Is Mike Tyson rated fairly?

Yes he was, he was one of a bunch who never stood out.

 

Okay, so let's say by ranked contenders, you mean the top ten. By definition this would mean that Douglas is ranked around five, if he's average. If it's a pool of 100 contenders this would have to place him around 50.

 

That's entirely contingent upon how you define the bunch.

 

No, it's really not easy to see what you mean. It's best to just move along to the question of how Douglas was ranked from, oh, 1987-90. The three year bracket is arbitrary, but this question has clear enough truth conditions and the answer should speak for itself.

 

What would you say is the ratio of fighters who never reach a title shot to those who do?

 

If you couldn't see fear in Bruno in the rematch, your either terrible at reading people, or the biggest most biased Bruno fan of all time. Petrified is a better word !

 

It shouldn't, and it doesn't.
It's a matter of who you're ranking him against though. When you're measuring a champion against the very best champions of all-time, it's likely to weigh quite critically against him.

 

So did Lennox. H2H best ever in most peoples eyes. Taking a loss don't mean ****

 

Putting Tyson 5 isn't totally outrageous. You could build your criteria around that position. I wouldn't have him that high personally.

We have the same exact top 4 and 9 of your 10 would be in mine.

 

If taking a loss don't mean ****, what would be the point in winning ?