Who had the better win over Ali

Frazier's win was more impressive/meaningful, but Norton proved to be the tougher/more difficult style match up for Ali. But I do agree with those who said that Ali was younger, sharper, in better shape, and more motivated for the first Frazier fight than he ever was for Norton, and the first Frazier fight was just a wonderful bout.

 

The biggest victory was Superfight 1 however I don't think Ali ever beat Norton ... Norton clearly won the first and third fights nd I feel the second was a draw ...

 

Not sure about this .. the Ali of the second Norton fight might have been better than the Ali of Superfight 1 ... far sharper after far more activity ...

 

Fraziers win was far more meaningful but i don't think Ali's age makes it more impressive at all.

Ali's arguably three biggest win's came after he lost to Norton. Ali was in good shape when he fought Norton.

 

I agree with you that he was in a pretty good run, but I don't think his shape for that particular fight was very good. Nor his mindset.

With that said, he doesn't seem to have been in best possible shape for FOTC either. Dundee, and also Mailer, said that he wasn't as committed in training as he should have been. Dundee said he was in very good shape, but not in that 100% shape a fight like that warranted.

I actually think that Ali was better prepared for the second and third fight with Norton than he was for FOTC or Manilla.

Still, FOTC is the better win. But there's absolutely not as much in it as some here wants to make out.

 

Fotc.

I've read enough about the third fight with norton to imply it essentially ended ali's reign as the best hw on the planet. I'm going to score this fight very soon and see if I agree he got jobbed.

 

Without a doubt.

 

FOTC not even close.

It was the fotc for a ****ing reason.

 

frazier MADE ali look bad and rusty

 

Irrespective of the age of Ali in the two fights (Frazier I and norton I) he was clearly overweight undertrained and poorly prepared for the norton bout. Fraziers win is a mile better- took away the undefeated status of the consensus goat, knocked him down and did the whole thing with controlled brutality...

 

Frazier of course, and for one simply reason; who else would have beaten Ali that night?

 

If you are judging only one fight it is Frazier, but when comparing trilogies I would go with Norton (as he basically should've won it).

I also do not understand why the fact that Ali fought with broken jaw is used against Norton. After all it was Norton who broke it with legal punch during the fight, and he was just doing what he was supposed to do. No one thinks that (for example) Mercer should've won with Holyfield because he got his rib broken... yet Ali as usually gets another measure.

 

Ali never KO'd Frazier.

 

frazier was the better victory but the ali that came in at 212 pounds (his peak motion fighting weight e.g. williams/terrell) for the norton rematch was a better fighter than in FOTC even tho he was 2 years older.

 

Both highly signifigant. Frazier has the edge,due to the status of the fight,and the fact that Ali was in better shape for the FOTC than he was for the first Norton fight.

Muhammad still was n't in top condition for the FOTC of the century though. He was at his seventies best for the second fights with each man. Those and the second Quarry and Foreman fights. Ali was just as good in Norton 2 as he was in Frazier 2.

I rate Muhammad's performances against Frazier and Norton as follows -

1) Norton 2/Frazier 2
2) Frazier 1/Frazier 3 *
3) Norton 1
4) Norton 3

* I find it hard to split Frazier 1 & 3. Ali was faster in the first one,but fought a smarter fight in the third.