With Mike Tyson headlining the 2011 Boxing Hall of Fame class that was inducted this past weekend, it sparked some fairly chippy public skirmishes between boxing writers over whether Tyson should be in Canastota. On one side are those who argue Tyson was a major force in the heavyweight division, one of the most famous boxers and sporting figures of all time, etc., etc., and on the other side are those who argue Tyson lost every major fight of his career.
There's a certain kind of entertainment to be had in such skirmishes, of course; who doesn't enjoy a war of words between top-notch wordsmiths? But in reality, there's virtually no value in these particular battles over the Hall beyond those empty calories. The truth is, there are no standards for who deserves induction, and without them, any boxer can be voted in for any reason whatsoever. It's all up to the Thomas Hausers and Dan Rafaels and Rusty Rubins and Lint Baldwins of the world to just go, "Yeah." And from there, you can debate all you want whether "yeah" was the correct answer, but without any rules of engagement, it's almost entirely a meaningless free-for-all.
That's not to say that debates about fighters' legacies can't be legitimate. That Tyson is now in the Hall of Fame is as good a time as any to debate his legacy. I'll come down on the "pro-" side below, vis-a-vis Tyson, but also examine how boxing differs from other sports on Halls of Fame when it comes to its standards.
No comments:
Post a Comment