Dempsey, Liston, Holyfield, Frazier.

Frazier
Liston
Holyfield
Dempsey

 

i can see that. for my money though, i think frazier takes dempsey if it goes past 3 rounds. liston and holyfield are a bit different, not too confident making a pick on either

if i had to order them

holyfield/frazier
liston
dempsey

 

Holyfield
Frazier
Liston
Dempsey


I think this one is pretty clear cut.

 

i think liston's dominance over the division for years and his wins over patterson put him around dempsey in terms of resume.

dempsey's resume i've never been impressed with. maybe more research is required but his top wins don't thrill me, his avoidance of name challengers that he likely could've beaten, his sporadic fighting, inability to figure out meehan (say what you want but fatty had his number) and getting dominated twice by the best boxer he ever faced.

head to head liston is a monster with massive physical strength, all time great jab and power in both hands. dempsey was quick, strong and tenacious but i see him losing to all the other 3 in this list.

dempsey's reign over the division is roughly the same length as liston's but liston was the established number 1 for years and proved it by clearing out the division. i don't think the same can be said for dempsey.

 

I don't think it could be less clear cut!

 

No, my good sir...it is very clear cut!

 

I could turn your list upside down and have a good case!

 

true, he had many years on top and was pretty active then. but in the end, i see a lack of great heavyweights on his resume. gibbons was excellent, carpentier was very good but frankly too small.

the lack of "coloured" contenders is a very legitimate knock against his resume. calls of racism or ducking aside, the holes in his resume are as big as his wins.

 

I guess the case for Dempsey would be this.

He, Liston and Frazier all have a short explosive period of dominance that brought them great media atention.

Despite having more problems with his resume than the other two, Dempsey is the only one of the three who has an explosive period of dominance, combined with a significant title reign, and a longevity argument.

Therfore Dempsey is the best of the three on paper.

 

Liston was a great fighter for a shorter time than the others listed here. He was not an "etablished number one for years"at all. 1960 was the only year he faced at that time rated fighters.

Until Liston fought for the title it was tied up between a guy who beat machen quicker than he could and another guy tied to rematches he had not fought yet.

I think Listons "run" was more like 1959- 1960. During this spell wiliams, folly, harris and machen were at least winning fights when liston fought them, though all had been knocked out before. These were his most worthy wins but he recorded them during the ingo-patterson triangle and its only one year.
Its not quite "cleaning out" all the contenders over a number of years.

Listons best wins were against fighters who had all been KOd within 2 years by another fighter. He was not that dominant.

 

can't argue that, as champion, dempsey had more longevity. however, frazier and liston had claims to be #1 prior to becoming champion and i feel cleaned on their respective divisions more thoroughly. there was no one left to beat for either liston or frazier, but again there were for dempsey. point taken though about his longevity: i sometimes underestimate the length of dempsey's reign

 

Now Holyfield never realy had any period of dominance, but he has more depth than any two other fighters on this list.