People always point to these great fights (and yes, they were great and I love watching them) when trying to dismiss Tyson. I don't get it. These fights proved that there were others with ability so comparable to their opponents that neither could really dominate the other. What if someone is so dominate that nobody can give them a battle? Does that mean that Frazier was better than them because him and Ali were so closly matched that they slugged it out going back and fourth for 15 rounds a few times? What if Tyson would've instead fought in their era. And let's just say for the sake of argument here that he looked the same way against all of the aboved mentioned fighters that he did against Briggs, Holmes, and Spinks. Then you know what people would say? They would say that he didn't have any competition and to look back at the great fights Joe Louis, Marcianao, and Dempsy all fought in their times.
What I'm saying is that it's possible to be so dominate that it makes it look like you have no competition. Why does a fighter's ability have to be low enough that someone else can come close to it and give them "a war" in order for them to be deserving of respect amoungst the all timers? Is it not possible to be so good that nobody can give you a great fight, regardless of how good they are when it comes to all other fighters?
The only way to prove me theory of course would be to have Fraizer, Ali, Norton, Foreman, Dempsy, Marciano, Louis, Tyson, Lewis all in their primes at the same time and let them all fight to prove who was the best, and if any of them were in fact just benifiting from destroying weak competition. And unfortunately, that'll never be possible.