Joe Frazier or Muhammad Ali, who was the champion in 1971?

Who did/would you guys consider the legitimate heavyweight champion during the Fight of the Century in 1971?

Ali never lost the title in the ring, so he had some right to call himself the heavyweight champion, but he retired, even wanting to give his championship belt to the winner of Frazier vs Ellis. When you retire you technically lose the claim to the championship. Nobody considered Jeffries or Louis as the champions after they came back.

I'm curious what is your guys take on it.

 

The fact that Ali formally abdicated the year before renders this question moot.

 

Callis says Frazier
Hugman says Frazier
The Ring says Frazier
Boxrec wiki says Frazier

LinealBoxingChampion says Ali
Sports Illustrated says Ali

 

As Klompton has stated,Muhammad officially vacated the crown in 1970 so Joe was the official champion on the night of March 8th 1971.

 

Jeffries and Louis might not have been considered champions when they returned after retirement, but Sullivan was and many argue Corbett was as well.

I think there’s a distinction here between the lineal champion and the “true” champion. Briggs was lineal, but never the best in the division. Was he the “true” champion?

 

While I’ve always respected the concept of “lineage “ it can only be taken so far. When a man retires temporarily or is stripped of his title or exiled, the sport moves on without him. Joe Frazier was the defending champion in my opinion in march 1971. I don’t put as much weight on the slogan “ a champion can only lose his title in the ring “ as some people do.

 

In my view Joe Frazier was The Real World Heavyweight Champion when he fought Muhammad Ali the first time. He won it when he defeated James Ellis.

 

I agree. Otherwise the lineage would've ended with Tunney.

 

Yep. I’ve said the same thing before

 

Joe Frazier was the Champion, he was crowned Champion on Feb 16 1970 when he stopped WBA Champion Jimmy Ellis in Madison Square Garden. Frazier at the time was a 5 state champion prior to meeting Ellis. When Frazier met Muhammad Ali on March 8 1971, Ali entered as the challenger. Ali had been Champion from Feb 25 1964 until his title was stripped from him on April 28 1967 after 9 title defenses including a title unification win over WBA Champion Ernie Terrell on Feb 6 1967. Ali was also stripped of his boxing license by the New York State Athletic Commission. Ali had never lost his title in the ring prior to fighting Frazier.

 

All I know is Joe beat Ali fair and square, and I am sticking to that...

 

That's why it's an interesting topic in my view. Fury retired but he's still considered a lineal champion by some outlets, even tho The Ring Magazine and TBRB consider Usyk as THE heavyweight champion.

To be fair, you don't have to be the best in the division to be the champion. Jim Braddock wasn't really the best heavyweight on the planet when he held a title. Briggs either. But I would say Briggs was the real heavyweight champion at that time when we look at it historically.

 

The Ring Magazine considered Ali the champion until his retirement in February 1970. The WBC stripped him as a last sanctioning body in 1969.

 

The retiring and coming back has lots of precedent going back to the 1890s. And whether the champs fight or the older champ retires for good soon thereafter the situation usually resolves itself. There is no need to take eithers status.

In this case they were both dominant unbeaten fighters.

The lineal belt isn't meant to elevate the old champ over a champ named in their absence its meant to elevate the lineal champ over alternatives named when they are still active. The lineal term became popular in the 80s in response to alphabet champions not in response to situations like Ali v Frazier.

 

Mohammad Ali
That's why there is a lineal championship.
By the way, what kind of world heavyweight champion is Frazier if he doesn't win, or if he loses to Mohammad Ali?