Hall of Fame criteria should be based on accomplishments and head-to-head ranking (ie boxing ability). Accomplishments. TWICE heavyweight champion of the world UNDISPUTED heavyweight champion of the world. 5 time belt winner Youngest heavyweight champion of the world. 9 times he defended the belt (Smith-Williams) successfully. 10 successful defences in total (against Seldon makes 10). Fought for the championship in THREE seperate decades, for a total of 16 times. ESPN is trash TV. They put an actor into the Hall of Fame without a murmur but argue about Tyson's accomplishments? Classic American dumbed down TV for you right there.
where did you get the idea for the H2H ranking this is pure speculation. You can never be sure who is better H2H. The only objective criteria are the accomplishments and most importantly the wins against other HOF and ATG
Well that itself is a flawed methodology as Tyson never faced any ATG fighters in his (or their prime) concurrently. Tyson could only fight who was in front on him and beat them. His prime coincided with a dip in the HW division. Not his fault.
If HONETSTLY you don't think Tyson should be in the HOF, you need to either go do your boxing homework, stop trolling, or both. I know Mike was generally a jagaloon outside of the ring, but that doesn't take away his dominance inside of it when he was in his prime.
Look, Tyson is a Hall Of Famer no doubt but let's be realistic his two best wins are either an old Holmes or a Light Heavyweight in Spinks. That just is the way it is. Mike could only fight who was around at the time.
...You think Ali was "shot" when Norton beat him? Tell that to a prime Foreman who got out-boxed and knocked out by Ali a year after Norton beat him.
What got me "shaking my head" was the comment of Tyson only get in because of the "Tyson mystic" which is utter garbage. Tyson's short prime alone is better than 80% of the fighters who are in the Hall of Fame. Also, they (ESPN first take) list Tyson early career victories as bums. My comment to that is what good/great fighter in history didn't fight guys who were inferior to them at the beginning of there careers. This is a prime example on "you know very little about boxing".
Without reading the article, if this is what they're saying, they'd be correct. Which great fighters did Mike beat? Of course he deserves his HOF induction, but the guy never had a win over a prime great. Holmes would have been one, but he wasn't prime. And Spinks was a great 175lber but only a good heavyweight.