How is Mike Tyson not considered top 5 Heavyweight of all time?

[New England]

Ehh, it's all subjective any way, we all have different criteria on p4p. I see it as different times, different eras.

But the impact he had on the sport can't be denied; just look at the current state of affairs in regards to the Heavyweight division right now, it's lackluster and not that many people really gives a rats ass about it.

The lower weights classes dominates now, today's Heavyweight division is irrelevant.

this definitely isn't the case any more. HW make a lot more money than fighters in any other weight class at the moment. that has historically been the case. casuals drive ticket sales, and HW fights are great TV and even better in the arena.

[chrisJS]

Teddy Atlas recently did an interview with Joe Rogan where he said, basically, Tyson was never a great fighter. The only 5 times he came up against real resistance he folded. He didn't have the spirit of a champion, simple as that. He had crazy natural talent and the intimidation factor but he wasn't a fighter he was just a winner, until he wasn't. He's not even a top 10 heavyweight of all time. He was amazing to watch and has become a big part of the culture but there are much more deserving people who ought to be on that list.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wCZY_vW860

Atlas went overboard. Tyson won fights that he got tested somewhat in. Tucker, Ruddock and even Bruno. I do agree with the sentiment that he's not a great fighter though. He was very, very good but fell quite a bit short of greatness IMO.

I think I'd rate him somewhere outside the top 10 but within the top 15 in Heavyweight history.

[Prince Madison]

resume not good enough and once he started losing he was suddenly 'past prime'

[VG_Addict]

he'd murder wladimir. his chin is garbage for an elite historic HW.

but i don't think he'd beat a lot of the great HW who had a good chin and the right style. riddick bowe, muhammad ali, george foreman, holmes in his prime, i'd pick them all to beat tyson. tyson was very limited. say what you want, being under 6' and giving up as much as a foot of reach is a huge deal. if he couldn't get you early on he would be fighting at a big disadvantage later in the fight when he was no longer the same puncher.

I'd pick Vitali to beat Tyson. He had an iron chin, was tall, rangy and had an awkward style.

[Sable&Whitefish]

Atlas went overboard. Tyson won fights that he got tested somewhat in. Tucker, Ruddock and even Bruno. I do agree with the sentiment that he's not a great fighter though. He was very, very good but fell quite a bit short of greatness IMO.

I think I'd rate him somewhere outside the top 10 but within the top 15 in Heavyweight history.

100% on board with you, well said

[apollocreed]

I think he's the best Heavyweight ever but the guy has a lot of haters and then you have the elitist fan mentality"hur durr Mike Tyson the best? You must be casual hur durr" bs. So it is what it is.

Prime Mike Tyson beats any Heavyweight from any era except for the Super Heavyweights - Lennox Lewis, Vlad and Vitali Klitschko.

You don't give any justificaton for that claim though - just 'well that's what I think and that's it'.
Whereas me and other posters have laid out clear and factual reasoning why he isn't top 5.

[apollocreed]

Ehh, it's all subjective any way, we all have different criteria on p4p. I see it as different times, different eras.

But the impact he had on the sport can't be denied; just look at the current state of affairs in regards to the Heavyweight division right now, it's lackluster and not that many people really gives a rats ass about it.

The lower weights classes dominates now, today's Heavyweight division is irrelevant.

You can't credit just Tyson with the impact his era had on the division either - the likes of Holyfield and Bowe made a big contribution to. The 90's was a way better era than the 00's and today for heavyweights, and Tyson, although he played his part, was never really number one at any point in the 90's, except from maybe when he was rated the top dog by many between prison and the first Holyfield loss.

[TheBigLug]

i always thought Tyson is the casual fans idea of the best and a great highlight reel knockout fighter.

The truth is that he lost against any great fighter he fought, if they weren't old and shot. His best win might be spinks, who was a blown up Light-Heavyweight.

Modern fighters get crucified here on a daily basis for having lost their biggest fights, beating blown up fighters and mostly only having wins against C level opponents.

Tyson would be considered a hype job and exposed if he was around in the days of internet forums.

[hugh grant]

I don't think I Tyson would be seen as a h ypejob in day of internet because for 4 years he stood alone and was beating g all comers. Everyone was built up as the one to beat Tyson and they failed one after the other.
HOlytfield wasn't quite ready and was building himself to one day be the one. Lennox wasn't ready a lso.
Tyson had a lack of qualified challengers. So was considered a bit of a phenomenon at the time just like rjj.
But hindsight makes everyone sound like experts

[CodeBreaker]

Do you think he’s better than George Foreman, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, Joe Louis, Jack Johnson, Rocky Marciano, Lennox Lewis? He lost to Holyfield and Lennox Lewis. Does he have a win over any elite prime Heavyweight? Besides Larry Holmes who did beat? Michael Spinks?

I said prime Mike would beat those. Do you honestly think Mike was in his prime against Lewis and Holyfield?