Frazier-Tyson-Liston

[Quick Cash]

How highly should we rank these three in terms of greatness? All three had relatively short stints at the pinnacle of their division, however they were, all of them, redoubtably known for prime-for-prime, head-to-head capability. Where do they figure in your all time great heavyweights list?

[Sonny's jab]

I would put Joe Frazier considerably ahead of the other two on an all-time list.
He's one of the greatest. Definitely top 10. Maybe as high as 4 or 5.

Sonny Liston looked exceptionally skilled and equipped but blew it with his pathetic performances with Clay/Ali. Those fight may have been fixed, but that doesn't exactly exonerate him in the all-time great stakes.

Mike Tyson looked very good against Holmes and Spinks, and an array of bozos and also-rans. Tyson was deadly, but he blew it with getting spanked by Buster Douglas, who really beat the crap out of him. And he never re-asserted himself as the number 1 man after that.

Liston & Tyson would probably still both make the top 15 HWs of all-time.

[My dinner with Conteh]

Funny enough, I rate all 3 between 8 & 11, with Dempsey being the other guy in that group. I probably rate Tyson highest of the three to be honest. Although Joe and Sonny probably beat better fighters, well Frazier did for definite.


I've haven't actually done a Heavyweight Top 10 list for about 15 years but that's around where they'd be placed. :bbb

[JohnThomas1]

I've haven't actually done a Heavyweight Top 10 list for about 15 years but that's around where they'd be placed. :bbb

Jeez, ya would have been young!

[My dinner with Conteh]

Jeez, ya would have been young!



I have this book i'd 'written'. About the best heavyweights ever- and my scorecards for big fights. I remember I did a Top 12. It was around 1991/2. I've lost it now. I think the Top 5 were Ali, Johnson, Louis, Holmes and Marciano. I think?

[My dinner with Conteh]

That's why I don't do one. Places 8-11 are up for grabs. Not sure who to leave out.

[hobgoblin]

Frazier accomplished the single greatest feat of the three - winning the FOTC and defeating a near his prime Muhammad Ali - whom many regard as the greatest. This alone counts for a lot.

However, I do think that it was Liston's misfortune to be in there with a prime Muhammad Ali. A loss to Ali is not something to look down upon - especially when you consider that Liston was 36 in that fight and that those 6 rounds were indeed competitive. If Liston was in his younger years and he quit (he showed no signs of that) - then I could understand. People just don't consider this enough IMO.

Liston would fare best against other great fighters than Tyson & Frazier IMO - boxer punchers are generally the most successful. With this in mind, and seeing that he beat a lot of A level contenders even before winning the belt, seeing how well he did even though he was 40 against contenders, I have to give him the highest ranking. I have him as high as 3 or 4. Tyson is at 11 and Frazier would probably make it at 8 for me (trying to remember my old top 20 list). Tyson beat a string of contenders like Liston but he didn't have a win like Frazier beating near his prime Ali.

Liston > Frazier > Tyson

[ironchamp]

Frazier accomplished the single greatest feat of the three - winning the FOTC and defeating a near his prime Muhammad Ali - whom many regard as the greatest. This alone counts for a lot.

However, I do think that it was Liston's misfortune to be in there with a prime Muhammad Ali. A loss to Ali is not something to look down upon - especially when you consider that Liston was 36 in that fight and that those 6 rounds were indeed competitive. If Liston was in his younger years and he quit (he showed no signs of that) - then I could understand. People just don't consider this enough IMO.

Liston would fare best against other great fighters than Tyson & Frazier IMO - boxer punchers are generally the most successful. With this in mind, and seeing that he beat a lot of A level contenders even before winning the belt, seeing how well he did even though he was 40 against contenders, I have to give him the highest ranking. I have him as high as 3 or 4. Tyson is at 11 and Frazier would probably make it at 8 for me (trying to remember my old top 20 list). Tyson beat a string of contenders like Liston but he didn't have a win like Frazier beating near his prime Ali.

Liston > Frazier > Tyson

Frazier's win over Ali is great but it has reached levels that not many fighters can replicate not necessary because they havent beaten good fighters but moreso because there is not a single HW victory post FOTC that anyone will place above it.

As for Ranking all three:

1. Tyson: Of the three he had the best reign, beat more contenders, and after losing the title he did more than Liston or Frazier.

2. Frazier: Had a better reign than Liston and his signature win over Ali puts him second.

3. Liston: cleared out the division and won the title impressively but he had a short lived reign. One may say he was 36 but at 36 he was, prior to the first with Ali, regarded as the best in the world. After his two losses he did nothing to re establish himself as the top fighter and nothing to bring himself back into title contention.

[C. M. Clay II]

In terms of head-to head, it would be IMO Liston, Tyson, then Frazier.:good

[Sonny's jab]

I'd love to rate Liston the highest of the three but he was not.
People see his skills and presence on film and then tend to adjust the criteria, move the goal posts, as to what equals greatness.
Exaggerating how long he was the uncrowned champ for, and exaggerating how many top quality contenders he swept away are usual tactics to position him highly.

Dont get me wrong, his accomplishments are plentiful, but no more so than others who also managed respectable reigns and decent performances against other GREAT heavyweights. The only real great heavyweight Liston fought, he lost to in pathetic fashion. The fights might have been fixed, but that's not exactly reason to ignore them.

Frazier is the greatest of the three. The substance and sum of his wins WITHOUT the one over Ali equals the win column of Liston's. Stoppages against the likes of Ellis, Chuvalo, Mathis, Quarry (twice, and at peak periods in Quarry's career), Foster, and tricky wins over Bugner, Bonavena and old Machen are about as impressive as Liston's wins over the likes of Patterson, Williams, Folley, Machen and the others (eg. Bethea, Harris, Westphal etc.), IMO.
Add to that the fact that Frazier was always valiant in his defeats, and lost only to quality All-time great fighters, and throw in the win over Muhammad Ali.
Frazier is clearly greater than Liston.

[McGrain]

Greatness? Frazier. Then Tyson. Liston was never a great champion.

I pick Liston to beat the other two head to head though.

[NickHudson]

Kute, when you login do you roll a dice first? If its:

1-3 you become IamLegend
4-6 you become Kute

Hmmmm.

Frazier is probably the greatest for the Ali win. But his resume is overrated simply because the 70's are overrated.
Tyson blows them both out early.

[ChrisPontius]

I rate Frazier highest of them. Tyson after that and Liston last. Frazier has the greatest win (Ali), Tyson has greatest depth on his resume and Liston.... well he's a little short in accomplishments compared to both. And he was even more shameful in defeat than Tyson.

[Bummy Davis]

1.Frazier...short prime but a 15 round fighter and beat Ali (prime 4 Prime
2.Tyson.... beat some good fighter,Rudduck,Thomas,Spinks,Tucker, Holmes and was on to better thing had he not messed up his life and left his friends
3.Liston had the look (big Bear) but (the Big Cat fight was over a guy that was starched by 174lb Bob Satterfeild and Liston quit vs Ali and took a dive in the next,(was dropped(jaw broke by 178lb Marty Marshall how can you rate Liston higher than Frazier

[hobgoblin]

And he was even more shameful in defeat than Tyson.

He was THIRTY SIX and was facing the greatest fighter of all time at his very best. Mike Tyson lost when biting Holyfield's ears. The Liston against Ali would have beaten all but maybe 5 or 6 fighters - even at that age. He'd have beate Holyfield.

[Muchmoore]

Tyson-Liston-Frazier.

[Sonny's jab]

He was THIRTY SIX and was facing the greatest fighter of all time at his very best. Mike Tyson lost when biting Holyfield's ears. The Liston against Ali would have beaten all but maybe 5 or 6 fighters - even at that age. He'd have beate Holyfield.

I'm not going to argue for Tyson over Liston, because frankly I'm not sure Tyson deserves above Liston.
But Frazier is greater than them both, without question.

The excuse that Liston was 36 (the truth of which cannot be verified anyway) and facing Ali at his best is not a good one. Liston quit after six fairly tame rounds, and didn't bother to do a single round in the rematch. And as good as Clay/Ali was you have to admit that fighters with far lesser reputations than Liston coped with far more intense bedazzlings from Clay/Ali than anything put to Sonny that night. He just quit, in his only fights against a truly great bona fide heavyweight.

I think we can all accept that. So, the balance of Liston's career (ie. minus the Clay/Ali debacles) has to be something real special for him to surpass Joe Frazier on any list of great heavyweights, IMO. And it's just not special enough.
Contrary to some of the claims about Liston, he wasn't uncrowned champ for "years and years" before winning the championship. He established dominance over all other contenders in about 1960, just two years before flattening Patterson.

You can offer an opinion that Sonny Liston would have beaten Evander Holyfield but that's just speculation. In his own time Sonny performed absolutely miserably against the only fighter he faced of true ATG quality, and performed well against no one remotely as great as Holyfield.

[ChrisPontius]

He was THIRTY SIX and was facing the greatest fighter of all time at his very best. Mike Tyson lost when biting Holyfield's ears. The Liston against Ali would have beaten all but maybe 5 or 6 fighters - even at that age. He'd have beate Holyfield.

Most sources say he's born in 1932, which would make him 32 years old for the first Clay fight.
I just typed "Sonny Liston encyclopedia" on google and of the first 10 encyclopedic results it gave, 9 had him listed as born in 1932. Only Brittanica had him born otherwise, in 1917, which has to be some mistake.


And yes, Ali is greater than anyone who Tyson faced. And i don't blame Liston for losing to Ali. But i do blame him for how he lost to him, which was disgracefully. Ali was great but he was by no means a very hard puncher and mostly ran for the first six rounds. Fact is that most of Ali's opponents around that time gave him a harder fight than Liston did, and those opponents were by no means great (Cooper, Banks, Terrel, Chuvalo Mildenberg etc). And he did it twice.

You say he "would've" beaten all but 5 or 6 fighters in the history of the sport. But that's just your opinion. I can also say that Douglas would've beaten all but 5 or 6 fighters the night he beat Tyson (which i don't believe, by the way). It's speculation; the facts show that he quit in a fight that was mentally a hard one but physically far from it, compared to others.

[Sonny's jab]

Frazier is greater than both.

But distinguishing who is greater between Tyson and Liston is tricky. It's a very close call. I'll think some more about it .......

[McGrain]

But distinguishing who is greater between Tyson and Liston is tricky. It's a very close call. I'll think some more about it .......

Depends on how much weight you are giving to who is "better" in deciding who is greater :hey

But if it's purely achievment, I think that you have to look at Liston's miserable title reign and drop him into third place.

[fists of fury]

Tyson 8-10. Had he fulfilled all his potential he could have been top 5.

Frazier 11-15. Beat comebacking Ali but short prime and dismal defence against Foreman.

Liston 15-20. I just don't what some others see.

[ChrisPontius]

Here is my case in more detail:

Frazier dominated every non-great fighter he faced, with the exception of Bonavena. But this was his 12th pro fight.
By comparison, Tyson had a close fight with Green early in his career and Liston not only had a close fight, but lost, to Marty Marshall. This result was later reversed, but the fact is that Bonavena was a top10 contender by Ring Magazine rankings when he fought Frazier, whereas Green was a fringe contender and Marshall a journeyman who lost 4 out of 5 fights by KO prior to facing Liston.

Frazier was involved involved in the fight of the century, in my opinion one of the greatest fights ever, and came out as decisive winner. By comparison, Liston quit after 6 and 1 round against Ali.

Frazier pretty much cleaned up the division (something he doesn't very often seem to get credit for) between 1968-1971. Off the top of my head, only Patterson escaped him, but then again, he lost to Quarry and Ellis (maybe somewhat controversial), both of whom were beaten by Frazier.

Sonny Liston was also very dominant although it should be noted that he only beat 5 ranked contenders during this period and in fact during his entire career (Folley, Machen, DeJohn and Patterson twice).
By comparison, Frazier beat 8 and Tyson beat 12.
Liston was being ducked, although it's worth noting that Patterson was having his trilogy with Johansson in 1959-1961.

All three had their embarresing losses. With all three they were unfocused on their boxing careers when they happened. Frazier showed a lot of heart and courage against Foreman. Tyson did the same against Douglas, almost came back from losing nearly every round. Liston quit after taking only a mild beating from Clay. I don't believe Tyson bit Holyfield with the intention to quit. I think that was just the Tyson from the streets who couldn't take being butted and outboxed again. Am i sure of it? No, no one knows whether he wanted a way out or was just blinded by fury. But the fact that he took a HUGE beating from Lewis five years later when he could've gotten out of there much earlier does say something for me. I think heart and will to win are very important factors in boxing and while Tyson does not rank as high as Frazier, i do think he ranks higher than Liston.

[Sonny's jab]

Depends on how much weight you are giving to who is "better" in deciding who is greater :hey

But if it's purely achievment, I think that you have to look at Liston's miserable title reign and drop him into third place.

I dont draw much distinction between "better" and "greater", or "head-to-head" as some might say, and "achievements".

To me, a fighter's worth is demonstrated in his achievements, or more specifically in how he performs in his fights and against who he performs.
I dont see how there can be much seperation. Of course, I make judgments as to how good fighters are, but when it comes to assessing these great ones it's pretty much down to what they achieved and how, because it's pretty much a given that they fought world class fighters of their time.

I think it's a close call between Tyson & Liston.
Tyson's championship reign (1988-90) was about as "miserable" as Sonny's surely.

[Bummy Davis]

[quote=Sonny's jab]I'm not going to argue for Tyson over Liston, because frankly I'm not sure Tyson deserves above Liston.
But Frazier is greater than them both, without question.

The excuse that Liston was 36 (the truth of which cannot be verified anyway) and facing Ali at his best is not a good one. Liston quit after six fairly tame rounds, and didn't bother to do a single round in the rematch. And as good as Clay/Ali was you have to admit that fighters with far lesser reputations than Liston coped with far more intense bedazzlings from Clay/Ali than anything put to Sonny that night. He just quit, in his only fights against a truly great bona fide heavyweight.

I think we can all accept that. So, the balance of Liston's career (ie. minus the Clay/Ali debacles) has to be something real special for him to surpass Joe Frazier on any list of great heavyweights, IMO. And it's just not special enough.





Contrary to some of the claims about Liston, he wasn't uncrowned champ for "years and years" before winning the championship. He established dominance over all other contenders in about 1960, just two years before flattening Patterson.

You can offer an opinion that Sonny Liston would have beaten Evander Holyfield but that's just speculation. In his own time Sonny performed absolutely miserably against the only fighter he faced of true ATG quality, and performed well against no one remotely as great as Holyfield.[/quot

:good

[fists of fury]

I think it's a close call between Tyson & Liston.
Tyson's championship reign (1988-90) was about as "miserable" as Sonny's surely.

But Liston only managed 1 defense of his title. At least Tyson managed 9.

[Bummy Davis]

Here is my case in more detail:

Frazier dominated every non-great fighter he faced, with the exception of Bonavena. But this was his 12th pro fight.
By comparison, Tyson had a close fight with Green early in his career and Liston not only had a close fight, but lost, to Marty Marshall. This result was later reversed, but the fact is that Bonavena was a top10 contender by Ring Magazine rankings when he fought Frazier, whereas Green was a fringe contender and Marshall a journeyman who lost 4 out of 5 fights by KO prior to facing Liston.

Frazier was involved involved in the fight of the century, in my opinion one of the greatest fights ever, and came out as decisive winner. By comparison, Liston quit after 6 and 1 round against Ali.

Frazier pretty much cleaned up the division (something he doesn't very often seem to get credit for) between 1968-1971. Off the top of my head, only Patterson escaped him, but then again, he lost to Quarry and Ellis (maybe somewhat controversial), both of whom were beaten by Frazier.

Sonny Liston was also very dominant although it should be noted that he only beat 5 ranked contenders during this period and in fact during his entire career (Folley, Machen, DeJohn and Patterson twice).
By comparison, Frazier beat 8 and Tyson beat 12.
Liston was being ducked, although it's worth noting that Patterson was having his trilogy with Johansson in 1959-1961.

All three had their embarresing losses. With all three they were unfocused on their boxing careers when they happened. Frazier showed a lot of heart and courage against Foreman. Tyson did the same against Douglas, almost came back from losing nearly every round. Liston quit after taking only a mild beating from Clay. I don't believe Tyson bit Holyfield with the intention to quit. I think that was just the Tyson from the streets who couldn't take being butted and outboxed again. Am i sure of it? No, no one knows whether he wanted a way out or was just blinded by fury. But the fact that he took a HUGE beating from Lewis five years later when he could've gotten out of there much earlier does say something for me. I think heart and will to win are very important factors in boxing and while Tyson does not rank as high as Frazier, i do think he ranks higher than Liston.

:good

[Sonny's jab]

But Liston only managed 1 defense of his title. At least Tyson managed 9.

No, Tyson managed 2.

He won the title versus Spinks, and defended against Bruno & Williams, then lost it.

His "alphabet" title reign from '86 - '88 while Spinks was biding his time, is no different from Sonny Liston eliminating the contenders while waiting for Floyd Patterson to step up to the challenge. If the WBA/WBC and IBF had been around in 1959 or 1960 with their habitual stripping of titles I'm sure Liston would have gathered at least one or two of those belts before getting Patterson in the ring.

Tyson & Liston's situations are almost identical, and they both made short work of the champs when they finally got them in the ring.

[Holmes' Jab]

Legacy:

1. Frazier (Wins vs Ali, Machen, Chuvalo and Bonavena give him the edge in depth)
2. Tyson (Devestating title reign from '86 up until 'Buster' defeat)
3. Liston (The manner of his two losses to Ali and the 'mafia' hurt him here. A crushing title run, however.)

Head-to-head:

1. Liston (Indimidation factor, excellent skills, great chin and heavy hitting)
2. Frazier (Durable, tough and an awkward as hell fighting style to nullify. Best left hook in the divisions history.)
3. Tyson (Formidible as his very best, fast, accurate, a hard puncher and in possession of a solid chin. However a questionable mentality and self belief once he lost the invincibility arua, or the intimidation factor didn't work. Holyfield and Lewis fought back wereas Bruno and Biggs etc were scared.)

[Sonny's jab]

I don't believe Tyson bit Holyfield with the intention to quit. I think that was just the Tyson from the streets who couldn't take being butted and outboxed again. Am i sure of it? No, no one knows whether he wanted a way out or was just blinded by fury.

I dont see much difference in biting him out of blind fury and frustration, or biting with the actual intention of getting DQ'd. Either way, he lost control and was unable to channel himself into performing better in the face of adversity.
He's crumbled.
He bit Holyfield twice. Once after getting deducted two points. He was a man overcome with emotion, whether it fear, anger, hate, frustration. Who cares ? His behaviour made a mockery of anything resembling a boxing match, and he seemed unable or unwilling to act normal.

Personally I'm inclined to believe he really didn't want to fight. I mean, I've seen Tyson in rough fouls fights before and since, and he never resorted to anything quite as ridiculous as biting a chunk out of the man's ear.
Tyson butted, hit low, elbowed and punched after the bell at times in his entire BEFORE the Holyfield fight, (and plenty afterwards), and he took some back from certain fighters.
I think the fact that Holyfield had beat the crap out of him 6 months earlier was what really bothered him. Tyson was in much better shape for the rematch and suddenly realized he was not ever gonna walk through this guy. That's what I think happened.

Either way, he lost the plot. And that's got to be a mark against his mentality as a fighter when you compare him to the greats.


But the fact that he took a HUGE beating from Lewis five years later when he could've gotten out of there much earlier does say something for me. I think heart and will to win are very important factors in boxing and while Tyson does not rank as high as Frazier, i do think he ranks higher than Liston.


I think Tyson showed courage and toughness in taking his beating from Lewis. I think he had a different mentality that night than what he had against Holyfield.
I do NOT think he showed a will to win against Lewis, he didn't. I'm not sure he ever thought he could win that one. But I appreciated his resolve to take his beating like a man. He looked like a man on Zoloft paying pennance for his past sins, and he was way past his prime, but there was definitely some redemption made by his taking that beating as he did.

Liston's heart, will to win and courage are hard to assess. His losses to Clay/Ali may well have been fixed, so, IMO, he's perhaps guilty of selling his reputation down the river rather than showing cowardice. And there are examples of him being in tough and/or frustrating fights against others where he did not quit.
Still, I mark him down heavily for his losses to Clay/Ali. For whatever reason, he didn't show us anything much against the best opponent he ever fought. Whether he was out-of-shape, in the tank, injured or totally lacking heart, he quit once and then completely surpassed that debacle with the flop in the rematch.

[fists of fury]

No, Tyson managed 2.

He won the title versus Spinks, and defended against Bruno & Williams, then lost it.

His "alphabet" title reign from '86 - '88 while Spinks was biding his time, is no different from Sonny Liston eliminating the contenders while waiting for Floyd Patterson to step up to the challenge. If the WBA/WBC and IBF had been around in 1959 or 1960 with their habitual stripping of titles I'm sure Liston would have gathered at least one or two of those belts before getting Patterson in the ring.

Tyson & Liston's situations are almost identical, and they both made short work of the champs when they finally got them in the ring.


By that reasoning Tyson knocked off 7 contenders before he met Spinks. How many did Liston beat?
Liston's sole title defence was against the man he beat in the first place, which hardly counts.
My problem with Liston is that everyone keeps banging on about how good he was, but when I see film of him he looks ponderous and slow, and I'm talking about the Williams fight (among others) where he was supposedly so devastating.
I just don't see it. The jab is there and so is the power, but Liston appeared slow-witted and unimaginative to me.
I think the best thing that ever happened to his legacy is that he lost to Ali, which because it was Ali, makes it more excusable.

[Sonny's jab]

By that reasoning Tyson knocked off 7 contenders before he met Spinks. How many did Liston beat?

A few. Depends on who's rated a "contender", I guess he beat about the same number.


Liston's sole title defence was against the man he beat in the first place, which hardly counts.
My problem with Liston is that everyone keeps banging on about how good he was, but when I see film of him he looks ponderous and slow, and I'm talking about the Williams fight (among others) where he was supposedly so devastating.
I just don't see it. The jab is there and so is the power, but Liston appeared slow-witted and unimaginative to me.


As far as heavyweights go, I think Liston looks pretty good. He's not flawless but overall his complete package is impressive. That's why I'd probably put him in the top 15 of all-time.


I think the best thing that ever happened to his legacy is that he lost to Ali, which because it was Ali, makes it more excusable.


Yes, that is an excuse most defenders of Liston's greatness use. I dont buy it either.

[ChrisPontius]

I dont see much difference in biting him out of blind fury and frustration, or biting with the actual intention of getting DQ'd. Either way, he lost control and was unable to channel himself into performing better in the face of adversity.
He's crumbled.
He bit Holyfield twice. Once after getting deducted two points. He was a man overcome with emotion, whether it fear, anger, hate, frustration. Who cares ? His behaviour made a mockery of anything resembling a boxing match, and he seemed unable or unwilling to act normal.

Personally I'm inclined to believe he really didn't want to fight. I mean, I've seen Tyson in rough fouls fights before and since, and he never resorted to anything quite as ridiculous as biting a chunk out of the man's ear.
Tyson butted, hit low, elbowed and punched after the bell at times in his entire BEFORE the Holyfield fight, (and plenty afterwards), and he took some back from certain fighters.
I think the fact that Holyfield had beat the crap out of him 6 months earlier was what really bothered him. Tyson was in much better shape for the rematch and suddenly realized he was not ever gonna walk through this guy. That's what I think happened.

Either way, he lost the plot. And that's got to be a mark against his mentality as a fighter when you compare him to the greats.

I agree that the two things are more or less the same, i actually realised it when i was typing it. But my story sounded so nice!



I think Tyson showed courage and toughness in taking his beating from Lewis. I think he had a different mentality that night than what he had against Holyfield.
I do NOT think he showed a will to win against Lewis, he didn't. I'm not sure he ever thought he could win that one. But I appreciated his resolve to take his beating like a man. He looked like a man on Zoloft paying pennance for his past sins, and he was way past his prime, but there was definitely some redemption made by his taking that beating as he did.

Liston's heart, will to win and courage are hard to assess. His losses to Clay/Ali may well have been fixed, so, IMO, he's perhaps guilty of selling his reputation down the river rather than showing cowardice. And there are examples of him being in tough and/or frustrating fights against others where he did not quit.
Still, I mark him down heavily for his losses to Clay/Ali. For whatever reason, he didn't show us anything much against the best opponent he ever fought. Whether he was out-of-shape, in the tank, injured or totally lacking heart, he quit once and then completely surpassed that debacle with the flop in the rematch.
Again i agree that Tyson seemed to quit mentally against Lewis right after round one or two. Didn't he say something like "i'm hurt" in the corner early in the fight?
Either way, he did take his beating and kept trying against Douglas & Holyfield I. Basically, it "took" a rematch against Holyfield to make him quit.
But Liston quit in the first match and faster than light in the rematch. In my opinion (and it's no more than that), Tyson has a slight edge.


My problem with Liston is that everyone keeps banging on about how good he was, but when I see film of him he looks ponderous and slow, and I'm talking about the Williams fight (among others) where he was supposedly so devastating.

Agreed here. I can't really think of another heavyweight champion who was slower and roughly his size. Carnera and Willard maybe, but they were a lot bigger. Marciano also but he fights in a different style where he can get away with it and proved to be effective to a much higher degree than Liston did.

[prime]

Young Mike Tyson was the greatest heavyweight swarmer of all time. Frazier’s heart and stamina edge out Liston. I have Tyson at 3, Frazier at 7, Liston at 10.

Simply, the footage shows young Tyson had great fundamentals for his style, to the point he made things look easy, plus amazing athleticism expressed in fantastic speed of hand and foot, culminating in a huge punch, on-the-button accuracy and annihilating combinations.

Tyson was a better version of Frazier in that he had two cannons and a much greater variety of faster punches; he also had a better chin. Tyson was a better version of Liston in that he was faster and had better combinations; he also had a slightly better chin.

I have come to respect young Tyson comparing him on film to the all-time greats. At his peak he went 12 hard rounds when necessary and dominated. He did it with power and skill. His inner demons? He was always much younger, much shorter, much less experienced, yet rampaged through to the top of the division. Look how easily he dismantled tough Berbick. All fighters have inner demons. He controlled the fire very well when he was heart-and-soul in the game.

Compare this trio on film at their peak. To me Tyson is the most awesome.

[Dostoevsky]

1. Tyson
2. Frazier
3. Liston

[Quick Cash]

Alright, great stuff from everybody.

Head-to-head is a factor guys, otherwise Liston would not even be in the discussion. There's just nothing in his list of conquests outside of two blow-out wins against Patterson that prompts me to recognize him as a great or a division top ten.

[fists of fury]

Didn't he say something like "i'm hurt" in the corner early in the fight?


What he said was "I can't do it no more..." It was at the end of the fifth round, I believe. I'm relying on memory here, but I'm pretty sure it was the fifth. They were working on a cut at the time.

[combatesdeboxeo]

frazier,liston,tyson

[My2Sense]

1. Frazier

.
.
.

2. Tyson

3. Liston

Frazier's triumph in the FOTC gives him a clear gulf between the other two. Tyson's greater depth of resume and comeback success give him the edge over Liston.

[PetethePrince]

1. Frazier

.
.
.

2. Tyson

3. Liston

Frazier's triumph in the FOTC gives him a clear gulf between the other two. Tyson's greater depth of resume and comeback success give him the edge over Liston.

We tend to agree a lot, especially on the HWs.

[Pachilles]

I have Tyson at 6

Frazier 7 or 8 switching with Foreman

And Liston 10-12

[My2Sense]

Frazier pretty much cleaned up the division (something he doesn't very often seem to get credit for) between 1968-1971.

Good point.

Frazier and Tyson can each genuinely claim to have cleaned out their divisions during a particular time frame. There's no point in which Liston can claim the same. He never even fought a top 5 contender until late 1960. In the time frame between 1960 and his eventual shot at Patterson, he turned down a chance to fight Johansson, who was the best contender in the division outside of himself. After beating Patterson, he lost to the next top contender to come along which was Ali.

[Boxed Ears]

1. Frazier

.
.
.

2. Tyson

3. Liston

Frazier's triumph in the FOTC gives him a clear gulf between the other two. Tyson's greater depth of resume and comeback success give him the edge over Liston.

Same here.

[MAG1965]

I would put Joe Frazier considerably ahead of the other two on an all-time list.
He's one of the greatest. Definitely top 10. Maybe as high as 4 or 5.

Sonny Liston looked exceptionally skilled and equipped but blew it with his pathetic performances with Clay/Ali. Those fight may have been fixed, but that doesn't exactly exonerate him in the all-time great stakes.

Mike Tyson looked very good against Holmes and Spinks, and an array of bozos and also-rans. Tyson was deadly, but he blew it with getting spanked by Buster Douglas, who really beat the crap out of him. And he never re-asserted himself as the number 1 man after that.

Liston & Tyson would probably still both make the top 15 HWs of all-time.I think Frazier gets overrated a bit.

[reznick]

#4 Liston


#10 Frazier
#11 Tyson

[PetethePrince]

Same here.

I agreed first jackass. :D

[Unforgiven]

...

[Boxed Ears]

I agreed first jackass. :D

I agreed in my mind first, so I get eleventy-twelve points, muthafucka. :cool:

[combatesdeboxeo]

I have Tyson at 6

Frazier 7 or 8 switching with Foreman

And Liston 10-12

:rofl:rofl:rofl funny because foreman had better career than tyson,tyson avoided him and styles make fights, foreman would destroy him.

tyson was good in his prime but he faced tomato cans or old men. and spinks a lhw. tyson is not top 10.
foreman is top 5 for sure. liston and frazier are above tyson any day.
your list is a joke sorry..

[Stevie G]

Funny enough, I rate all 3 between 8 & 11, with Dempsey being the other guy in that group. I probably rate Tyson highest of the three to be honest. Although Joe and Sonny probably beat better fighters, well Frazier did for definite.


I've haven't actually done a Heavyweight Top 10 list for about 15 years but that's around where they'd be placed. :bbb
I rate Joe fifth,Liston sixth and Tyson between 7 - 9,along with Holyfield and Lewis. I'm always changing my mind about which order THOSE three are. Tough,this hypothetical boxing game,is n't it ? Good fun though.

[PhillyPhan69]

All 3 are locks as ATG's! The only real debate is as to high or low in the rankings they place among the other ATG's. I believe that all 3 ******t consideration in the 7-12 neighborhood, and that order can be switched around to fit the list maker/rankers criteria.

I currently have Frazier in the 7 slot (my 3rd tier), Liston at 8 (also 3rd tier), and tyson at 12 (5th tier).

1. Louis
2. Ali
For me they are the top tier and interchangable by the ranker

3. Johnson
4. Marciano
5. Holmes

for me these are the next 3 best HW's with little to nothing seperating them in my mind.

6. Foreman
7. Frazier
8. Liston
(This is where I place Frazier & Liston and find little seperating them, although I would pick Liston over frazier in a hypothetical H2H...I don't rate H2H because it is even more subjective than the weight that different people place on resume, and ultimately cannot be proven, while resume can be regarded differently it can also prove what has accomplished)

9. Lewis
10. Holyfield

I find these guys the next tier and very close for me)

11. Dempsey
12. Tyson
13. Jeffries

This is where I rank Tyson

14. Schmeling
15. patterson

16. Wills
17. Walcott
18. Charles

I can't really see anyway that Tyson, Frazier or Liston could be ranked higher than number 6....I don't believe they can crack the top 5. I also think they are too good to be ranked 14th or lower and cannot come up w/anyone to place above them (I would imagine Wlad will ultimately fall into the 14-18 range). I would have no problem w/the order of the 3 differing from mine, nor ask any questions unless 1 or more were rated top 5, or 14+!

[PhillyPhan69]

Tyson 8-10. Had he fulfilled all his potential he could have been top 5.

Frazier 11-15. Beat comebacking Ali but short prime and dismal defence against Foreman.

Liston 15-20. I just don't what some others see.

Could you post the 14-19 others who rate higher than him...I can't see outside of 13...15 at the absolute worst.

[PetethePrince]

I agreed in my mind first, so I get eleventy-twelve points, muthafucka. :cool:

damn I've been had. Well played sir, well played.

[FastHands(beeb)]

No, Tyson managed 2.

He won the title versus Spinks, and defended against Bruno & Williams, then lost it.

His "alphabet" title reign from '86 - '88 while Spinks was biding his time, is no different from Sonny Liston eliminating the contenders while waiting for Floyd Patterson to step up to the challenge. If the WBA/WBC and IBF had been around in 1959 or 1960 with their habitual stripping of titles I'm sure Liston would have gathered at least one or two of those belts before getting Patterson in the ring.

Tyson & Liston's situations are almost identical, and they both made short work of the champs when they finally got them in the ring.

sonny's jab - good post...like your previous 2 on this subject, saved me a lot of time typing! Your point about Tyson winning the title against Spinks and the similarity to Liston's pre-title reign is spot on. It's very easy for people to overlook the difference between an alphabet titel and the World Championship, even more so today when the audit trail is so blurred.:good

[FastHands(beeb)]

I dont see much difference in biting him out of blind fury and frustration, or biting with the actual intention of getting DQ'd. Either way, he lost control and was unable to channel himself into performing better in the face of adversity.
He's crumbled.
He bit Holyfield twice. Once after getting deducted two points. He was a man overcome with emotion, whether it fear, anger, hate, frustration. Who cares ? His behaviour made a mockery of anything resembling a boxing match, and he seemed unable or unwilling to act normal.

Personally I'm inclined to believe he really didn't want to fight. I mean, I've seen Tyson in rough fouls fights before and since, and he never resorted to anything quite as ridiculous as biting a chunk out of the man's ear.
Tyson butted, hit low, elbowed and punched after the bell at times in his entire BEFORE the Holyfield fight, (and plenty afterwards), and he took some back from certain fighters.
I think the fact that Holyfield had beat the crap out of him 6 months earlier was what really bothered him. Tyson was in much better shape for the rematch and suddenly realized he was not ever gonna walk through this guy. That's what I think happened.

Either way, he lost the plot. And that's got to be a mark against his mentality as a fighter when you compare him to the greats.



I think Tyson showed courage and toughness in taking his beating from Lewis. I think he had a different mentality that night than what he had against Holyfield.
I do NOT think he showed a will to win against Lewis, he didn't. I'm not sure he ever thought he could win that one. But I appreciated his resolve to take his beating like a man. He looked like a man on Zoloft paying pennance for his past sins, and he was way past his prime, but there was definitely some redemption made by his taking that beating as he did.

Liston's heart, will to win and courage are hard to assess. His losses to Clay/Ali may well have been fixed, so, IMO, he's perhaps guilty of selling his reputation down the river rather than showing cowardice. And there are examples of him being in tough and/or frustrating fights against others where he did not quit.
Still, I mark him down heavily for his losses to Clay/Ali. For whatever reason, he didn't show us anything much against the best opponent he ever fought. Whether he was out-of-shape, in the tank, injured or totally lacking heart, he quit once and then completely surpassed that debacle with the flop in the rematch.

You've taken the words out of my mouth again. In Holy 2, Tyson got himself DQ'd (and he knew he had to do something dreadful to "earn" a DQ in a fight of this size) because he didn't want another 9.5 rounds from Holy like he got in the first fight. Didn't Teddy Atlas predict a DQ loss for Tyson in Holy 2?

Againdt Lewis...I believe Tyson in a strange way took his lumps almost to "cleanse" himself from his former "sins" in the ring. I think he wanted to show the world he did have courage & could take his licks like a true fighter should.

[Foreman Hook]

ATG HEAVY ranks for them ppl -

6 - Frazier

11 - Liston

15 - Tyson