I wonder how many boxers have ever been as well-known as Tyson. Ali, Louis, maybe Sugar Ray Robinson. He may not have achieved what he seemed capable of, but for those few years when the whole world was watching as he destroyed all-comers, he's HoF.
Your analysis was/is far too simplistic. His run from 85 to 90 was the most dominant run of any heavyweight of any era. His closest fights were Tillis, and Tucker. Both dominant decisions where he lost 4 rounds to Tillis in a 10 round fight and around 3 or 4 to Tucker in a 12 round Undisputed heavyweight title fight. He was hurt 3 times, Uppercut from Tucker in first round, right hand in the last round against James Smith and a Left hook in his fight against Bruno. He was involved in 28 fights in the span of 20 months from March 85 to Nov 86 including a title victory over Berbick for the WBC title. Its still the fastest successful trajectory towards a significant heavyweight title ever. Through those years he defended the heavyweight title 9 times. Implementing video analysis of his performances, he literally walked trhough a dozen good elite level fighters with ease, not Liston, Forman, Ali, Louis or L.Lewis was that dominant. His downfalls are the fact that compared to other greats bar Foreman and Liston he lacks longevity, and the quality of opponents he faced arent as good as Ali (who beat everyone significant of his era) and Lewis who beat everyone he ever faced, bar the guys that didnt want to know. Tyson 3rd best of his generation 1986 to 2003 which includes fighters like Lewis, Foreman, Ruddock, Tucker, Morrison, Holyfield, Moorer, Tua, Ibeauchi etc. Not bad. Many rank Holmes as one of the best ever, and yet Tyson walked trough the fighters that Holmes often struggled with Williams, Berbick and Smith should be watched. He was never invincible as no fighter ever has, and yes he was marketed to a point of being overrated in the sense no one could touch him. From 1990 to 2005, you have several versions of Tyson that was not the same due mainly to the man himself, his losses to Douglas and Holyfield are still significant but i call this version Tyson 2.0, after his fight with Golota, it was version 3.0 just watch his performances against Nielson, Lewis, Ettiene, WIlliams and McBride....he was physically gone. At least 2.0 was still a physical freak just without the top skill level of Cus D'Amto/ Rooney times.
Its up to Hart if he votes him in or not.I dont think he needed to come out and say how he is going to vote though.I cant see it making much difference and Mike will rightly be voted in.
Hart is a tit-end, it prove he hasn't got a justifiable argument for not putting Tyson in the HOF when he brings up his problems outside the ring, when they have **** all to do with HOF criteria really. Like someone said earlier in the thread, he just likes standing out and being different.
Absolute farce. Tyson is modern day boxing so to speak. He was the youngest heavyweight champions ever and possibly the most exiting. Plus he wasn't just known in the boxing world, he was a global icon and outside of Ali is probably the most recognizable name in boxing history. In addition prime Tyson would have gave every heavyweight in history a good fight. When he was on the verge of capturing that world title and the year after he was hungry, explosive, quick, had good feet movement, through devastating combo's and was generally a freak of nature who the majority were scared to even stand in the same ring as him. This imo just cements his place further. A hall of fame without Tyson isn't a true Hall of Fame in my opinion.