uh...Nigel? Frazier has title defences v Quarry, Foster, Eliis, Ali and George Foreman and others. His title defence and WIN v Ali is better than any title defence Tyson ever had. Look at Lennox Lewis first title reign, 1992-1994. Phil Jackson, Bruno and McCall. Holyfield, 1990-1992 defended against Foreman (42), Holmes (42) and a substitute for a substitute Bert Cooper (a blown up Cruiserweight), then defended against Bowe, a guy you are dissing for worst title defences.
Michael Bentt. You aren't going to find a worse world title reign than one that ends in the 1st defence, against a glass-jawed blown up cruiserweight.
Well, if we're talking lineal or undisputed title reigns Frazier may be seen as one of the worst. It depends on where you have it starting. If you feel he became champion after beating Ali, then his succesful defences are really dismal. If you feel he became undisputed champ after beating Ellis, then he also have wins over Foster and Ali in his reign which of course makes it better. There's no way, however, that Joe can be called champ in any way shape or form before beating Ellis. For me he became the champ after beating Ali. Willard, Patterson, Holyfield and Bowe also had poor reigns I'd say.
Floyd Patterson since he did not take on Folley, Valdez, Williams, or Machen. Instead he took on softies London, Radamacher, and Harris. Unfortunate, but it is true. Johannson and Jackson were nice title defenses though.
Douglas. Beat Tyson then goes into the tank v Holyfield. Michael Moorer. Beat Holyfield then gets KO'd by a 45 year old Foreman. Mike Tyson (90's) Beat Bruno, fought a Sheldon who dived for a WBA then lose to an "supposed shot" Holyfield.
How in the hell is Frazier one of the worst?? Mathis, Quarry, Bonavena were all legit top contenders, Foster the reigning LHW champ, Ellis his co-champion (earned his title through an elimination tourney), and then ALI - 'nuff said. In fact, I would say he had one of the better post-WW II reigns. Patterson's reign was far, far worse.
His first fight against Quarry was before he met Ellis, the second was after he'd lost the crown. Neither was title defences.
These three were beaten on his way to the title. They don't count as defences. Fraziers' reing either started with the victory over Ellis or with the victory over Ali. I prefer the latter option, but both can be argued. If one chooses the forrmer option it's a pretty good reign (Foster, Ali, Stander, Daniels), if one chooses the latter it's not (Stander, Daniels).
I meant Lineal true Heavyweight Champs, Not alphabet champs like Valuev Im referring to Fraziers defences against Terry Daniels and Ron Stander but i admit i was harsh in my judgement on Joe and when you brought up his defences my argument had no credibility however Holyfield defended against 2 ATGS Holmes and Foreman Cooper was a sub for Tyson a fight Holyfield wanted as soon as he became champ and Bowe who i think now has the worst resume with Jesse Ferguson and Michael Dokes his 2 defences.
Bert Cooper was a sub for Damiani, who was a sub for Tyson. Holmes and Foreman were ATGs who were 42 years old and far removed from their primes. I pick both Holmes and Foreman in their primes to beat Evander.
Shannon Briggs after fraudently beating Foreman who fraudently lost to Axel Shultz after winning it by one punch KO over Moorer who controversially won it from Holyfield, who controversially won it from Bowe, second fight was a lot closer than the outcome, and then Bowe who fractured it by scrapping the WBC belt and not fighting Lennox Lewis. Worst linear heavyweight reign ever once it got in the hands of Briggs.
Shannon Briggs Hasim Rahman Buster Douglas Leon Spinks Michael Moorer I guess Ali's third, Holyfield's second and Foreman's second reign should count as well.