Dempsey, Liston, Holyfield, Frazier.

well it's a little bit semantical but i agree 1959 was when he really started his run but that run didn't end up ali beat him in 64. i agree that the williams-folley-machen fights were his claim to number one and along with the patterson wins, secured his place at the top.

that's a run of about 5 years. you can argue about the quality of opposition but not his dominance during his prime.

 

which is why he's probably the toughest heavyweight to properly place, along with frazier and liston. this set of 4 is very good because there's arguments for any placement

holyfield was far too inconsistent, even in his prime. imagine though he wins the 3rd bowe fight and the moorer fight and reigns until lewis? top 5 all time easy. the problem is, as you noted, he never was at the top for a significant period of time

 

But from 1961-64 Liston had ten minuets of fighting where he did not take a single punch in return. Its a bag work out. Howard king, westphal and the psyched out patterson blow outs. 10 minuets in 3 years after 2 good years against fighters who had all been KOd before?

 

that's kind of my point though, he was dominant. that's INCREDIBLY dominant. if you think there are knocks against his opposition that's different but he clearly demonstrated he was the best heavyweight for a number of years.

and personally, i think blowing out a top 20 all time heavyweight twice in the first round is a sign of greatness

 

Liston goes the full ten against machen who ingo could ice but wipes the floor with patterson. And People say the second ali v liston fight was fixed! Liston was a great fighter, the patterson wins were great wins but he was not dominant for a number of years.

 

....:think....

 

He was beaten 3 times in the first 16 years of his career, by two men he scored victories over. That's not inconsistency. Ali's first 16 years were really no better in that regard, same for Louis, Holmes, Lewis, or nearly anyone else you care to mention. It's fine if he's not regarded as one of the most dominant champions in the history of the division, he wasn't, but it's a stretch to call him inconsistent. He simply fought on for far too long, but that should have no affect on his legacy. If he had reigned unbeaten until Lewis, he'd be the #1 Heavyweight in history, and that wouldn't really even be up for debate.

 

inconsistent is probably a bit much but he certainly had no business losing to moorer and even in his victories, he often looked shaky. however, you're right: his latter career (post lewis) really should have much bearing on his overall legacy

as for your last statement, it reminds me of what espn once said of holyfield and that with a little more natural size he could've been the greatest heavyweight of all time.

 

victories over 3 top 10 all time great heavies is phenomenal. faded or not, tyson/holmes/foreman are 3 of the best heavyweight opponents that any one fighter has disposed of.

 

Do you mean greatest HWs or just greatest ?


(It affects where I would place Evander.)

 

For those who pick Liston over Frazier, I should point out, Joe was already used to and comfortable with fighting partially blind. So, Liston's best move will not bother him.

 

Dempsey
Frazier
Holyfield
Liston