.. is the best or second best fighter in the world for nine years, fighting everyone around? To list a few fighters: Tyson was the best or second best between 86 and 92, seven years. Arguably another year in 1996. Frazier was the best from '69 to '73, five years. Marciano was the best from '51 to '56, six years. Liston was the best from '58 to '64, seven years*. Lewis was the best or second best from '96 to '03, eight years. etc. *Personally i think Liston only started proving himself as the best from '59, but the consensus is '58 so i'll go with that.
Tyson was THE Best HW around from 1986-1992. Ranking someone as I've always said should be done with a certain criteria that allows you to be objective enough to be able to rank everyone fairly. I use: 1. Tenure as Champ. 2. Quality of Opposition. 3. Ability as a fighter.
Okay, so how much would it mean if a fighter was the #1 or #2 for nine years straight while fighting top opposition?
Naturally, very highly. But as Ironchamp pointed out, various factors are involved. 'Top opposition' can still mean relatively mediocre opposition. I'm assuming there is a point to this thread?
Is it Louis you're thinking of? He certainly fulfills this criteria. Ali doesn't do it for 9 straight years due to his exile, but he had 10+ years during his career where he was best or second best.
What gave it away? But let's leave Dempsey out of it for the moment. Yes, i'm curious to ask because see few people have Wills in the top10 or even top15 while the man was the #1 or #2 for nine years!!
