I agree, but can't think of many former heavyweight champ s so highly thought of years after their prime. Ali against Holmes spring to mind with a good fair few Givin him a shot even tho he was washed up.
Holyfield also kept getting title shots when years past his prime and he wasn't doing much to earn them.
He was, seemed to age better though and a little more consistent. And his last title shot, Valuev was it?, he was robbed. But he did seem to get a free pass at times to get a shot, no doubt s.
It was one the strongest heavyweight divisions ever, but it’s a shame how few of them squared off while both fighters were still on top of their game. Wlad was also around by that point.
If you have no case, then I do not see the point of the thread.To me, it is hard to see why Tyson should not have been ranked in the Top 10.
Did he though? I'm not talking pre Holyfield or even a couple of years after that. But from 98 onward s that's the amazing thing, that he was even then being seen as the biggest threat to the top of the division.
I'm just trying to get a few pov s as to what made him rated so long, long after he'd being the sharp dangerous guy he used to be. It's not a knock on him, just people's view how he managed it. As I've pointed out, I can't think of many fighters that had that effect.
Michael Grant got the third spot for beating Golota, Izon, Savarese and a few top 30s. Tyson laid out Botha and outclassed Golota and Savarese. He was top ten material.
I can’t think of many guys who had an impressive resume like Tyson.He also only lost to two guy.Still beat some decent guys after the Holyfield fights. I do not see a case for him not bein Top 10
Iron Mike was a freakily sensational fighter in the 80s. To me even that alone makes him top 15. Overall, I have him as number 10 ATG.
He wasn't ranked in 1997 and 1998 for obvious reasons and he came back in the rankings again on back of the KO of Botha. Then he strung together a couple of wins and actually looked good against Golota, which gave him the status of a top fighter again. Fighters have gotten highly ranked for worse.
I don't see much evidence for Michael Grant ever being a top 10 heavyweight ability-wise. At the time he fought Lewis there were more than 10 guys seemingly better than him at least based on my assessment.
If he comes out of retirement and KOs Kevin McBride tomorrow, i am pretty sure his aura would get him into the top 10 today!
He was holding at around #9 in Ring's rankings for several months following Lewis and Etienne. He slipped out a few months before the Danny Williams fight. In my opinion they always had him about right, relative to the rest of the division (which is what ratings should be by their very nature). As far as the so-called "governing bodies" go, we know their rankings are produced via different criteria.
