Is Mike Tyson rated fairly?

Tyson is actually missed more in retirement than he was when he was boxing. Back in the post prison days, everyone couldn't wait long enough to see him gone

 

did you not read? witherspoon didnt make it into final contention.

 

Up to his incarceration Tyson had a brilliant career, even including the Douglas loss. He lost a fight but was working his way back, this happens. Its a myth he was done after Douglas I believe, I think it effected Tyson mentally less than people think.
He was straight back on it after that loss, and had decent scraps with Ruddock that contain evidence the detractors dont like to look at, he fought back after getting pounded on, he didnt fold under fire. If you doubt that you need to re watch the fights. The excuses come think and fast, Ruddock was never that good etc but the fact remains something was proved mentally about Tyson, regardless of Ruddocks standing. He was arguably hurt bad but didn't show a glimpse of quitting, he fired back. This is where Tyson's biggest criticism is, "he folds when hit back", but there is plenty of evidence to prove otherwise.
where things really become difficult in defending Tyson is his post prison career. Personally I'm in the camp that just doesnt see him as the same fighter, mentally especially. Put it this way, I'd bet against Tyson a lot more in all time match ups than I would his pre prison self.
I terms of rank I thing a fair position would be somewhere in the latter half of the top ten, nothing higher imo

 

You're place in history is decided by how you respond when the s*&t hits the fan...do you take the money & run?
...or do you somehow comeback...and pull the fight out? IMO...

 

No way! How could anyone dismiss such great wins over the likes of the mighty Brian London, the literally shot Williams, and the far spent Zora? No way! What else could there be to dissect, except for illegal smelling salts against Cooper, the suspicious Liston fights, and questionable decisions over Jones, Young, Frazier, and Norton? No way, Ray!

 

They were not when they fought. The legit champs on that list were way past their prime. The others were just belt holders. Just look at his fights against Holyfield and Lewis. Holyfield was an overachiever. Lewis just flat out destroyed him. If you are 3rd in the division of your era, how can you be considered an ATG of all HW?

 

Belt holders? What about klitschkos,Holmes etc.? These fighters weren't undisputed champions like Tyson.
Tyson beat 5 reigning champions i think these were in their prime.Tyson destroyed the unbeaten Spinks
he was in 100% prime .Tyson -in his prime 1986-1990(to the Douglas loss)- was the best in his division.
Tyson's Lewis fight was in 2002 obviously Tyson was way past his prime.
(Othewise a 3rd fighter in his era can be ATG when the 1.and 2. fighter ATG also.)
Who was better and more successful heavyweight fighter than Tyson in the 80's ?

 

Maybe you could ask Ali, Frazier and Foreman?

And would you be able to define who's era was what, in relation to Tyson, Holyfield and Lewis?