral" code remain off their lips.

It's bad enough to say Tyson doesn't deserve to be in the Hall of Fame.

But its worse to act on a moral crusade yet target only one person, there is no moral principle that he won't vote Tyson in, he just doesn't like him, and is trying to hide it behind some sore of moral say so.

I always remember Naseem Hamed singling out Colin Hart at a press conference ((i think it was for the mccullough fight))

he stopped and just looked at Hart and said "you are a FOOL"

never seen naz so serious before or after that.

needless to say when Naz lost Hart did a full page article in the sun about the loss berating his whole career :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Nothing but SHIT!!! I could see if Mike was a child molester...The rape thing even the DA had problems swallowing the truth on it hence the limited amount of time Mike served....

TRyson is one of the sports most known figures, youngest HW champion of all time, one of its most talented fighters ever and he may be boxings second most known figure world wide in the history of the game...to keep him out of the hall is crazy considering some of the already mentioned names that managed to make it....With or without his vote Tyson makes it in

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by amat

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

---

Whoa! Whoa! Slow down amat. No need to start airing out dirty laundry... ;D

Harts not too popular here then ;D

I hate Collin Hart, more than Naz does. I hate him even more now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

I hate Collin Hart, more than Naz does. I hate him even more now.

---

I actually don't mind Hart normally! I don't agree with him on this particular issue, but all in all I do like him. He doesn't always go with the British fighter just because they are British and he predicts fights as he see's them. I don't mind Bunce but for me he always bums the British fighter up even when it's obvious they are going to lose. He even gave Jennings a shot agaimst Cotto ffs!

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

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.

---

Fair enough he got that wrong, and he did have a soft spot for leonard BUT all in all I don't mind him!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rjj tszyu

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

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.

---

Fair enough he got that wrong, and he did have a soft spot for leonard BUT all in all I don't mind him!

---

Head up Leonard's ass more like.

change the crime to murder or kiddy fiddling, would you still be saying let him in?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

change the crime to murder or kiddy fiddling, would you still be saying let him in?

---

If he was better than Barry McGuigan then yes.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

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

---

http://www.4deserts.com/UserFiles/I_Pity_Fools.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by generalbulldog

So according to some people Pacquiao is without a doubt guilty because he refused to take a drug test.

---

Yes.

Its the same as refusing a breath test if stopped by the police. Refusing to give a sample in athletics or missing an arranged test is also punishable.

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

Tyson's convictions are unrelated to boxing. Jake Lamotta took a dive if remember right??? Everyone gets a second chance to change hearts and minds.

Yes being a rapist is fucking awful but it has jack to do with boxing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ross

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

---

So basically you're saying Pacquiao should be banned from boxing for not doing the Olympic testing?

There is 1 major flaw in your argument with using the police breathalyzer analogy and Pacquiao refusing to submit to Olympic Style drug test. He was not ordered by any organization or state athletic commissions (unless you count Mayweather Promotions as one) whereas when the cops orders someone to submit to a breathalyzer or blood test to test the alcohol levels because of reasonable suspicion, that person is in no position to refuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Howlin Mad Missy

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.

---

Bit strong init? We all like women, have you seen the popularity of the nets finest as thread?