Is Mike Tyson rated fairly?

"You could build your criteria around that position" .... !!!??

I like that.
I think you let the cat out of the bag there, JT.

 

Wlad probably sits just outside. Foreman is a no brainer for the 10 imo. Frazier would slip into my lower spots, 7-10 i reckon.

 

Not at all. Just because you don't like Lewis at all (and can't accept my placement of him) doesn't mean i picked a spot for him and built my ten around him

I'm saying one could make some sort of argument for Tyson at 5. I don't think it would be overly strong but it depends on ones personal criteria and feelings i guess.

If someone was looking for pure dominance over his rivals and accepting a shorter but furious prime they would rank him highly.

 

Mike is one of the most polarizing great fighters. There's the cadre that claim the real Iron Mike was unbeatable, hence the ones who beat him couldn't logically have beaten the real Iron Mike. And then there are some that see him as no more than a somewhat better Gerry Cooney, if that.

I have him lower top 10, I think, but an argument could be made for lower top 5.

 

Because in '89 Bruno actually came to fight.

And how does knocking someone out quicker than you did 6 years ago affect where you are in your career?

 

his CV is blinding, its just he decided to "retire" early by hanging his head out the window on his life.

twas beauty... dat killed the beast.

 

But Lewis went on to dominate the division on both occasions, it was downhill for Tyson apart from beating Bruno who was like a rabbit in the headlights.

 

true but you cant just put longevity aside for anyone. If you put longevity aside for say, wlad, he'd have nothing to offer. All must be judged accordingly equally.

 

99% of atg's lost fights, its the bigger picture, their whole careers. Of course winning is priority but a loss doesn't mean its over. It doesn't stop Lewis, Ali and all the rest being rated.

 

True, he did.

 

Yeah, I understand what you mean. Just kidding around about the way you worded it.
(I could have Max Schmeling at #1 and then build a criteria around that, for example.)

I met and talked with Lennox Lewis twice in the 1990s and found him to be a likeable person, very approachable for a celebrity, by the way. In case you got the wrong end of the stick, or maybe I've misinterpreted "don't like him at all" (?)
I have no problem with your rating of Lennox Lewis either. I thought you've explained your rating exhaustively. FOR ME, he's definitely NOT top 5. And I've done my best to explain why in relevant discussions. It's just my opinion. Just my criteria.
I know you're just kidding around here bringing up Lewis again though !

All ratings are good. Tyson at number 5 sure. Tyson at number 1 even. But, yes, it will take a certain type of criteria and maybe criteria that might sound "crazy" to me.

 

No, but we consider the losses when it comes to rating them against each other.
If Tyson hadn't lost to Douglas, he'd be rated higher than now.
If he'd lost to Tucker as well as Douglas he'd be rated lower than now.

Losses do mean something.

 

yeah agreed, off the cuff comment by me