I've read many books about Muhammad Ali. The one I'm thinking of at the moment was written in 1975,by Wilfred Sheed. He came out with a very profound thought. There had,and has,been an unwritten law re.heavyweight boxing. There have never been two great heavyweights in the ring at the same time. Two great heavyweight names,maybe. But one rises as the other declines. History is littered with examples. Marciano over Louis. Holmes over Ali. Tyson over Holmes. Almost like it has always been necessary for one to pass the torch onto the other. Well,on March 8 1971 that law was suspended. On that night Joe Frazier was,indeed,a great fighter. Muhammad Ali,albeit a little ring rusty,was also a great fighter. This has n't happened before or since,imo. It's funny,but a lot of the other divisions,have frequently had two great fighters in the ring at the same time. Thoughts ?
Other weightclasses can compromise in weight -- people can come up and come down, putting two dominant champions of different classes in the same ring. When Spinks and Holmes fought, there were undoubtedly two great champions in the ring at the same time, though one was slightly past it and the other not a true heavyweight.
liston and ali. both great champs at the same time. if ali wouldn't have been around sonny would have been champ for a few more years
How true. Unfortunately money and the advent of 2 or more champions in the same division has probably ruined any chance of seeing something like this again which is why boxing must go back to ONE heavyweight champion of the world. The idea of 2 0r 3 heavyweight "Champions" is absurd and I'm disgusted by it. Ali HAD to fight Frazier to regain the ONE title. There weren't 2 or 3 champions to pick and choose from (Like Roy Jones did in choosing Ruiz. An opponent he knew he could beat). Frazier was the Heavyweight Champion of the World no ifs ands or buts about it and that's the way it should be today as well.
As regards two great heavyweights meeting at their peak, I agree FOTC is the historical apex, but, IMO, this "rare", "mysterious" phenomenon is simply a matter of the most dominant fighter eclipsing everyone else. Since Dempsey-Tunney, great or at least very good heavyweights have shared the ring, but the better fighter simply makes the other seem washed-up, not-as-good-as-once-believed, etc. Joe Louis turned back his share of potentially good champions during his reign. How far would Cleveland Williams have gone had there been no Sonny Liston to pummel him back to second tier? Zaire is a pretty nifty example of two great heavyweights sharing the ring. Bowe and Holy were not too shabby, either. Two contemporary future great heavyweights met in the secluded anonymity of the Catskills under the sage eye of Cus D'Amato, who prophesied their eventual showdown. I continue to believe a young Lennox Lewis, older of the two, calculated wisely that it would better serve his interests to remain a 24-year-old amateur than face the fury of young Mike Tyson in a new Fight of the Century.
I can not agree with you more. All these different alphabet titles is ridiculous. It's like having seperate competitions of the same exact event in the olympics and having more than one gold medal winner, even with no competing with the other gold medalists. What kind of garbage is that?
Too damn right ! It's about time the boxing commisions got their heads out of their backsides,for the common good :good
Yes. Ali and Foreman were indeed,two great heavies at the same time. George was in his prime. Muhammad had enough of his prime left to be considered still great.
This is a more than reasonable case you make here however I have to make a significant point regards that fight. Frazier was at his peak in 1971 but Ali (Clay) was not. If you watch all the Ali fights on tape (as I have done over the years) you will notice a remarkable missing 'spring in the step' of Ali after his exile. Also he was under prepared for that battle by having two comeback bouts against flat footed journeymen. The greatness of Ali was that he was able to re-invent himself after that defeat and go on to re-claim the World title even with his skills slowly fading. Sure it was one of the fights of the century (and this one too!) but I'm glad there were 2 more fights afterwards so that Ali had the 2-1 win over Frazier. (even though had Ali not been in exile that would have been 3-0)
the 71' version of frazier was never the same after that fight.but on that night he was ................awesome. could he have beaten ali peak to peak ie.71 frazier-67 ali .no:good
Folks, sorry to be a nose tweaker but in re the the fight in question, Smoking Joe was never better- Ali was overconfident, very rusty and failed to train.
I agree that Ali was n't at his peak for that fight. He did have enough of his greatness left,though. The Foreman fight was still three and a half years ahead.
Welcome! I'd say Quarry and Bonavena were a cut above mere journeymen. They were top contenders and good fighters. But Joe Frazier was an all-time great, primed in the best shape of his life for the fight of his life and mere months back did not prove enough preparation for such a test. Wasn't Frazier pretty flat-footed himself?
