Since my interview with Mike Tyson aired as SportsCenter's Sunday Conversation, the response I've gotten from sports fans has been overwhelmingly positive. The response from some hardcore boxing fans, however, has been something along the lines of "how could you tell Tyson that if he beats Lennox Lewis he will elevate his place in history to the Ali-Louis-Johnson level?"

Let me first state that I am not picking Iron Mike to win the fight. I do realize that he has the proverbial puncher's chance three times over, because, 1) he can punch; 2) he can do it with both hands; and 3) Lewis has been knocked out twice in his career by single shots from fighters who do not hit as hard as Tyson.

Assuming that Tyson pulls off the upset (a Tyson win would indeed be an upset - for the first time in his professional career he is the underdog), where exactly would he rate among the all-time heavyweight greats?

There are those who insist that even if he does win, Mike Tyson still would not rate among the greatest ever. These people either have insufficient knowledge of heavyweight history, or they have not analyzed what they do know carefully enough (or perhaps they have not done any real analysis at all). When ranking fighters from different eras we must ask two questions: 1) how dominant were they in their eras, and 2) how tough were the eras in which they competed?

There are 14 heavyweights who stand out from the rest in terms of the way they competed in their own eras. They are (in chronological order): Jim Jeffries, Jack Johnson, Jack Dempsey, Joe Louis, Ezzard Charles, Rocky Marciano, Sonny Liston, Muhammad Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Larry Holmes, Mike Tyson, Evander Holyfield and Lennox Lewis. If anyone wants to argue this list I will be happy to do so in any one of my weekly chatrooms (Tuesdays at 1:00 p.m. ET).

Muhammad Ali occupies the No. 1 spot, and there is no real intelligent case to be made for anyone else. Likewise, Joe Louis is firmly entrenched by himself behind Ali. After those two it is difficult to put the rest in order. Jack Johnson rates towards the top, and Ezzard Charles and so far Lennox Lewis rate toward the bottom. As for Tyson...

Even if he loses to Lewis, Tyson rates around Jack Dempsey level. In fact, the similarities between Tyson and Dempsey, both in terms of what they accomplished in the ring and in terms of their fighting styles, are striking. In his prime Dempsey was sheer aggression. He blew through contenders on his way to the title. He demolished Jess Willard for the heavyweight championship of the world, but then went on to make only five defenses over the next seven years.

After the first couple of years as champ, Dempsey softened as he enjoyed the good life, and by his early 30's was not nearly the fighter he had once been. And even the fighter he had once been was not invincible. Before he won the title Dempsey had been knocked out in one round by Fireman Jim Flynn and had a losing record against Fat Willie Meehan. True, most of these losses came before Dempsey's prime, but not all of them did. Meehan beat him once when it could be argued Dempsey was already at his best.

Tyson was even more dominant than Dempsey had been on his way to the title, and his level of opposition was similar -- that is to say not all that strong. Once he ascended, Tyson's opponents in title defenses were as a group as weak as Dempsey's. Tyson, however, defended his title more often and with greater ease than did the Manassa Mauler.

Larry Holmes was the heavyweight champion of my childhood, and a legitimately great fighter. He never did unify the title though, and that was because after his win against Gerry Cooney, Holmes began the second half of his title run, a period where he openly avoided the challenges of fighters like Greg Page and Pinklon Thomas in favor of safer opponents such as Marvis Frazier and Scott Frank. Tim Witherspoon was supposed to be too green, as was Carl Williams, and yet there are many who believe both deserved the decisions against The Easton Assassin. Even earlier in his title days Holmes was knocked down and badly hurt against Ernie Shavers and Renaldo Snipes. And his title winning effort against Ken Norton was so close it could have gone either way.

None of this is to make the case that either Holmes or Dempsey were not great heavyweight champions; they were both great. It is just that greatness is relative to those against whom one is compared. Any heavyweight in history with the exception of a prime Muhammad Ali can be made to look quite mortal under a microscope.

Ezzard Charles was clearly on the downside of his career when he engaged Marciano in a two-fight series. The first fight went the distance and Rocky won a close decision. In the second fight Rocky desperately knocked Charles out in the eighth round. Had Charles made it out of the eighth he may have won the fight on a TKO, as Marciano's nose was literally hanging off of his face.

On the one hand Marciano's wins against Charles demonstrate precisely the kind of will to win and character that qualifies a fighter for greatness. It is just these qualities that Tyson has seemed to lack thus far in his career. On the other hand, if an over the hill Charles pushed Marciano to the brink, what would a prime Charles have done? Furthermore, in four years as champion Rocky defended the title a grand total of six times. Not the busiest schedule. As a contender Rocky won decisions against Ted Lowry and Roland LaStarza that could have gone either way. By contrast, Tyson probably won a higher percentage of the rounds that he fought on the way to the title than any fighter in history.

When Marciano was about the same age that Tyson is now, he began planning a comeback, with the aim of fighting Floyd Patterson for the heavyweight title. Then the much larger Sonny Liston came on the scene and Rocky thought better of climbing back in the ring. Liston and Marciano were of similar age (just as Tyson and Lewis are now) and Liston would have enjoyed a size advantage over Rocky similar to the one Lewis will enjoy over Tyson. A prime Marciano was not as dominant as a prime Tyson. Should Tyson beat Lewis, his career accomplishments will also surpass the Rock's.

Joe Frazier beat a 30-year-old Muhammad Ali and that win goes a long way. But Frazier was dropped twice and given hell on his way up the ladder by Oscar Bonavena (a fight many feel Bonavena won), and was beaten twice by Ali. He was also knocked out twice by George Foreman. Are wins against Jerry Quarry, Jimmy Ellis and Buster Mathis that much more impressive than wins against Tony Tucker, Michael Spinks and Razor Ruddock? Frazier may have it on Tyson now, but should Tyson regain the title from Lewis, the Frazier argument will become much more difficult to make.

Sonny Liston was beaten on his way to title contention by Marty Marshall. He was subsequently given a hard time by the very good Eddie Machen, and beaten twice by the very great Muhammad Ali. He made one title defense, and that was against the man from whom he had won it, the very scared Floyd Patterson. Based on his even more thorough dominance in his prime, and on the nine title defenses he made in his first reign as champion, Tyson already compares favorably to Liston. A win over Lewis would put Liston squarely in Tyson's rear view mirror.

No contemporaries who watched Ezzard Charles at heavyweight came away as impressed with him as those who watched a prime Tyson. Based on their accomplishments Charles and Tyson are currently at about the same level. Obviously if Tyson regains the title that will change.

Jim Jeffries drew the color line until he came back against Jack Johnson and was beaten badly. Still, Jeffries remains, along with Charles, perhaps the most underrated heavyweight ever. He beat Jim Corbett and Bob Fitzsimmons and retired undefeated. However, Jeffries was losing both his title-winning effort against the much smaller Fitzsimmons and his defense against the much smaller Corbett, until his size and younger age caught up with the older fighters in the later rounds. His relatively short length of his career militates against rating him far ahead of Tyson, even if Mike loses to Lewis. Clearly, should Mike, at the age of 35, beat the much larger Lennox, a relatively dominant heavyweight champion coming off one of his best wins, Jefferies supporters would be hard pressed to make a case.

George Foreman is difficult to argue against because in his prime he was nearly as dominant as Tyson was in his, and Foreman was competing in a much tougher era. Then to come back and win the title twenty years after losing it -- even if Tyson beats Lewis, arguing Mike over George would be difficult.

Evander Holyfield beat Tyson twice head to head, and since they fought in the same era and Holyfield faced the tougher opposition and collected wins against better opponents than Tyson has, even if Mike beats Lennox comparing him favorably with Evander will be tough.

In the final analysis, should Tyson beat Lewis, he will rank behind only Ali, Louis, Johnson (based not only on his title victories, but also on his wins in pre-title fights against the strong bunch of avoided black heavyweight contenders of his day), Foreman and Holyfield on the all-time heavyweight list. My statement to Mike Tyson himself during our interview, that a win over Lewis would mean that he would join the ranks of Ali, Louis and Johnson, was not inaccurate.

The statement would have been more complete had I included the names George Foreman and Evander Holyfield. Perhaps I should have told Mike that since he already ranks with the likes of Sonny Liston and Jack Dempsey, a win over Lennox Lewis would catapult him over the likes of Larry Holmes and Rocky Marciano. Again however, I am not picking Tyson to win the fight.

When real analysis is done, there are times when conclusions reached seem counterintuitive. Those who criticize carefully considered historical rankings, and mine have been criticized often, should have a firm grasp of history to begin with. I am afraid that most of the negative reaction is from those who love boxing, but have only the vaguest idea of what has come before, and therefore do not have the capacity to place what they now watch in any real context. Those people should first -- literally -- learn what they are talking about, and only then begin to formulate their opinions.

Max Kellerman is a studio analyst for ESPN2's Friday Night Fights.