What about Schmeling - Louis I ?
What about Schmeling - Louis I ?
If God wanted us to be vegetarians, why are animals made of meat ?
Luis wasn't world champ thenOriginally Posted by X
Aha! Good oneOriginally Posted by Taeth
Actually what am i talking about.
Holyfield was a great Cruiserweight :P
Nearly
Hidden Content
Original & Best: The Sugar Man
Yeah your right. Its becasue Tyson was blatantly under prepared/ motivated that is kinda distracting me from that fact that he WAS only infact 24!Originally Posted by Bilbo
Although (and yes i didn't make myself clear at all...) my argument only applies to the debate of 'great' heavyweights and their 'great' victories.
Hidden Content
Original & Best: The Sugar Man
I know, but he was still a 'Great' and he was in his prime.Originally Posted by Bilbo
If the world champion was always the best fighter in the world, then there would never be new world champions - plus, I belive that you are either 'great' or you are not .... people don't suddenly become great, the fact that they are 'great' only becomes slowly revealed to us?
If God wanted us to be vegetarians, why are animals made of meat ?
Schmeling-Louis 1 is a great choice X.
Schmeling-Louis II
Who the hell is LUISOriginally Posted by Bilbo
Ali-Frazier all 3 of them
Ali-Foreman
Foreman-Frazier
Bowe-Holyfield 1-3
Lewis-Holyfield 1-2
Louis-Walcott 1-2
It's so difficult because great fighters don't usually come in bunches in the same division but there are some examples out there.
You're confusing me, so let's get the chronology right, guys.Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Ali-Frazier 1 - March 1971
Foreman-Frazier 1 - January 1973
Ali-Frazier 2 - January 1974
Ali-Foreman - October 1974 (not 1 year, but 3½ years after Ali-Frazier 1, and also after Ali-Frazier 2 had already taken place)
In Ali-Frazier 1 you had two greats, but only one, Frazier - the winner - in his prime. I think it's fair to describe Foreman-Frazier 1 as two greats in their prime (although it doesn't matter if Foreman wasn't as the requirement is that the loser is a great in their prime). However, some argue that Frazier's win over Ali took more out of the former than the latter, and he was never the same fighter again. Given the style of Foreman's win - a quick blitzing, as Frazier was just made for George - I think it's a moot point whether Frazier was still in his prime. Essentially, Foreman would have beaten a prime or sub-prime Frazier. Regarding Ali-Frazier 2, the question is still whether or not Frazier was prime following both a gruelling battle with Ali 3 years before and a devastating defeat a year earlier against Big George. Ali certainly wasn't prime, despite being the easy winner, but he didn't have to contend with a layoff unlike 3 years earlier (despite his two 1970 warmup fights). Honestly, I simply don't know if Frazier was still prime!
Regarding Ali-Foreman, I think it's safe to argue that Foreman was prime. Ali certainly wasn't, but the winner doesn't have to be, and the victory merely reinforced his own greatness and legend.
Only two things are infinite - the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not so sure about the universe. A. Einstein?
Chagaev beat Valuev in his prime. He was 46-0 and beat some world class opposition in that record and was in no way protected at all ever!
Also, Shannon Briggs, one of the all time greats of world heavyweight boxing was beaten convincingly by Sultan Ibragimov.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks