Dempsey, Liston, Holyfield, Frazier.

luf to be on target and fair. The two polls in the 1950s,that rated Jack Dempsey,as the greatest,was after Joe Louis and Ezzard Charles,and Rocky Marciano.
Liston,Ali, Frazier were after the polls. But Ray Arcel, a tough no-nonsense trainer,who watched the boxing parade since 1917 and up, INSISTED that Dempsey and Joe Louis'were the two top heavyweights, HE had ever seen. Whilst Nat Fleischer,who saw the greats from the very early 1900s,picked the Galveston Giant, Jack Johnson, as the best heavyweight he had ever seen. Go Figga !
I intuitively, believe on a H2H basis ,the Jack Dempsey,of the Fulton,Willard era, because
of his pantherlike speed power,and toughness would have beat any heavyweight,after him ,with the possible exception of the Joe Louis,circa Max Baer. Just watch Dempsey in the second round of the Firpo fight, when in a clinch,Dempsey [very strong] frees his left-hand,and with no punching room shoots 7-10 left uppercuts-hooks on Firpo,so quickly,and powerful. And in the same round,Dempsey attacks the Ox-like Firpo with a one-two,so FAST ,that the slow motion camera,can hardly record it. Dempsey in his prime reminds me most ,of a later and smaller Roberto Duran. Two sinewy animals. Cheers.

 

more like the "Blubbery Whale" like Firpo. Firpo was terrible.

 

1. Liston
2. Frazier
3. Dempsey
4. Holyfield


Dempsey has by far the weakest resume of the bunch

Liston is being terrible underrated in this thread. In his prime, he beats all of these men . In his prime, he ducked no one. In his prime, he cleaned out the division and beat nearly all the top young prime heavyweights. He beat them cleanly and in domination fashion. He also beat a wide variety of styles. His only meaningful loss was to the greatest heavyweight of all time when Liston was starting to get old.

 

I know you aren't. I was just explaining my position. I see you as a fair level guy striving for objectivity. It's difficult, and the longer you analyze the sooner you realize how less simple you think it ought to be. At least for me, that is.

 

Then why is Holyfield ranked forth? Are his losses or inconsistencies that troubling to you?

 

Firpo was not a "WHALE". He despised water....
More like a bull in a china shop...atsch

 

Firpo was fat, had overrated power, and had the skills of a barroom brawler.

 

Liston was a great fighter in 1960 and 1962 but it is just two years.

before that Liston was beating fighters who any rated fighter could and did beat.

How was his early loss to LH marshal not meaningful, when archie moore victim embrell davidson was knocking marty out?

 

Because it was his 6th pro fight.

 

That looks prety bad for the era then.

If Firpo was useless, then Dempsey, Wills, and anybody univeraly agreed to be beneath them, gets pushed into the gutter!

 

No one is perfect !

 

Firpo was a built-up contender but I don't think Wills or Dempsey's resumes suffer greatly even if we acknowledge that fact. Wills dominated the action and Dempsey despite getting hit by a haymaker the moment the bell rung, won by a hard-fought KO in 2 rounds.

Calling him "fat" is a bit harsh though:

This content is protected

Looking tough is much of what he had going for him.

 

and that my friends just about says it all