Is Mike Tyson rated fairly?

I have been thinking a lot about Mike Tyson over the past few weeks.

With the benefit of reflection afforded by all the years passed since the man retired, is it now possible to rate him more fairly?

I find the most common argument against his 'legacy', the one of him having a poor CV, to be quite weak upon reflection.
He is definitely in the majority club when it comes to heavyweight champions. Outside of Muhammad Ali, there isn't anyone who can't have their list of scalps criticised and discredited.

He defeated all the men of his era cleanly, in a time where most of the bouts were messy affairs with wins split between the rankings.

His top tier wins are obviously Spinks and Holmes, in my view, with the Holmes win having retroactive value based on how he was able to continue to compete amongst the fighters who were relevant at the time.

With Spinks, it appears to be a strange performance and outcome to what was hyped at the time as a near even fight.
But I argue that other blowouts between regarded fighters don't have the same levels of scepticism levelled at them (Frazier v Foreman, Liston v Patterson, Louis v Schmeling 2) as this one does. Instead of giving Mike the credit, the general narrative seems to be one of downplaying the achievement.

His next tier of wins include the likes of Bruno, Tubbs, Tucker, Smith, Thomas and Berbick. With the context of how fights between that lot went at the time Tyson was mowing through them (as I said, messy, usually close contests), they are a significant amount more impressive than they appear on first glance.

I suggest this, as it shows how clearly above the competition Tyson showed himself to be. These were, for the most part, competently skilled fighters who would have been contenders in any other era.

As a collection of wins, do they really compare that unfavourably to the likes of Joe Louis or Larry Holmes, or basically any heavyweight other than Ali?

I argue that Mike achieved a comparable quality of record as Joe Louis, in a much more condensed time scale.

Longevity and consistency are definitely important factors when ranking the prestige of a champion, but I don't see many other examples of long reigning, active champions, outside of Louis, Ali and Holmes.

I think Mike Tyson, for his short, flawed career, deserves more credit for the decisive way in which he cleared out all contenders and became a definitive champion.

Ali
Louis
Lewis
Holmes
TYSON
Marciano
Klitschko
Frazier
Holyfield
Foreman

 

I don't think a bad loss totally negates all good work done prior (or after).

 

It's a pretty fair argument to say that Buster Douglas was just an average contender in my opinion.

I don't think a champion losing to an average contender who puts in a great performance should totally destoy the champions reputation though.

 

All other contenders obviously. He beat his peers and he lost to his peers. Just like other contenders.

Contender doesn't equate to "bum".
Contender is a ranked heavyweight. He isn't above average like I'd say Norton Is, or some people say Quarry is. He was about average.

 

You'll have to expand mate, I don't follow your inference.