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

[Seano]

Mike is scary and dangerous but he fought bums his down fall.

He actually fought the best around, there just wasn't that much around at his peak.

 

[UltimateFighterFan]

He actually fought the best around, there just wasn't that much around at his peak.

He mostly fought journeyman and when he did fight heavyweights he lost.

 

[sepp2323]

How is Mike Tyson not considered top 5 Heavyweight of all time, when in his prime, that version of Mike Tyson in 1986-89 would have beaten any of the past and present heavyweights in the world.

Prime Mike had everything, hand speed, head movement, foot work, and could knock you out with either hand.
Discuss.

He is an all time great but no way is he top 5. Top 5 Heavy's were winners that could win against the odds because they were mentally tough. Tyson was not and that was apparent once he made some money and cut ties from Rooney

 

[sepp2323]

when he was early 20's there was Foreman, Bowe, Lewis, Mercer, etc.

 

[sepp2323]

Ali, Foreman, Louis, Lewis, Liston, an likely more beat any version of Tyson

Holmes, Quarry, Shavers, Lyle, Cooney., Bowe I think they all could have beat Prime Tyson

 

[Mob69]

Prime George Foreman would’ve folded Mike Tyson

Massacre. Tyson would have been crushed.

 

[Mob69]

Peak Tyson is the best heavyweight of the last 35 years.

He folded when people stood up to him. And he lacked the skills necessary to overcome the skills of other elite fighters.

 

[djacobox372]

Because you can’t base it just off talent. It’s based off achievements.

Tyson is definitely top 5 in terms of talent. However he fought in a weak HW era and the few great fighters he did fight beat him.

Holmes and Spinks were great fighters and tyson knocked them both out (only man to do so).

People discount those wins because they were at the end of their career, but don't consider that if Tyson had won his fights against Lewis and Holyfield, they would have been considered more washed up than Holmes and Spinks were.

Holmes was 37, Spinks was 32.. both were "arguably" undefeated. Lewis and Holyfield were older and had multiple losses.

 

[Koondrecht]

Massacre. Tyson would have been crushed.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">No one beats Tyson in his &quot;brief&quot; prime. <a href="https://t.co/cLUuzPAsFB">https://t.co/cLUuzPAsFB</a></p>&mdash; George Foreman (@GeorgeForeman) <a href="">July 28, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Heelhook71]

Holmes and Spinks were great fighters and tyson knocked them both out (only man to do so).

People discount those wins because they were at the end of their career, but don't consider that if Tyson had won his fights against Lewis and Holyfield, they would have been considered more washed up than Holmes and Spinks were.

Holmes was 37, Spinks was 32.. both were "arguably" undefeated. Lewis and Holyfield were older and had multiple losses.

That’s a fair point.

 

[MuayThai101]

In terms of talent and skill...young tyson can beat any HW.

But being an all time great is not about what could have been. Its about resume. He lost every real challenge that came his way.

 

[Boxer]

Its true.

Tbf Tyson was a prodigy but his career went to the pan to early.

Look at the career of a Calzage, Hopkins, Roy Jones, etc or at HW Marciano, Louis, Lennox Lewis, Vlad etc

Tyson is one of the most dangerous HW's of all time, prime vs prime not many would beat him but as others have said, his career was more a blip then a fleshed out record and defending champion.