in tyson's prime i would rank him number 1, but thats only for the excitement he brought to the sport. as a boxer he'd scrape into the top 20. with his speed, amazing power, and the ability to intimidate opponents, i think he had the chance to be able to beat any heavyweight of any era. however he just couldn't sustain all of that, thats why he only just gets into the top 20.
Your underating his opposition but thats a long discussion I dont care to revisit. The has been Holmes went on to be quite competitive in the division, never losing that one sided again. We will never know how Tyson would have rubbed up against a fellow great, just as we wont know how Lennox Lewis would, because neither faced a great at their, or their opponents respective best.
I'm underrating his opposition. Did Mike Tyson beat one great prime Heavyweight in his three decades as a professional boxer? That's all I'm saying.
No but either did Lennox Lewis or Larry Holmes. That doesnt necessarily mean he couldnt, or make his opposition subpar which it wasnt.
Tyson Top 15 HW, just outside of the top 10! Amazing talent who concievably could be ranked higher, if he had tapped all of that potential! By the way Anarci has the avatar! Salma over Winona easy! Although at my age I am still more of a Liz Hurley guy (and closet Robin Givens phan!)!
Larry Holmes went undefeated as champ from 1978 to 1985, making 16 defenses of his WBC title and 2 of his IBF. He gets rated higher than Tyson based on his consistancy at the top level, and also because he has some good wins of his own. Bonecrusher, Cooney, Norton, Shavers, Witherspoon, etc. If your resume doesn't stand out you should at least be dominant for a long period of time, and Holmes was the man for far longer than Tyson.
Holmes (old, inactive), Spinks (blown up), Berbick, and Tubbs doesn't equate to great opposition either. With the many different belts floating around at Heavyweight, less than great fighters were champions at one point or another.
Like I said, its a discussion thats been beaten to death, and we can pick apart everyones resume in a comparable way. No way you have enough information on 100 other fighters and their opponents, and the timing of the fights throughout history not to, thats why I think lists suck. Tubbs was actually a very good fighter, one of the better naturally talented fighters Tyson faced with very good technical skills. He prepared with Lou Ferrigno for the Tyson fight to keep his weight in check, and although coming in over his target weight, was in good shape for Tyson.
I don't expect to rate Tyson as high as many others do. That's the overriding point here, and you can talk up Tubbs just like I can talk up Tapia for Marco. Instead of saying Tapia was old, above his natural weight and scraped a win to get his Featherweight belt, I'd probably just say Tapia had never been outboxed like that before in his life, and was good enough at Featherweight to hold a belt be ranked in the top 5. See what I did there?
Tyson arguably beat better opposition than Holmes, and he did it MUCH more impressively. Including Holmes himself, in a way that had never been done before or since. I have Tyson in the bottom half of the the Top 10 Heavies, higher H2H.
As I said before, Holmes made up for his poor oppositioin by dominating like a great champion should. Tyson was gone before arrived.
Top 5 as far as ability and intangibles. Ferocious power, great speed, and the the thing any HW dreams about having. The intimidation factor. But his resume is certainly missing any eye popping wins, save Spinks, who was scared shitless.