That's an oversimplification of his resume though, and in truth there are very few heavy weights in history who GENUINELY beat multiple elite fighters, or at least one's who were prime..
No. Too many holes in his resumé, and not enough longevity. He was very dominant for a short period only, and the numbers of years he actually spent at world level was pretty low.
Take Holyfield for instance, who is routinely rated below Tyson. He has wins over elites: Tyson, Tyson, Foreman, Bowe, Douglas(, Holmes, Moorer - borderline)
Great Post by Maghoo. I agree with him. He usually hovers around the 6-7 spot for me. One other thing to add into this discussion: In a era where one unifcation match was nearly impossible to make, tyson unified all THREE major world titles in a span of only one year! That is unbelievable. Today, we are lucky if we get one unification every 5 years.
Don King and HBO decided the titles were going to be unified in late '85/early'86 and set about a series of build-up fights and unification schedule, before Tyson was even included. Tyson's rise and the unification were therefore coincidences, and Don King/HBO profitted greatly from Tyson, and Tyson benefitted from the unification plans.
It was Kings plan to keep promoting Tyson by setting up the unification series. Every fighter in the Acefield tournament was a King promoted, managed fighter. Tyson was already signed to HBO, Kings fighters were not. This was a way to keep King and his fighters in the mix because he couldnt beat Tyson.
If you don't have him in your top 10 then you're an ******* with an agenda. That agenda being trying to be cool and look knowledgable by rating a bunch of obscure shithouses above mainstream, great fighters, in my opinion.