Your correct about generational views on particular subjects. RE: Tyson i would say he was a great fighter and his career is one of what could have been or should have been. Best boxers i saw would be Lewis, Tyson, Calzaghe, Mayweather and Pacquiao. The heavyweight division is just pants now, you just know whoever Klitschko fights will get beat not because they are great, just that they are boring and can grind a fight down.
Look at Valuev, just think Ali, Foreman, Frazier and Holmes had that title once. Who would you rather watch?
Chuff whats your opinion on Hagler? i think he was the best ever pound for pound fighter, i know Sugar Ray beat him but given a fair opportunity would have beat him in regards to ring size and glove weight.
On the subkect of Tyson mate, greatness included many criteria including longevity, application, focus, level of opponents, heart and character shown in adversity. Tyson was sadly short in quite a few of those. I would just, and only just place Tyson in the top 10 heavies of all time for a real lack of the above. Fearsome he might have been...for about 2 years when he knocked over nobodies, albeit convincinly. He lacked in the ticker department badly which is a pre-requisite of being an all time great.
Lennox Lewis had all the tools to be the greatest ever but was lacking that iron in his soul, the real proper mongrel in him that sorts the men out from the others. Had Lewis had a Frazier, Dempsey, Louis or Ali's heart, then yeah, he cudda been. But he wasn't.
Holyfierld wouldve beaten Tyson at any point during their respective careers, it was a man against a boy. Had Cus D'Amato lived another 5 years and the Rooney/Atlas training team stayed with him, thenh Tyson couldv've been, he had the talent, but no application or decision making. For most of his career Tyson was a 6 round fighter who had no idea what to do when it really got into the trenches.
I'll say this...I could have beaten Tony Tubbs, Tyrell Biggs and Pinklon Thomas. In his pomp, the best fighter Tyson fought was Tony Tucker and he was gun shy.
As for Hagler, he was immense, top 10 of all time, no question, an animal at the weight. Not the most naturally gifted bit togher than anybody. He was a beast, not far off the greatest Middleweight of all time.
The fight with Leonard has been something of a debate over time, well every year since 86 when they fought. My view is this.....Leonard won the fight. It was close, but Leonard won it. I've seen that fight maybe 150 times and then only reason Ray won it is because Marvin let him. Hagler messed around for the first 4 rounds trying to play Ray's game and he gifted it. There is no way that Ray SHOULD have won that fight, but he did and it was all Marvins fault. He has nobody to blame but himself.
Hagler was the better natural middle, but Ray was probably the better and ore natrurally gifted fighter.
Both Marvin and Ray are top 10 of all time.
NEVER INTO THE TECHNICAL SIDE OF BOXING BUT I SAW EARLY NEWSREEL OF MARCIANO AND AT THE TIME HE LOOKED FEARSOME!! YOU'RE RIGHT WHEN YOU SAY ITS A GENERATIONAL THING AND THAT EACH ERA HAS ITS OWN HEROES. (JUST LIKE MY OWN ALL TIME LOVELIEST FILMSTAR IS SOPHIA LOREN, MODERN"LOVELIEST" WOMEN CANT HOLD A CANDLE) SO TO EACH HIS OWN IN EVERYTHING BUT PERSONAL CHOICE WILL ALWAYS RULE. 
