Why do people think Tyson is a top ten Heavyweights?

For me, where and whether people rate the old-timers really does play into it. Men such as Jeffries, Johnson, Jackson, Sullivan even. If someone favours them highly a lot of the more modern fighters have spots that could be under threat.

 

So Bowe was a faded bum at 29. I suppose that is quite good considering Tyson became one at 24. Meanwhile Vitali retires emeritus champion at 41. :deal

 

While not even the best heavyweight in his own household.

 

one of the reasons people overrate him, is that his projected path, winning and unifying devastatingly and fresh out of his teens, would have carried him into to top three atgs if he'd had the longevity and mindset to keep it, but he chose to leave the path.

those who experienced his rise tend to remember the trajectory rather than the end result.

 

Just like the accomplishments of the legendary Trevor Berbick, Pinklon Thomas and Tony Tucker??

 

True.
This revisionist view constructs the "Tyson era" out of a 3 year period, but a lot of the allure at the time was that the Tyson era was supposedly just starting up. Tyson was expected to hit his stride and peak at about 25, not be "washed up" at 23.

Even so, his accomplishments do stand up pretty well.

 

Bowe beat Holyfield...

 

:goodGreat post! Tyson had ATG talent, but I believe he was on top too early and didn't have the maturity to handle it. The distractions and drama were too numerous and plentiful- Robin Givens and Don King for example- so one would have to wonder how his career would have panned out say Eddie Futch were in charge. When Douglas knocked him out in Tokyo, I, for one, was astonished. Astonished! Top 10 heavy of all time? Maybe, maybe not.

 

I seldom agree with you, but you have an excellent point. Tyson's fans never got off his tremendous start in boxing and often had excuses for him.

Tyson's best 5 wins are likely

Thomas
Ruddock
Bruno
Tucker
Smith

This is decent, but not as great as many others in the top ten.

However he wasn't competitive at all vs the best he fought in Holyfield, Lewis, and Douglas AND he folded when things did not go his way in other fights vs. lesser opposition.

So this theory that Tyson whacks out the best was never proven in his time, and he never finished his more formidable opponents early either. In fact Ruddock, Tucker and Smith went the distance with Tyson. Thomas had drug issues, so it clouds how good he was for the Tyson fight. By 1987, Smith had seen better days. Check how he did in 1987 post Tyson and you'll see. Tyson beat Bruno in his prime but was exposed a bit as Bruno who lacked confidence badly rocked him.

All of his best wins were pre-1992. Most of them in the mid 1980's, and Tyson was only on top from 1986-1989. That's a very short prime for a guy top 10 of all time.

Had Tyson been more competitive in his legacy fights, I'd rate him a bit higher.

Was Tyson a good boxer? Not really, he needed to win mostly on power. He barely edged Tillis. 6-4 is a good score. When faced vs skilled Men who were not intimidated, Tyson's short stature and boxing skills were exposed.

A Tyson fan might say, look what he did at a young age. Yes, that was amazing. It also helps to have Cus D'Amto as what amounts to be your father teaching you as a teenager.

 

You can also throw on Berbick and Spinks, and I'll take that list over Wladimir Klitscko's, Jack Dempseys, Jim Jeffreys, or Sonny Liston's.

 

We are talking Tyson here. Do you disagree with any of my points made?

Jeffries, Liston, Dempsey et all didn't get upset as the champion like Tyson did, or badly lose their legacy fight in their prime. Well, maybe Liston did if you think the Ali fights were on the level.

I'm not saying Tyson's wins were awful. I'm saying his losses vs the best he fought tells me who he is. There's a difference. I also think he conveniently avoided a lot of puncher's or boxers with durability in the 1990's.

Wlad's consistency level towers over Tyson. Tyson even said he wasn't sure if he could beat him.

 

Liston did lose, he lost to a guy called Marty Marshall who broke his jaw for him.

Dempsey lost to a guy called Fireman Flynn.

Wladmir lost to Purrity who had 12 losses going in to the fight.

Lennox Lewis had been pro for exactly the same number of years when he was knocked out by Mcall. Be careful wat you say about Douglas because that same Douglas beat Mcall years before he knocked out Lewis.

So when you criticise Tyson for losing to Douglas, you should take a look at who the other ATGs lost their 0 to.

Marshall, Flynn, Mcall, Byrd, Purrity were no different to Douglas.

Holmes lost his 0 to a guy Tyson demolished in 91 seconds.

Secondly, how was Tyson/Douglas a legacy defining fight?

There's a reason why it was in Japan, and that's because nobody wanted to see it.