How do you rank these four heavyweights all time?

Well, Quarry did lose to Eddie Machen. (Just throwing that out there.)

 

So your point is he performed as expected against average competitors?

 

Jerry’s first step up to be fair.

 

I only brought up the ducking because you were saying Listons resume is lacking. There's a reason for that, therefore it's relevant. People even promoted Liston vs Williams as being the two guys others in the division were avoiding so they fought each other.

Disagree that quarry is better than any contender Liston beat. I can definitely see Folley or Valdez being competitive with or even beating Quarry. Oh...and Machen actually did beat Quarry!

I wasn't being serious with the Douglas example. I'm saying one big signature win can only do so much. Liston was a bit more dominant in his run to the title. You have to remember, many of the contenders in Frazier's era fought each other in a tournament and then Frazier just swooped in and fought Ellis.

Yes I'm factoring in the Byrd and Toney losses. We're talking about their overall ranking and their overall career. Holyfield actually won a championship AFTER those losses so yes we're factoring them. Otherwise you can argue Listons losses to Ali were post prime and just ignore all the bad stuff. This is the same line of reasoning Tyson fanboys use. The discussion isn't only about prime performances.

Sure, you can dismiss him going through the ringer with Cooper, let's also ignore him getting clobbered numerous times by a fat old Foreman. We're not going to be cherry picking the best moments of their careers.

Patterson was a 2x champion in his prime and Liston was the only one to make him look that bad in a 15+ year career. You're acting like anyone could have beaten Patterson in 1 round yet it didn't happen. Past his prime Patterson was competitive with Ellis and quarry who are easily Frazier's 2nd and 3rd best wins that you keep going up. Patterson beat Bonavena who had Frazier down twice. His chin held up in a second generation of heavies full of talent.

Williams was not an easy opponent. He was one of the earliest examples of an athletic big man who could crack and wasn't just a stiff robotic slugger. People were ducking him and like Patterson, Liston was the only one to brutally take him out early like that in his prime. If nothing else, he was always in shape, brave, and hit like a truck. Foreman said he was one of the 3 hardest hitters he faced in his whole career.

 

Quarry's first step up he was still very green I think we can excuse it but none the less it changes nothing either way.

Liston didn't beat much better guys then Frazier the contenders they beat were more or less the same level of comp what splits them is Ali stop trying to make this about boxing politics. Frazier hasn't just got one big win yes, he has more or less a similar resume to Liston the division between the two is one of them beat one of the greatest heavyweights ever.

Using his losses against Byrd and Toney is just plain dumb. It obviously isn't Holy at his best so they really aren't ought to carry much weight when you weigh the career as a whole this would be like me using Leotis Martin as an example of Marcianos superiority over Liston he was good enough to win a title in spite of being pretty much shot it's really a positive for Evander or a sign of the divisions state.

Using the Foreman and Cooper fights? It should tell you that Evander had a good chin and won just about every round of both fights.
Foreman lasted till the end and landed a few sneaky shot's that's not really a negative for Holyfield at all. Patterson is one of my favourites issue is he was a small HW who was for all his positives not very strong or durable.

Williams who did that guy beat again? Terell when he was green? haven't there been countless threads sh1tting on him?
Pick one or read his boxrec for an easy analyst he just wasn't good but okay. Lol

Now let's try this another way instead of just going in circles.

Liston's best win is Patterson, Fraziers is Ali. Frazier has the better of the two by a lot.

Quarry and Machen
Williams and Bonavena
Ellis and Zora

Really nothing separates these guy's to be honest you can make a thread on it if you want but really you are splitting hairs.
I don't think you can make a case for Liston having a better resume what exactly is better about it then Joe Fraziers or Evanders?
Don't say consistency or domination either, tell me why he should be ranked higher based on the strength of those wins why those fighters rate over Fraziers and Evanders comp.

 

For quarry it changes everything because you said he was better than any contender Liston beat and that isn't true. Machen was also past his prime with many losses prior to him beating Quarry so it cancels itself out.

This isn't going to go anywhere if you are going to keep cherry picking the best moments of a fighters career and ignore any losses or bad performances. We're looking at their entire careers, not just prime vs prime moments. In case you didn't notice, the OP included Hoylfield's win over Rahman which is post prime. Several other posters have mentioned post prime career performances. This thread isn't prime vs prime.

If that's the case, Liston easily is above everyone in the list because he was already past his prime when he lost to Ali. Prime Liston is possibly as high as top 5 h2h for me and looked like a juggernaut for the eye test.

Don't need to go on boxrec I actually watched Williams available fights and can decide for myself how good he was with an eye test. It's a fact he was a tall athletic hard hitting specimen, it's fact people were ducking him, and it's also a fact Liston was the only one to utterly crush him in his prime. Most of his bad losses were after the gunshot wound.

Consistency and dominance are definitely factors when assessing an entire career. No I'm not going to gloss over the fact Hoylfield had a yo yo career and kept losing the championship multiple times. It was getting to the point that if you wanted a belt or a solid name on your record, you should fight Hoylfield.

Sticking to only their best wins and ignoring the context of the era and how their career panned out is not how you compare overall rankings. The recent Frazier vs Tyson thread perfectly demonstrates how you properly do this. It isn't just list of wins vs wins at their peaks, you factor in losses too, how long their reign was, how much they struggled with opponents, etc.

 

You used a lot of words to say little to nothing.

It's like you can't accept actual context.

You really are bending the way you evaluate fighters in place specifically for Liston.

Debating with a fanboy really is an impossible task.

I think I am done here do you even read other peoples posts?

 

Frazier
Liston
Holyfield
Patterson

 

Do you?

Literally everyone responding is talking about their ENTIRE careers and you keep cherry picking prime years.

Let me know when you're ready to get back on topic.

 

Machen was also at the end of the road, evidently a shell of himself since returning from his mental breakdown and subsequent time in the looney bin, after his draw with The Big Cat. He only had 4 fights after this one, only winning one of them.

 

And he went 1-1-4 in his last 6 fights. But somehow Quarry was just a helpless rookie in over his head. It's quite obvious his management thought Machen would be a relatively easy "name" opponent for Quarry to add to his resume and a chance for some good experience with a veteran.

He just can't admit when he's wrong.

 

It was Jerry’s first time showing up for the big league. If you read my post it also says Jerry being worse then Machen doesn’t change anything anyways not fussy however you want to take it man.