Why do so many put Tyson in their all time top 10 HW greats?

I am not a Tyson fan by any means! I find him vastly overrated by those who call him top 5...Megatyson...or say things like I'm talking about a prime Tyson.....But in spite of them he is a legitimate Top 10 contender...I have him just outside of the top 10 in at #13, but he has to at least be considered as a possible top 10 guy. 8 is about the highest I can see him ranked outside of delusion, but he certainly warrents consideration!

+ half of them are 25 or under and have not seen any of these other guys fight!

 

First of all I could take any heavyweight champion/tittlest and find plenty of opoents who were never going to be champion/tittlest.
Secondly Tyson is top 10 based on his talent. He was fast, had some of the best power in the heavyweight divison's history. He was also an outstanding defenses boxer as well.
His pre prison record was 40-1-0 (36). During that time his only loss was to James Buster Douglas who put together a once in a lifetime performance to beat him. Before the loss Tyson defended the heavyweight tittle 9 times, unified tittle 8 times. and undisputed heavyweight championship of the world 6 times.
I have Mike Tyson at #5 in my all time Heavyweight rankings.

 

Some might argue that Tyson defeated a great fighter when he defeated Spinks. I don't consider Spinks to have established himself as a great heavyweight. Spinks was a good win.

Berbick, Smith, Tucker, and Thomas were considered to be among the 1980's best heavyweights. Tyson defeated all, a couple like they were nobodies.

Frank Bruno gave Lennox Lewis all he could handle; and managed to capture a title from Lewis' conqueror, Oliver McCall, in the 90s. Tyson stopped Bruno in a "lackluster" performance in their first encounter, and scored a 3rd round ko over him to recapture world title.

Larry Holmes looked like a better fighter while getting blasted out by Mike Tyson than the 40+ contender of the 90's.

Tyson lost 4 out of 19 rounds to the feared Donavon Ruddock.

Tyson dispatched of Andrew Golota convincingly. This fight became a no contest because Tyson enhanced his training with weed.

Alex Stewart was a decent contender that was no problem for Mike.

Botha crumpled like a sack of potatoes after a Tyson right.

Tony Tubbs gave Riddick Bowe all he could handle.

If I keep going, I will have pointed out that over 1/3 of Mike Tyson's opponents were of decent to high caliber, and most were dispatched of rather easily.

I rank Tyson at #10 all time at heavyweight, and would be embarrassed to have him any lower.

 

He deserves to be ranked top ten all time HW because there werent ten HWs in history who could have beaten him in his prime.

"Tyson dispatched of Andrew Golota convincingly. This fight became a no contest because Tyson enhanced his training with weed."

This in my opinion is such a travesty and was simply an effort to extort money out of Tyson. Pot has no performance enhancing qualities, in fact it probably has performance limiting qualities. As an example of how Tyson was singled out In may of the same year Roy Jones tested positive for steroids against Richard Hall and didnt recieve so much as a fine. In February of 2001 Emmanual Augustus tested positive for Pot and didnt recieve any sanction either. Tysons fight was in Oct of 2000. And before you say that Ohio and Indiana had no teeth for punishing those fighters keep in mind that the sternest punishment that Tyson could recieve under Michigan statutes was about 2,500 dollars yet he ended up paying 250,000 (after being assured that his win would not be taken away... extortion) and his win was taken away after the Association of Boxing Commissions stepped in. Now explain to me why Tysons case warranted special attention and Augustus and certainly Jones jr. didnt???

 

Calm down, dude. You know I was joking, right? I don't think they really called it a performance enhancing drug. I was making fun of the fact that it was marijuana, and nothing like a steroid.

 

Mike Tyson deserves to be ranked as an all-time great heavyweight. If Marciano is in the top ten all-time great heavyweights, it would be absurd for Tyson not to be. Tyson's first reign as champion was spectacular; combine that with him winning the title at age 20 and then blowing through the heavyweight division like a tornado and you have a special fighter. I wrote an article outlining my arguments for Tyson being an all-time great....

Here it is: http://www.ehow.com/how_4846178_mike-tyson-alltime-great-boxer.html

 

I think Tyson deserves a high ranking. At least top 10, possibly even top 5. Although he didn't fight any ATG during his run in the 80s (save for a washed up Larry Holmes) Tyson was seriously a force to be reckoned with.

I'd love to see Tyson go heads up against Jersey Joe Walcott, Ezzard Charles,Jack Johnson, Marciano, Dempsey, Liston, Max Baer, Max Schmeling, Willard, Carnera, etc.
I don't see Tyson losing to any of these men.

Like Joe Louis, Tyson is the only boxer blessed with both speed AND power. Add in that Jack Dempsey aggression with Floyd Patterson's head movement and you've got Mike Tyson.

 

He ranks highly H2H. Also, you could slag off some of his best wins but you could also say Marciano only had 3 good wins and they were all past-prime fighters.

Holmes was never stopped again. Simple as that. He took massive hits from the likes of Shavers and managed to get up, Tyson kept him down.

Spinks was an undefeated two-weight champ when Tyson fought him!

 

ErnieTerrell was well past it when he fought Ali?

Terrell was 27 years old the reigning WBA Heavyweight Champion had not lost a fight in 4 years, that to thunderous punching Cleveland Williams[later avenged], had beaten .
EDDIE MACHEN
GEORGE CHUVALO
DOUG JONES in his previous three fights
ZORA FOLLEY and
CLEVELAND WILLIAMS the year earlier,he was the RING NUMBER ONE CONTENDER.
Doug Jones was a former LH contender ,just as Ali was a former LH as an amateur.Jones beat the **** out of Bob Foster.

 

For the dominance and impressiveness of his first title reign alone Tyson warrants a place in the bottom half of the top ten in my view. 9 or so defences and an impressive record against top contenders is why. I find myself switching him about between 6th and 9th or so: at the moment he's 9th as Johnson has risen a few places of late in my estimation. I think in a head to head sense, though he'd perhaps be a tad higher and would beat a few who are ahead on my list.

 

I was wrong. thanks for coirrecting me. terrel though was not a atg in waitingl. he was a good fighter at best

 

I think Tyson could be in the lower bottom at top ten at best. But he is not a lock for top ten. I think 8-14 or 15 is a good place for him about.

 

MIKE TYSON

1. Youngest heavyweight champ in history

2. First to unify the world title

3. 9 successful title defenses

4. Became a two time champ after extended layoff

5. was undefeated in his first 37 fights

6. Scored fastest KO of another all time great

7. Was a smaller fighter in an era of large heavyweights, and dominated regardless.

Personally that's enough for me to squeak him into the top 10, based on legacy alone. Head to head, he may even be higher. As for competition, I think Berbick, Thomas, Tucker, Spinks, Tubbs, Ruddock, and Bruno were very reasonable opposition and probably on par with a lot of what Lennox Lewis fought during the 90's, and certainly beats the **** out of anything Klitschko is fighting today....