Is Tyson's Top 10 HW Ranking Justifiable?

1. Youngest heavyweight champion of all time
2. One of the few to have unified all available titles
3. One of the few to have cleaned out an entire division of its best talent
4. Holds one of the fastest KO's of another all time great
5. Undefeated in first 37 fights with some 9 title defenses
6. Regained a fragment of the title after years of inactivity.
7. Was somewhat of a small heavyweight who dominated a division of super heavys.
8. Has somewhere around the 3rd largest number of first round KO's bested only by a select few, who's first round KO's came against more or less tomato cans, rather than rated contenders.

......Works for me.....

 

Also one of the most exciting and talked-about heavyweights of all time. Not that those qualities make one great necessarily, but it sure as hell doesn't hurt.

 

I used to think Mike should not be rated in the top ten but presently do believe he warrants a spot there.

 

Tyson was the youngest heavyweight champion ever, and had the best blend of speed and power ever seen in a fighter. He came out a winner in twelve title bouts. Tyson had the ability to rank higher on this list, but lacked the discipline. He never bested another elite fighter (Larry Holmes was 37), but Trevor Berbick, James Smith, Pinklon Thomas, Tony Tucker, Larry Holmes, Tony Tubbs, and Frank Bruno were all world titlists at some point in their careers. The knock on Tyson is that he never really overcame adversity in his fights, but when you were as skilled as he was you don't come across adverse situations all that often.

I have him at #10 on my list.

 

The way people talk about muhammed ali now is the way people will talk about mike tyson in 20 years. Obviousley not the same characteristics.but no two people are the same. But people of ali's time will be gone before tyson's so its just the natural order of things.tyson is without a doubt an a.t.g. Top 10 heaveyweight,you only have to say his name to some people and the hairs on the back of thier necks stand up. Nuff said

 

Whilst I would have Tyson at #10 in my list, I think the above comment is absolutely incredible.

I will not be talking about Tyson in 20 years in the way I would talk about Ali 20, 10 or 5 years ago, tomorrow or 20 years from now. Streets apart, worlds apart in fact.

Tyson was very good, but lets not try to get carried away. He couldn't even begin to touch Ali's legacy to the sport, his talent, charisma or achievements.

 

He gave so many people a bad taste in their mouth with his behaviour it overshadowed how great he was and how much greater he could have become. Tyson should be in the top ten for sure. Had he not gone to prison, with the available competition he could have fought, he could have gone down as the best ever.

 

I haven't made a top ten heavyweight list in a long time. Well, not taking into account their actual ability anyway, because that's just too hard to gauge when you've got men today weighing in at 240lbs+ quite regularly.

If we exclude that, and you were looking at historical impact and accomplishments combined, I'd say Tyson definitely deserves to be in there for the fact he obliterated his contemporaries like few (very few) before or since, set a benchmark in his own name and will forever be remembered for his astounding athletism.

In most of my lists I exclude historical significance and rate with about 70% emphasis on accomplishments and the rest on pure fighting ability, but because of the difficult weight subject regarding heavyweights, and for the division being the most prestigious and representative of the sport, for this list I'll throw in historical significance as 50% of it:

1. Muhammad Ali
2. Joe Louis
3. Rocky Marciano
4. Jack Dempsey
5. Larry Holmes
6. Mike Tyson
7. Jack Johnson
8. Joe Frazier
9. Lennox Lewis
10. George Foreman

 

For those who voted no:

How can you justify rating Jack Dempsey above Mike Tyson?

This never made sense to me at all.