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..