Mike Tyson: Top 10 Heavyweight?

Yes they were.

 

And Tyson's best wins were?

 

tony tucker, pinklon thomas, trevor berbick, old but still good larry holmes, tony tubbs razor ruddock to name a few. all better than willard or firpo.

 

It's a pretty hard question to answer. I had to think about if for quite awhile. I think he falls into the range of 8-12 so there's room for argument on both sides as to whether or not h alie's top 10.

Louis, Ali, Lewis, Holmes, are locks on the top eshleons of the division, as is Marciano, if Johnson, Foreman and Frazier are also up there. So that's 8 spots taken. Now you have Liston, Dempsey, Patterson, Tyson, Holyfield, fighting for the other 2 spots. And even if you change Frazier and Dempsey around in the ratings it doesn't change the story. Hard not to put Holyfield ahead of Tyson considering the outcome of their fights. So now you have one spot left. 2 at the most if you think either Frazier or Dempsey are ranked too high.

 

if any poll is going to have that effect on you it's definitely this one.













:verysad

 

This man is better than Tyson:

This content is protected

 

Tyson is still the GOAT talent in boxing history

Top 5 heavyweight EASILY

Top 3 H2H

 

No,big fan but didn't last

 

I've noticed a lot of people lately have Mike at 10 and Volo coming up to him. Even if the closest-to-a-new-top-ten-spot heavyweight on my list (Volo) managed to break into the top ten(still has a way to go, should he get to knock on the door), he wouldn't be displacing Tyson outside my top ten list. He'd be displacing Johnson. :yep Tyson's top ten spot is looking secure for the foreseeable future, for my rankings.

 

Big fan of Tyson but i'd lean towards no off the top of my head; though he'd make it into my top 15 methinks.

With some thought I could probably put together an argument to put him in the top 10, but no higher than .... 7?

 

Ali and Louis for sure...but everyone else is arguable, imo. I have no issue with someone who ranks Marciano, Lewis & Holyfield ahead either.

But the rest?

Johnson...had to beat Tommy Burns for the title - a super middleweight by today's standards. Avoided dangerous black challengers like the plague once he had the title.

Holmes - great longevity, but some of the names on his list of title defences are a joke. Never unified the titles.

Dempsey - Very Tysonesque in many ways, but taken the distance by a light-heavyeight and sat on his title for years without defending it. Never faced a black heavyweight.

Tunney - Didn't do nearly enough at heavyweight to be seriously considered top 10, aside from beating an ageing Dempsey twice.

Frazier - Love Joe, but got bounced around by Foreman like a ping-pong ball twice. His record is eerily absent of big-punching heavies, besides Foreman. Coincidence?

Sorry, to me I don't see how it's obvious at all that these men deserve to be ranked ahead of Tyson.

 

Then you're forgetting the esteem Spinks was held in before Tyson crushed him. He was the ONLY guy given a 50/50 chance of beating Tyson, and Ring magazine still listed him as the true heavyweight champ.
Yeah, hindsight is great and all, but we must remember the situation and circumstances at the time before Tyson reduced Spinks to a footnote.

It's bizarre, but Tyson's destruction of Spinks has actually detracted from his legacy, instead of enhancing it, which is nuts.
Had he struggled with Spinks and won a split decision, I think the victory (and hence, Spinks) would have been held in far higher regard. Funny how struggling with an opponent sometimes enhances a legacy (For example, Marciano v Charles) and an utter destruction of an unbeaten two-time world champ is taken lightly and somehow detracts from Tyson's legacy.