And for the record, I don't have any problem with tyson being in the top ten heavy weights (not when you include all weight classes), though I don't agree with it. I do have a problem with top 5, and certainly top 3. When you consider everything, I don't see how anyone can complain with tyson being at least considered among the best when so much of his value is trapped in the 'what if' category. I actually agree with some of the points made here.
All a fighter can do is face every opponent available. Anybody that does their research can look at Tyson's record since turning pro and literally demolishing every available heavyweight, fighting twice a month sometimes and becoming the youngest heavyweight champ in history. His victories include fights with Larry Holmes, Trevor Berbick, James Tillis, Tony Tubbs, Frank Bruno, Michael Spinks, Jesse Furgeson, Mitch Green, Marvis Frazier, Jose Ribalta, Henry Tillman, Carl Williams, Bonecrusher Smith, Pinklon Thomas, Bruce Seldon, Buster Mathis, Francios Botha. Say what you want about all those opponents between 1985 and 1990 that was the best the heavyweight division could put in front of him and he destroyed all of them. The truth is this. There are three impressive names in that list. Holmes, Smith and Spinks. All were near the end of their careers when Tyson fought them (He fought Holmes and Spinks in 1988). The rest of them are historically speaking, unimpressive. (Berbick's known for beating Ali, but Berbick never successfully defended his title.) His 8-0 record following his defeat at the hands of Douglas were at best marginal fighters and at worst hand-picked to make him look good and bring his profile up to pay-per-view snuff. Look at those names - the best amongst them was Donovan Rudduck. But Peter Mathis? Valuev is undefeated and threatening Marciano's all-time record for victories without a defeat. It's an impressive record. It does not make Valuev a top-ten heavyweight all time. When Tyson faced the best, and in one case where he first faced a guy who didn't cower in fear at his approach, he wilited. He lost. There were mitigating circumstances, for sure, but the reality is that his career - when compared to even Holyfield and Lewis, pales in comparison. If your basically third in your generation, how can you possibly be in the top ten all-time? Impressive early career (based on exciting victories) is one thing - top ten all-time is entirely another. In 1989 it looked assured. By 1992 it was clear that it wouldn't be.
Compared to the majority of heavy weights considered elite tyson is small. Why would it matter today and not historically? I actualy believe that was part of his greatness. He was consistanly smaller than the competition. Everyone he faced had a height, wieght, reach, and age advantage. To overcome such in a sport like boxing speaks volumes. The only thing Tyson had to deal with in his prime years was hack-a-Tyson. He was out right mugged, grappled, WWE'd by some fighters. They would hold on for dear life. That would frustrait a lot of boxers, kind of the same way getting bit would. The rest of them are historically speaking, unimpressive. (Berbick's known for beating Ali, but Berbick never successfully defended his title.) Please take a look at what Berbick did to an in shape Larry Holmes. Im not saying he was an all time great, but he was hardly a bum and he would probably have 1 of the belts today. Greatest of his generation? Where were Lewis and Holyfield when they were 21 years old? Tyson could have dropped 10 pounds and been Lightheavy/cruiser weight champ for years, but he didn't. Since Tyson/Lewis/Holyfield were in the same generation, don't you wonder why they never fought within the first 2 years Tyson was champ? Tyson was fighting at a ridiculous clip at that time. Sure, there were several no names, but that just shows that he was fighting anybody they were standing in front of him, unlike the other 2. I'll say it again, it's no secret what happen to Mike Tyson. It's no secret how he came apart. I'm simple saying 2 things, 1. If ( I kn
