Frazier-Tyson-Liston

I would put Joe Frazier considerably ahead of the other two on an all-time list.
He's one of the greatest. Definitely top 10. Maybe as high as 4 or 5.

Sonny Liston looked exceptionally skilled and equipped but blew it with his pathetic performances with Clay/Ali. Those fight may have been fixed, but that doesn't exactly exonerate him in the all-time great stakes.

Mike Tyson looked very good against Holmes and Spinks, and an array of bozos and also-rans. Tyson was deadly, but he blew it with getting spanked by Buster Douglas, who really beat the crap out of him. And he never re-asserted himself as the number 1 man after that.

Liston & Tyson would probably still both make the top 15 HWs of all-time.

 

Funny enough, I rate all 3 between 8 & 11, with Dempsey being the other guy in that group. I probably rate Tyson highest of the three to be honest. Although Joe and Sonny probably beat better fighters, well Frazier did for definite.


I've haven't actually done a Heavyweight Top 10 list for about 15 years but that's around where they'd be placed. :bbb

 

Jeez, ya would have been young!

 

I have this book i'd 'written'. About the best heavyweights ever- and my scorecards for big fights. I remember I did a Top 12. It was around 1991/2. I've lost it now. I think the Top 5 were Ali, Johnson, Louis, Holmes and Marciano. I think?

 

That's why I don't do one. Places 8-11 are up for grabs. Not sure who to leave out.

 

Frazier accomplished the single greatest feat of the three - winning the FOTC and defeating a near his prime Muhammad Ali - whom many regard as the greatest. This alone counts for a lot.

However, I do think that it was Liston's misfortune to be in there with a prime Muhammad Ali. A loss to Ali is not something to look down upon - especially when you consider that Liston was 36 in that fight and that those 6 rounds were indeed competitive. If Liston was in his younger years and he quit (he showed no signs of that) - then I could understand. People just don't consider this enough IMO.

Liston would fare best against other great fighters than Tyson & Frazier IMO - boxer punchers are generally the most successful. With this in mind, and seeing that he beat a lot of A level contenders even before winning the belt, seeing how well he did even though he was 40 against contenders, I have to give him the highest ranking. I have him as high as 3 or 4. Tyson is at 11 and Frazier would probably make it at 8 for me (trying to remember my old top 20 list). Tyson beat a string of contenders like Liston but he didn't have a win like Frazier beating near his prime Ali.

Liston > Frazier > Tyson

 

Frazier's win over Ali is great but it has reached levels that not many fighters can replicate not necessary because they havent beaten good fighters but moreso because there is not a single HW victory post FOTC that anyone will place above it.

As for Ranking all three:

1. Tyson: Of the three he had the best reign, beat more contenders, and after losing the title he did more than Liston or Frazier.

2. Frazier: Had a better reign than Liston and his signature win over Ali puts him second.

3. Liston: cleared out the division and won the title impressively but he had a short lived reign. One may say he was 36 but at 36 he was, prior to the first with Ali, regarded as the best in the world. After his two losses he did nothing to re establish himself as the top fighter and nothing to bring himself back into title contention.

 

In terms of head-to head, it would be IMO Liston, Tyson, then Frazier.:good

 

I'd love to rate Liston the highest of the three but he was not.
People see his skills and presence on film and then tend to adjust the criteria, move the goal posts, as to what equals greatness.
Exaggerating how long he was the uncrowned champ for, and exaggerating how many top quality contenders he swept away are usual tactics to position him highly.

Dont get me wrong, his accomplishments are plentiful, but no more so than others who also managed respectable reigns and decent performances against other GREAT heavyweights. The only real great heavyweight Liston fought, he lost to in pathetic fashion. The fights might have been fixed, but that's not exactly reason to ignore them.

Frazier is the greatest of the three. The substance and sum of his wins WITHOUT the one over Ali equals the win column of Liston's. Stoppages against the likes of Ellis, Chuvalo, Mathis, Quarry (twice, and at peak periods in Quarry's career), Foster, and tricky wins over Bugner, Bonavena and old Machen are about as impressive as Liston's wins over the likes of Patterson, Williams, Folley, Machen and the others (eg. Bethea, Harris, Westphal etc.), IMO.
Add to that the fact that Frazier was always valiant in his defeats, and lost only to quality All-time great fighters, and throw in the win over Muhammad Ali.
Frazier is clearly greater than Liston.

 

Kute, when you login do you roll a dice first? If its:

1-3 you become IamLegend
4-6 you become Kute

Hmmmm.

 

I rate Frazier highest of them. Tyson after that and Liston last. Frazier has the greatest win (Ali), Tyson has greatest depth on his resume and Liston.... well he's a little short in accomplishments compared to both. And he was even more shameful in defeat than Tyson.

 

1.Frazier...short prime but a 15 round fighter and beat Ali (prime 4 Prime
2.Tyson.... beat some good fighter,Rudduck,Thomas,Spinks,Tucker, Holmes and was on to better thing had he not messed up his life and left his friends
3.Liston had the look (big Bear) but (the Big Cat fight was over a guy that was starched by 174lb Bob Satterfeild and Liston quit vs Ali and took a dive in the next,(was dropped(jaw broke by 178lb Marty Marshall how can you rate Liston higher than Frazier

 

He was THIRTY SIX and was facing the greatest fighter of all time at his very best. Mike Tyson lost when biting Holyfield's ears. The Liston against Ali would have beaten all but maybe 5 or 6 fighters - even at that age. He'd have beate Holyfield.