Agreed. I'd have him between 12-15 myself, but never had a problem with someone saying he's top 10. A strong enough case can certainly be made.
If ppl say no cause Tyson didn't have enought atg on his res then how the hell does either klichsko make it.
Same with Holmes and Dempsey people have to look past some fighters resume and look at their skills more.
That's an incredibly weak argument. Wlad has a much better reign than Tyson has and arguably hit harder, with a better KO percentage. Not too mention Wlad's longevity. Tyson was apparently shot at 22. People have different criterias bro, so if someone doesn't take H2H into account then Tyson doesn't stack up that well against some heavyweights. Tyson's at 10 on my list, with Wlad around 13. I can't see my self ever having Wlad above Tyson, but it's certianly not out of the question to have Wlad over Tyson.
I don't think he lasted long enuf on top to be rated in the top 10. He kicked everybody's asses while he was there, but fell off before he could get his next defining test against Holy. Then when he came back, even tho he took back 2 of the belts, he got smoked by Holy when Holy was even more past it than he was. And he never really did **** after that.
Easy, after he did all that you said, he sucked to finish out his career. If he would have retired after fighting Seldon and Bruno and getting the WBA/WBC titles back. He would be in the Top 10 list. After Seldon he lost the next 2 fights to Holyfield and finished out his career with a 5-5-2 record.