BoxRec

Let's not forget that it was exactly 41-years-ago today that the shocking Sunshine Showdown, between heavyweight champ Joe Frazier and unbeaten challenger George Foreman took place in Jamaica.

It was probably one of the most stunning and one-sided major heavyweight title fights ever, with the powerful but untested Foreman scoring 6 knockdowns on his way to a second round blowout win and the championship.

Frazier went into the bout a 3-1 favorite, but hardly looked like the same fighter who less than 2 years earlier won the FOTC against Muhammad Ali.
The 1973 version of Smokin' Joe was repeatedly bounced up and down off the canvas by Foreman's sledgehammer blows, until referee Arthur Mercante halted the carnage near the end of the second round.

Younger fans may be a little hazy about the details of this jaw-dropping fight, but even today everyone is aware of announcer Howard Cosell's fabled, excited call the first time Frazier hit the deck:
"Down goes Fray-Zuh!, Down goes Fray-Zuh!, Down goes Fray-Zuh!, Down goes Fray-Zuh!!"
After all this time, it remains one of the most iconic, parodied and repeated lines in sports' broadcast history.

So here's to Big George and the spirit of Smokin' Joe for giving us a memorable night in boxing history all those years ago.

Oh man, it was brutal beating. But to me, that was not the same great Joe Frazier of the Fight of the Century. He was not the same after that fight with the great Muhammad Ali.

elmersalsa wrote:Oh man, it was brutal beating. But to me, that was not the same great Joe Frazier of the Fight of the Century. He was not the same after that fight with the great Muhammad Ali.

It had been 22 months since Frazier fought a real fighter. ( Early apologies to fans of Daniels and Stander.)
But some argue that with a few exceptions, the 37-0 Foreman himself had never EVER fought a real fighter going into the Kingston affair.

SenorPipino wrote:It had been 22 months since Frazier fought a real fighter. ( Early apologies to fans of Daniels and Stander.)
But some argue that with a few exceptions, the 37-0 Foreman himself had never EVER fought a real fighter going into the Kingston affair.

There was a valid reason why an Olympian with a 37-0 record was a 3-1 dog.

The Great John L wrote:

SenorPipino wrote:It had been 22 months since Frazier fought a real fighter. ( Early apologies to fans of Daniels and Stander.)
But some argue that with a few exceptions, the 37-0 Foreman himself had never EVER fought a real fighter going into the Kingston affair.

There was a valid reason why an Olympian with a 37-0 record was a 3-1 dog.

I recall reading a preview of the fight in Ring Magazine, and the writer questioned whether Foreman had legitimate punching power.
He speculated that Foreman's impressive KO record (34 KO's in 37 fights) was merely the result of facing terribly inferior competition.
I guess he was right to label Foreman's opposition "inferior" but he was sure wrong about the punching power.

I think this vicious beat-down puts into proper context the true scale of Ali's achievement in Zaire a year or so later......

Wouldnt Foreman beat any version of Frazier?

"George Foreman is doing to Joe Frazier what he did as a 19-year-old to a veteran Russian...a fellow named Ionis Chapulis in October 1968 at the Mexico City Olympic Games!"

Howard Cosell, broadcasting from ringside

I saw this fight;-).

Foreman beat him in one-sided fight.

"The heavyweight champion is taking the mandatory 8-count and Foreman is as poised as can be in a neutral corner."

Howard Cosell, after the first knockdown

Foreman was just all wrong for Frazier. Frazier as great as he is, would've always got his ass kicked by the Foreman of Kingston.

Foreman threw so many straight, beautiful punches in Jamaica. He looked like a truly seasoned professional.
Less than 2 years later, against Ali in Zaire, and now apparently convinced that just a few punches would knock out anybody after subsequent destructions of Roman and Norton, Foreman looked like a wild neophyte.
Deluded into thinking he was indestructible, Foreman's skills regressed considerably in Africa.

SenorPipino wrote:Foreman threw so many straight, beautiful punches in Jamaica. He looked like a truly seasoned professional.
Less than 2 years later, against Ali in Zaire, and now apparently convinced that just a few punches would knock out anybody after subsequent destructions of Roman and Norton, Foreman looked like a wild neophyte.
Deluded into thinking he was indestructible, Foreman's skills regressed considerably in Africa.

Fighters get caught up in their own hype sometimes and it costs them. Same thing happened to Tyson in Japan.

I have seen this fight maybe 20 or 30 times. I first saw it on TV a day after it happened and I will always go back to it. it holds a great fascination for me - the destruction of a guy I thought was indestructible! wow! I remember before the bout joe said his young son marvis was ringside. how must that brutal beating affect a young son? I loved joe and felt very sorry for him - it was humiliating and my respect for him grew when he was interviewed on TV quite soon after it and gave great plaudits to George.

While this subject is up I had been meaning to ask a question not so much about this fight, but about the year it took place in.

Ring Magazine called the Frazier/Foreman fight the Fight of the Year when it happened for some strange reason, what I want to know is...What was really the fight of the year that year? Because I know damn well a 2 round destruction wasn't it. No matter how, high profile.

gilgamesh wrote:While this subject is up I had been meaning to ask a question not so much about this fight, but about the year it took place in.

Ring Magazine called the Frazier/Foreman fight the Fight of the Year when it happened for some strange reason, what I want to know is...What was really the fight of the year that year? Because I know damn well a 2 round destruction wasn't it. No matter how, high profile.

I think your last comment pretty much sums up Ring's reasoning.
It was a very high profile fight and was the most stunning of the year.
I suppose they didn't feel it was the best bout of 1973 but considering the top-notch combatants, with the biggest prize in sports on the line and the shocking, one-sided destruction of an undefeated favored heavyweight champion, it was simply the Fight of the Year.
And even after 41 years, isn't it the fight that 1973 is most remembered for? It's probably one of the most memorable bouts in heavyweight history.

gilgamesh wrote:While this subject is up I had been meaning to ask a question not so much about this fight, but about the year it took place in.

Ring Magazine called the Frazier/Foreman fight the Fight of the Year when it happened for some strange reason, what I want to know is...What was really the fight of the year that year? Because I know damn well a 2 round destruction wasn't it. No matter how, high profile.

Some of their choices have been nuts. Holyfield/Tyson was another one sided fight that got FOTY unjustly, Ward/Gatti III had no business winning and I know there are many others.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

gilgamesh wrote:While this subject is up I had been meaning to ask a question not so much about this fight, but about the year it took place in.

Ring Magazine called the Frazier/Foreman fight the Fight of the Year when it happened for some strange reason, what I want to know is...What was really the fight of the year that year? Because I know damn well a 2 round destruction wasn't it. No matter how, high profile.

Some of their choices have been nuts. Holyfield/Tyson was another one sided fight that got FOTY unjustly, Ward/Gatti III had no business winning and I know there are many others.

Holyfield/Tyson was outdone by both Gatti vs Rodriguez, and Barrera vs McKinney.

Gatti/Ward III, was outdone by Toney/Jirov and Dorin/Spadafora to me. I always thought Dorin vs Spadafora was a really great fight, but it's all but forgotten now.

SenorPipino wrote:"George Foreman is doing to Joe Frazier what he did as a 19-year-old to a veteran Russian...a fellow named Ionis Chapulis in October 1968 at the Mexico City Olympic Games!"

Howard Cosell, broadcasting from ringside

That was bullsh*t. Frazier is my favorite heavyweight champion, but Foreman gave Joe a worse beating than he gave to Chapulis . . .

I remember Foreman had stopped George Chuvalo a couple of years earlier and thinking this SOB can punch! If he can hurt Frazier early and back him up, Joe's in trouble. I still couldn't believe Foreman could maul Frazier so easily. Always wondered if the win over Ali had dampened Joe's fighting drive just a bit.

raylawpc wrote:

SenorPipino wrote:"George Foreman is doing to Joe Frazier what he did as a 19-year-old to a veteran Russian...a fellow named Ionis Chapulis in October 1968 at the Mexico City Olympic Games!"

Howard Cosell, broadcasting from ringside

That was bullsh*t. Frazier is my favorite heavyweight champion, but Foreman gave Joe a worse beating than he gave to Chapulis . . .

I believe Cosell was opining that Foreman, a relative amateur novice when he faced Chapulis, dominated and outclassed the favored, veteran Russian.
Although he had 37 pro fights when he met Frazier, Foreman was again considered untested and unproven, simply because he fought few talented opponents on the way to his title bout with the favored Frazier.
In both cases, there were plenty of question marks surrounding George, but he dismantled both Frazier and Chapulis despite those doubts.
No, he didn't knock the Russian down 6 times, but he stunningly dominated him in a precursor to Foreman's dramatic destruction of Frazier just 4 1/2 years later.

It was a tremendous performance by Foreman. There really is not a comparable situation where a fighter this great got dominated quite like this.

George Foreman was the only 1970s heavyweight that Joe Frazier didn't match up well with.

- Chuck Johnston

Ambling Alp II wrote:It was a tremendous performance by Foreman. There really is not a comparable situation where a fighter this great got dominated quite like this.

I have seen other greater performances of that criteria.