More Impressive win all things considered....

Well then he fought a foolish game plan. Foreman imo looked very bad in this fight he tired quickly and fought a fool’s game plan. Ali whatever he did behind the scenes, looked to me in good shape and fought and a high pace for 15 rounds against a man he didn’t like and didn’t want to lose to. So for me it’s The Frazier win

 

Another thing in favor of Zaire is how Ali won. Few expected Ali to win, but absolutely no one him to win like he did.

It was more or less like Joe would have found that his plan of pinning Ali on the ropes wouldn't work, and proceeded to outbox him instead.

 

I think it's kind of crazy to penalize Ali for outsmarting Foreman. No one except Ali expected him to fend off and survive Foreman's onslaught like he did. In hindsight Foreman might seem foolish, but that's knowing what we do now.

Absolutely no one at the time would have said "pace yourself if Ali stands against the ropes, don't try and go for the quick KO". So taking away from Ali's off the cuff fight plan in hindsight, is really penalizing him for his brilliance.

 

Frazier

 

No i’m Not penalizing Ali for his game plan. I’m penalizing Foreman’s game plan. I thought he fought dumb, and I thought his condition was poor. Yes going in Foreman was viewed as a monster a lot of big punchers always are, on paper going in you have to say Ali winning was the bigger upset. Ali Frazier was clearly thought of, as a more even match. I’m just going by what actually occurred in the ring, I thought Ali offered more in the fight of the century and still lost therefore I view Fraizer’s win as the greater win.
Obviously they are both great wins for either man.

 

If Ali didn't train enough I think he it was because he was being distracted by all the glitz and glamour.

But either way, let's say they all prepared as well as they should. It wasn't me who brought that discussion up to start with and it isn't a reason as to why I have Ali's win as probably greater. It's because of the reasons I listed in my first post plus that Ali achieved the win in a manner absolutely no one expected.

 

But nobody thought that Foreman's game plan was bad until Ali turned it against him. No one thought that Ali would survive, not to mention get the better of Foreman, while on the ropes. No one said "George better be careful not to spend himself if Ali stays on the ropes".

Everyone, including Ali's own people, thought it was a suicide move for Ali to stay on the ropes and that Foreman would get him in no time. So Foreman's aggression only becomes a bad idea in hindsight, after Ali showed he had the ability to exploit it. But the genius of Ali was to have the idea in the first place and then follow through with it as brilliantly as he did. That's part of the reason why it's so such a magnificent victory.

 

Well I agree to disagree for points I listed out. Again I thought Foreman gassed quickly and believed his own press clippings. I thought it was a poor performance by Foreman. And a great win for Ali. But I thought Joe vs Ali really brought out the best in both men and was the better win. Much like Louis vs Schmeling 1. And Douglas vs Tyson it was give and take that went deep into the fight. Foreman looked like a stumbling drunk to me by round 5

 

The only reason I can see as to why FOTC would be a more impressive win is that one might think Foreman turned out to be largely smoke and mirrors. And after Zaire he did look much more vulnerable, while Ali would go on to easily beat a slew of contenders and of course Foreman after FOTC, even though Norton would give Ali similar problems Frazier did.

But even if Foreman was being heavily overrated before Zaire, and that is a substantial "if", you still have to give it to the guy that managed to call his bluff.

 

Ok. We disagree. I don't think Foreman put in a poor performance, I think Ali made him look bad by putting in such a great performance.

If there isn't substantial reason not to, I think one should always credit the winner for making the loser look bad. Because if you put in a really great performance you will make your opponent look worse than usual in more cases than not, and I don't think you should be penalized for it.

 

Why can’t it be a combination of both. Ali laid on the ropes, most people thought it would be suicide against Foreman but it worked with Foreman’s wide punches and the give on the ropes. Ali was tougher mentally and he deserves all the credit for that. It was a great win. I’m not discrediting him he was the underdog and he pulled off what most people felt he could not. I don’t wish to undermine his win I’m just saying in context of the question of whose win was greater i’ll Go with Fraziers. But I won’t fight anyone who thinks differently I can see different viewpoints on these matches. I like Frazier’s cause I thought Ali fought a better game plan in that fight than George fought against him and I thought George looked sloppy very quickly in his fight with Ali. That’s all. Two great wins.

 

George looked sloppy at times, like he always had, but Ali was the first to capitalize.

Ali had his usual sloppy moves against Frazier as well (low hands, punching without bringing his hands back into guard, uppercutting without bending at the waist etc - there is an interesting clip on Youtube where Futch talks about this), but Joe was the first to capitalize.

The difference for me is that Foreman was at his absolute peak in Zaire, while Ali in FOTC had lost some of the movement that previously let him get away with his bad habits. Plus that Norton would exploit those same flaws, while Foreman would never be beat in quite the same fashion again.