Is Mike Tyson rated fairly?

Interesting debate, guys. My top ten heavy list changes all the time. And I'm not sure that Tyson is rated unfairly... Just erratically... Depending on what you like. What could he have been? Top 5? Maybe. Top 10? Almost definitely. What was he? Personally I have him at number 9.

 

The only guy he missed was Witherspoon. But, Tim blew it when he lost to Bonecrusher, and Mike then easily beat Bonecrusher.

 

So were Lewis and Wlad Klitchko, only to arguably worse contenders than Buster.

 

Team Tyson and Don King never wanted to fight Witherpsoon.

Tyson these days is fairly rated. Prior to the first Holyfield fight, Tyson was over rated. But in the end he lost his three legacy fights badly and was upset by Douglas.

However he did enough fine work from 1985-1989 to rate in the top 15 I think, but not in the top 10.

 

But they went on to dominate the division, sadly Tyson didn't.....

 

I think people who rate him top 3 are over rating him and top 5 slightly so.

I rate him 6-8 on a tier with Holyfield and Frazier, and think that is fair.

Anywhere between 6-10 seems about fair and that is where I see most rate him. So by a majority consensus I think he is largely rated fairly and correctly.

On the flip side 11-13 is slightly underrating him and outside the top 15 is clearly underrated and biased.

.....didn’t we just do this thread a month or so ago????

 

This thread is done basically every other day.....

 

Despite his status as the youngest HW champion of all time, a record that will likely never be broken, Tyson was very psychologically fragile. I view him as “Frankenstein inboxing gloves.” Cus knew Tyson better than Tyson knew himself. He knew intimidation was very important to Tyson’s fight game. For that reason, had he lived, he would’ve never let Tyson fight Holyfield or Lewis at any point in his career.

I’ve followed boxing long enough to accept that losing comes with the territory. I also know that Father Time is undefeated. Based on these truisms, I do not hold Tyson’s losses against him. However, I think his legacy is tarnished by the fact that he NEVER snatched victory from the jaws of defeat or beat an opponent in a rematch. He either gave out or took one way beatings. Another thing that works against him is that his fights generally had clear betting odds.

 

Why did Lewis beat Ruddock more quickly than the bum Phil Jackson ? (Considering Ruddock
beat Jackson).Because Ruddock was shot.Everybody can create conceptual question.
Tyson beat Tucker easily. (Tucker won only 2 rounds) I don't understand the Lennox fans'
problem with this fight considering Lewis couldn't beat easier a shot,fat Tucker (in 1993) than
Tyson.

 

Well there are those who claim that Tucker fought Tyson with a broken and, but in my experience they're pretty sketchy on what good reason they have to believe this.

 

There are those who claim Tyson fought Douglas a day after weighing in at 500lb and after having a 48 hour sex marathon with a Lady Boy. Of course these are proven facts.......