Hall 0f fame/shame

[greens]

MIKE TYSON deserves to be in the Boxing Hall of Fame, cause he deserved it.
as for Stallone      hmm he didn't even fight one professional n amateir fight HAHAHHAHA!! only in America. 

[Shuffler]

I disagree about tyson. He was a winner that became a loser on so many levels. Hall Of Fame is a Hall of individuals that respect others and therefor are respected themselves.

[uptown]

If Pete Rose can't get in the Hall of Fame then neither should Iron Mike. Although he was the youngest boxer to ever win the heavy weight title, he was convicted of rape and he bit a fellow competitors ear off. Tyson blew it.

And on a related note, Ali shouldn't be in there either as he skipped out on the draft. Let Canada honor him in their Hall of Famous war deserters.

[greens]

He "was" the greatest ever. noone will ever come close to his accomplishments. <pre-death of his trainer>. He put fear in grown men eyes like they were back in kindergarten hiding from the class bully. I remember watching him box when i was a youngen with my pops. man those were the days. i remember he knocked a guy out in a few seconds HAHAHHA. yes he deserves the Hall of Fame as for stallone  not even close to a Legit Boxing Hall Of Fame nominee.


ps does chmura or roethelbuger ring a bell why werent they convicted  only in AMERICA.



Oh if rocky deserved it then i want wesley snipes n woody harrelson need to be in the NBA hall of fame.

[Melvin]

A. Tyson deserves in. As a boxer he was an absolute wrecking machine.
B. Stallone deserves in. The Rocky franchise did a TON of good for the sport of boxing.
C. Pete Rose deserves in. Charlie Hustle was a bad motorfinger. I hate the Reds, but love Pete.

<S> Melvin

[greens]

Ya pete was a great player n deserves to be in Baseball hall of fame. dont see why gambling is bad when its legal in las vegas. sports gambling big there.
i dislike the yankees tho
Goooo Bosox

[Simaril]

Gotta disagree about Pete. Regardless of how good a player he was, he knew what he was getting into.

Shoeless Joe Jackson was every bit the player Pete was, and even though he played his heart out in the world series (blowing off the gamblers he took bribes from), he was permabanned for taking the money regardless.

After that, the rule was clear - can't bet on baseball or you get banned.
Pete bet on baseball.
End of story.

[Simaril]

Ya pete was a great player n deserves to be in Baseball hall of fame. dont see why gambling is bad when its legal in las vegas. sports gambling big there.
i dislike the yankees tho
Goooo Bosox

The point is that if the PLAYERS bet, they have a reason to change the way they play - and that calls the integrity of the game into question.

Anybody bet on Big Time Wrestling? No, because everyone knows the whole thing's rigged for entertainment value -- and that means no one takes it seriously. It will NEVER be as big as pro sports, because it's not "real".

How popular do you think baseball and football would be if people thought it was fixed?

[Melvin]

I'm afraid that we'll have to agree to disagree on this one Simaril.

Pete didn't take money to throw a game. BIG difference.

It's widely believed that he never bet against his own club.

[Simaril]

I hear what you're saying, and I don't believe he cheated in any way.

However, the rule - and the precedent - was absolutely clear. Doesn't really matter if it was fair, that's what the rule was.

As noted above, Joe Jackson was banned for life after taking money from a gambler. The fact that Joe went on to be blisteringly hot during the series, showing that there was no way he was doing what the gamblers wanted, did not save him. Baseball decided that the integrity of the game cannot be called into question by association with gambling. Period. Jackson is not in the Hall even now, despite continuing campaigns based on the fact that he obviously was outright cheating the gamblers - took their money, then thumbed his nose at them.

Even if it was unfair that Rose be banned for betting FOR his team, the fact is that he bet. He knew the rule, and he knew he was headed for the Hall if he kept his nose clean. He took a risk, and got caught.

If you do the crime, you better know you may do the time.

[VonMessa]

I disagree about tyson. He was a loser that became a winner that became a loser on so many levels. Hall Of Fame is a Hall of individuals that respect others and therefor are respected themselves.

Fixed 

[VonMessa]

Don't get me started about Charlie Hustle.  He was revered more than God, himself around here when I was a kid.

[Masherbrum]

I hear what you're saying, and I don't believe he cheated in any way.

However, the rule - and the precedent - was absolutely clear. Doesn't really matter if it was fair, that's what the rule was.

As noted above, Joe Jackson was banned for life after taking money from a gambler. The fact that Joe went on to be blisteringly hot during the series, showing that there was no way he was doing what the gamblers wanted, did not save him. Baseball decided that the integrity of the game cannot be called into question by association with gambling. Period. Jackson is not in the Hall even now, despite continuing campaigns based on the fact that he obviously was outright cheating the gamblers - took their money, then thumbed his nose at them.

Even if it was unfair that Rose be banned for betting FOR his team, the fact is that he bet. He knew the rule, and he knew he was headed for the Hall if he kept his nose clean. He took a risk, and got caught.

If you do the crime, you better know you may do the time.

Rogers Hornsby would blow $100,000 at the Horse Races (gambling and this happened many times in his career) Mountain Landis only "warned him".   Mountain Landis did not like Jackson, big difference.    But Rogers is in the Hall.

[Simaril]

Rogers Hornsby would blow $100,000 at the Horse Races (gambling and this happened many times in his career) Mountain Landis only "warned him".   Mountain Landis did not like Jackson, big difference.    But Rogers is in the Hall.

Point taken.

There is a bit of a difference between betting on horses, and betting on the sport you're participating in. And at least in the Rose case, it seems to me that the issue comes down to the reality that (unfair or not) the rule was clearly understood - and Rose had the hubris to ignored the rule.

[VonMessa]

Point taken.

There is a bit of a difference between betting on horses, and betting on the sport you're participating in. And at least in the Rose case, it seems to me that the issue comes down to the reality that (unfair or not) the rule was clearly understood - and Rose had the hubris to ignored the rule.

I'm OK if they keep Rose out.

As long as all the recent "broken records" are nullified amid the rash of "I used performance enhancement brand X confessions"