Muhammad Ali's most difficult opponent, Frazier or Norton?

[Robbi]

This may surprise some people, but I think Norton was Ali's most difficult opponent. Two of his fights with Norton were non-title affairs. They never had the glamour or pre-fight hype that surrounded the first and third Ali-Frazier fights. But looking at all these fights strictly in isolation when it comes to what happened between the ropes, perhaps Norton actually gave Ali more trouble than Frazier did.

Norton did have a slight advantage as he fought Ali after Manila. And Frazier has the best win when he beat the undefeated, closest to prime, Ali in 1971. Norton's win and perhaps the most convincing of all the fights either had against Ali was his 1973, non title bout, in San Diego. Norton won that fight without any dispute whatsoever. The second fight was certainly close with that last round more or less deciding the fight. It's arguable if Norton also won that fight. Ali-Frazier II comes with 'next to no' controversy. I haven't mentioned all six fights, so please give me your thoughts.

Perhaps Norton's jab was the the primary reason he gave Ali more trouble than Frazier did. At long range Norton done pretty well against Ali. He'd jab at the same time as Ali, push him to the ropes, then go to the body with both hands to bring Ali's hands down, thus exposing him for head shots. Norton was also physically stronger than Frazier which helped him in the clinches. Frazier was maybe a better worker inside with volume. His height certainly helped somewhat and the way he fought 'bobbing and weaving'. His style suited going to Ali's body more consistently.

Whats your thoughts?

[mr. magoo]

I don't know if we can really differentiate between the two. Sure, its possible that Norton may have given Ali two additional tougher fights than Frazier, and may even have been robbed in one of them, but its still very close. Also, I would argue that the fight of the century Ali was a tad better conditioned in 1971, than the one who entered the ring at 220 Lbs against Norton in 1973 ( no excuses though ).

[Bokaj]

I feel that Norton was the somewhat tougher opponent. IMO no one gave as good a version of Ali as the one in Ali-Norton II as tough a fight as Norton did. I believe that that Ali was a bit better than the one in FOTC.

I can't of course say for sure exactly how the Ali of the Norton rematch would have fared in FOTC, but I think he would have done somewhat better than he did in reality.

[Bokaj]

Also, I would argue that the fight of the century Ali was a tad better conditioned in 1971, than the one who entered the ring at 220 Lbs against Norton in 1973 ( no excuses though ).

I agree. Probably more than a tad, even,

[bum of the week]

Intriguing question.
Ali was in better shape for Frazier I than Norton I and and less washed-up for Frazier III than Norton III, so they're hard to compare.
But the second fights against the two were only months apart with Ali in comparable conditions and I'd say Norton did marginally better in his fight.

Frazier was the better fighter overall but Nortons style was more bothersome.

Smokin Joe with his constant aggression mainly tested alis defense and resilience.
Norton while an aggressive fighter with his awkward crablike style first and foremost nullified Alis offense and tested his patience.

Frazier made Ali look good even in losing, Norton made Ali look bad even in winning.

Frazier hurt him more while Norton bored him and as I believe that Ali would r choose pain over boredom he probably prefered to fight Frazier.

[ChrisPontius]

Frazier if you ask me. He fought a much better version of Ali than Norton. Ali was 10 lbs overweight for the first fight with Norton and clearly underestimated him. When he was in-shape in the rematch, Ali beat him. In 1976, Ali had little left while Norton was at his peak, having recovered from the Foreman beating and posting impressive wins.

To summarize, Norton had the advantage of being at or near his peak for all three Ali fights, while Ali was out of shape for the first, in good condition for the second (which he won), and far past his best for the third.

Frazier on the other hand, was at his peak for the first fight (which Frazier won clearly), but declining heavily during the second two fights, as did Ali of course. And both were pretty damn close.


Frazier won his fight more decisive against a better version of Ali. Something else to note is that the Frazier fights took something out of Ali. Ali went from a capable fighter who handled Foreman to a nearly a shot fighter in Manilla.

[clark]

Well, it's a chess match with Norton. Life or death with Frazier.

[Robbi]

Frazier if you ask me. He fought a much better version of Ali than Norton. Ali was 10 lbs overweight for the first fight with Norton and clearly underestimated him. When he was in-shape in the rematch, Ali beat him. In 1976, Ali had little left while Norton was at his peak, having recovered from the Foreman beating and posting impressive wins.

To summarize, Norton had the advantage of being at or near his peak for all three Ali fights, while Ali was out of shape for the first, in good condition for the second (which he won), and far past his best for the third.

Frazier on the other hand, was at his peak for the first fight (which Frazier won clearly), but declining heavily during the second two fights, as did Ali of course. And both were pretty damn close.


Frazier won his fight more decisive against a better version of Ali. Something else to note is that the Frazier fights took something out of Ali. Ali went from a capable fighter who handled Foreman to a nearly a shot fighter in Manilla.

Norton was looked upon as a journeyman going into the first Ali fight. He never had the experience that Frazier did when he fought Ali in 1971. Frazier was a world champion at the time and at his peak. It must be said that Ali was unmotivated for the first fight which obviously takes a little bit shine off Norton's win. But nonetheless, Norton probably dominated Ali in that first fight more than Frazier did in the FOTC. Thats very arguable.

When you mentioned that Ali won the second fight against Norton. You didn't mention the controversy which surrounds that fight in your last post. The general consensus is that Ali won by a thickness of a razor blade. You also mention that Frazier was declining for the second and third fights. Fair doos. But you mention that both were close. Manila was close up until the stoppage, but the rematch wasn't. Certainly not as close as Ali-Norton II.

[Bokaj]

Intriguing question.
Ali was in better shape for Frazier I than Norton I and and less washed-up for Frazier III than Norton III, so they're hard to compare.
But the second fights against the two were only months apart with Ali in comparable conditions and I'd say Norton did marginally better in his fight.

Frazier was the better fighter overall but Nortons style was more bothersome.

Smokin Joe with his constant aggression mainly tested alis defense and resilience.
Norton while an aggressive fighter with his awkward crablike style first and foremost nullified Alis offense and tested his patience.

Frazier made Ali look good even in losing, Norton made Ali look bad even in winning.

Frazier hurt him more while Norton bored him and as I believe that Ali would r choose pain over boredom he probably prefered to fight Frazier.

Very good post, as usual. It should be pointed out that Norton was at his peak in the rematch with Ali while Frazier probably was slightly past his in 1974, though.

But I think that Ali won with a considerably more comfortable margin in the rematch with Frazier than in the one with Norton. In the rematch with Frazier he looked to have quite a lot of gas left in the last round, while he needed to squeeze every last drop to beat Norton.

[Mendoza]

Norton beat Ali 2-1 in my book, and hurt Ali more than Frazier did. I think Norton was tougher for Ali than Frazier by a small but noticeable margin.

[Sweet Pea]

While I think Norton would've likely always been a tough fight for Ali, the mileage that had built up on Ali had more to do with the styles matchup IMO, and I see Ali winning a clear UD prime for prime. Frazier would've always been very tough for Ali the way I see it.

[MRBILL]

This may surprise some people, but I think Norton was Ali's most difficult opponent. Two of his fights with Norton were non-title affairs. They never had the glamour or pre-fight hype that surrounded the first and third Ali-Frazier fights. But looking at all these fights strictly in isolation when it comes to what happened between the ropes, perhaps Norton actually gave Ali more trouble than Frazier did.

Norton did have a slight advantage as he fought Ali after Manila. And Frazier has the best win when he beat the undefeated, closest to prime, Ali in 1971. Norton's win and perhaps the most convincing of all the fights either had against Ali was his 1973, non title bout, in San Diego. Norton won that fight without any dispute whatsoever. The second fight was certainly close with that last round more or less deciding the fight. It's arguable if Norton also won that fight. Ali-Frazier II comes with 'next to no' controversy. I haven't mentioned all six fights, so please give me your thoughts.

Perhaps Norton's jab was the the primary reason he gave Ali more trouble than Frazier did. At long range Norton done pretty well against Ali. He'd jab at the same time as Ali, push him to the ropes, then go to the body with both hands to bring Ali's hands down, thus exposing him for head shots. Norton was also physically stronger than Frazier which helped him in the clinches. Frazier was maybe a better worker inside with volume. His height certainly helped somewhat and the way he fought 'bobbing and weaving'. His style suited going to Ali's body more consistently.

Whats your thoughts?

Ken Norton, due to his style, was tougher than that of Joe Frazier for the great Muhammad Ali. :deal

MR.BILL

Extra:

However, the fights with Joe Frazier were more exciting... Cheerio...:hi:

[Robbi]

While I think Norton would've likely always been a tough fight for Ali, the mileage that had built up on Ali had more to do with the styles matchup IMO, and I see Ali winning a clear UD prime for prime. Frazier would've always been very tough for Ali the way I see it.

I disagree. The difference of opinion is easily understandable. It's a debate which I shall take lightly with anyone. I don't think Ali had many tough fights between Frazier I and the first Norton fight. He was in with the likes of Bugner, Mathis, Ellis, Blin, etc, between those fights. He certainly wasn't taking any beatings that would put significant mileage on him physically.

I see Norton giving a prime Ali a tough fight. His jabbing strategy under Eddie Futch was all based around timing and parying Ali's jab while coming right back with his own. While the prime Ali would have the reflexes and handspeed to make things better defensively, I still see Norton having decent success. Norton's outside game gives a prime Ali more problems than Frazier's general style of trying to get underneath Ali's punches up until he got reasonably close enough to work at mid-range and on his chest.

[Jbuz]

Norton.

However, that's only because of the stage of his career. A peak Ali would've handled Norton much easier than a peak Ali would've handled Frazier. I thought it was pretty evident that when Ali was up on his toes, he was giving Norton fits. He couldn't sustain the dancing for the distance in the 70s though, not to mention the reflexes were nowhere near what they were.

[Robbi]

I'd like to hear JT and Stonehands' opinion on my initial opening post as well as both Norton and Frazier at their absolute peaks going up against a mid-60's prime Ali.

[ChrisPontius]

Norton was looked upon as a journeyman going into the first Ali fight. He never had the experience that Frazier did when he fought Ali in 1971. Frazier was a world champion at the time and at his peak. It must be said that Ali was unmotivated for the first fight which obviously takes a little bit shine off Norton's win. But nonetheless, Norton probably dominated Ali in that first fight more than Frazier did in the FOTC. Thats very arguable.

When you mentioned that Ali won the second fight against Norton. You didn't mention the controversy which surrounds that fight in your last post. The general consensus is that Ali won by a thickness of a razor blade. You also mention that Frazier was declining for the second and third fights. Fair doos. But you mention that both were close. Manila was close up until the stoppage, but the rematch wasn't. Certainly not as close as Ali-Norton II.

Ali won close in the rematch with Norton, but the rematch with Frazier was pretty close as well. Maybe not as close, but pretty close nonetheless.


I think Clark makes a great point, and it may be a subjective one, but given by how it's a close situation i think it is worth repeating: Norton beat Ali by scoring more points here and there. Frazier thrashed Ali the first and third time to such a degree he was never was the same again.

[Jack Presscot]

Well, it's a chess match with Norton. Life or death with Frazier.Frazier was to Ali what the Joker was to Batman, what Godzilla was to King Kong. What Aunt Esther was to Fred Sanford, the classic rivalry, and neither side would budge an inch for the other. Two awesome warriors, both stubborn as mules and PRIDEFUL like a Mofo. Even Richard Pryor saw this "Joe Frazier would NOT lay down for Ali"

[Bad_Intentions]

Joe Frazier.

[The Wanderer]

I'd pick Frazier. Norton was a technical puzzle whose style and strategy made him difficult for Ali, (more difficult than Frazier's did), but Frazier was THE rival to Ali. And Frazier consistently hurt Ali and had him fighting for his life for at least periods in all three of their fights.

[fists of fury]

Frazier made Ali look good even in losing, Norton made Ali look bad even in winning.



An excellent point.:good

[Marciano Frazier]

The Ali-Frazier fights were chronologically earlier, Ali was generally lighter and better-conditioned for them, and he was all-around more prepared and more serious when facing Frazier than when facing Norton. Ali viewed Frazier as his chief rival and premier foe, while Norton was just another contender, not to mention that two of the three Ali-Frazier fights were mega-event title fights, whereas two of the three Ali-Norton encounters were low-publicity non-title affairs. Frazier still posted the most resounding win over Ali, actually has a case for a win or draw in the rematch, and brought Ali "the closest he'd ever been to dying" in the rubber.

[mcvey]

Frazier if you ask me. He fought a much better version of Ali than Norton. Ali was 10 lbs overweight for the first fight with Norton and clearly underestimated him. When he was in-shape in the rematch, Ali beat him. In 1976, Ali had little left while Norton was at his peak, having recovered from the Foreman beating and posting impressive wins.

To summarize, Norton had the advantage of being at or near his peak for all three Ali fights, while Ali was out of shape for the first, in good condition for the second (which he won), and far past his best for the third.

Frazier on the other hand, was at his peak for the first fight (which Frazier won clearly), but declining heavily during the second two fights, as did Ali of course. And both were pretty damn close.


Frazier won his fight more decisive against a better version of Ali. Something else to note is that the Frazier fights took something out of Ali. Ali went from a capable fighter who handled Foreman to a nearly a shot fighter in Manilla.
Good post Chris,with which I agree,though I think the accepted verdict that Frazier was" gone", a little overstated, he was 29 the same age as Ali when Frazier beat him.Plus Frazier had been active ,albeit against 3 rd division men .
The assertion by another poster that Norton was stronger than Frazier ,I find debatable,and the fact that he said Norton's height bothered Ali,Norton did not" fight tall" ,he came forward in a half crouch,tall men didnt trouble Ali as much as the shorter guys.The key to Norton's success against Ali was to [as instructed by Eddie Futch]jab when he does ,to negate his jab.This and the fact that Ali did not have the power to intimidate Norton ,and push him back.

[Arka]

The Ali-Frazier fights were chronologically earlier, Ali was generally lighter and better-conditioned for them, and he was all-around more prepared and more serious when facing Frazier than when facing Norton. Ali viewed Frazier as his chief rival and premier foe, while Norton was just another contender, not to mention that two of the three Ali-Frazier fights were mega-event title fights, whereas two of the three Ali-Norton encounters were low-publicity non-title affairs. Frazier still posted the most resounding win over Ali, actually has a case for a win or draw in the rematch, and brought Ali "the closest he'd ever been to dying" in the rubber.

Ali definitely was slightly out of condition for their third fight..
He thought it was going to be an easy night,like their second fight.
The heat and humidity of Manilla didn't help too and the fact that the referee Padilla was not allowing any of the holding behind the head tactics,that had served him so well in Frazier II and Zaire.

[Marciano Frazier]

Ali definitely was slightly out of condition for their third fight..
He thought it was going to be an easy night,like their second fight.
The heat and humidity of Manilla didn't help too and the fact that the referee Padilla was not allowing any of the holding behind the head tactics,that had served him so well in Frazier II and Zaire.
This fight went 14 brutal rounds in, as you allude to, sweltering heat and humidity, and was an all-time compubox giant in terms of punches thrown by both guys, yet Ali was in there firing strong and winning in the last two rounds- the man was not out of shape! He was considerably heavier than in his prime, mind you, at 224 1/2, but he was weighing around the mid-220s for all of his fights at that stage, and Frazier was also substantially heavier than his peak self. The main noticeable difference is that, in many of his fights immediately preceding and especially proceeding this one, you saw a lackadaisical, lethargic Ali who would spend substantial portions of the fight laying on the ropes doing nothing ("rope-a-dope"-ing was his excuse, but the tactic was pretty much useless post-Foreman)- see the Norton rubbermatch, for instance. At that stage, Ali was perhaps becoming a bit jaded all-around. Manila was about the last time you really saw a galvanised Ali.

Note, also, that Frazier and Ali were declining together in their series. A prime Frazier beat a slightly-past-prime Ali in the Fight of the Century, then a past-prime Frazier lost (very narrowly) to a past-prime Ali in the rematches. Norton was in his prime for all of his fights with Ali, and his series started and ended later than Frazier's did, with him facing a virtually-shot Ali in the rubber match. It is true that Norton did arguably win the third Ali fight, but when one takes into consideration that at that point, Ali had already arguably lost to Jimmy Young earlier that year, and would go on to arguably lose to Shavers the next year, then actually lose to Leon Spinks the following February, I don't think it's all that terribly impressive. The post-Manila Ali was little more than a shell of his old self.

[Arka]

This fight went 14 brutal rounds in, as you allude to, sweltering heat and humidity, and was an all-time compubox giant in terms of punches thrown by both guys, yet Ali was in there firing strong and winning in the last two rounds- the man was not out of shape! He was considerably heavier than in his prime, mind you, at 224 1/2, but he was weighing around the mid-220s for all of his fights at that stage, and Frazier was also substantially heavier than his peak self. The main noticeable difference is that, in many of his fights immediately preceding and especially proceeding this one, you saw a lackadaisical, lethargic Ali who would spend substantial portions of the fight laying on the ropes doing nothing ("rope-a-dope"-ing was his excuse, but the tactic was pretty much useless post-Foreman)- see the Norton rubbermatch, for instance. At that stage, Ali was perhaps becoming a bit jaded all-around. Manila was about the last time you really saw a galvanised Ali.

Note, also, that Frazier and Ali were declining together in their series. A prime Frazier beat a slightly-past-prime Ali in the Fight of the Century, then a past-prime Frazier lost (very narrowly) to a past-prime Ali in the rematches. Norton was in his prime for all of his fights with Ali, and his series started and ended later than Frazier's did, with him facing a virtually-shot Ali in the rubber match. It is true that Norton did arguably win the third Ali fight, but when one takes into consideration that at that point, Ali had already arguably lost to Jimmy Young earlier that year, and would go on to arguably lose to Shavers the next year, then actually lose to Leon Spinks the following February, I don't think it's all that terribly impressive. The post-Manila Ali was little more than a shell of his old self.

Hmmm...I largely agree with you.However,I still think Ali looked more conditioned and sharper in the Foreman fight

[Marciano Frazier]

Hmmm...I largely agree with you.However,I still think Ali looked more conditioned and sharper in the Foreman fight
Well, yes, I agree that Ali was sharper/trimmer against Foreman. I think he let himself go a bit after the Foreman fight, and consequently couldn't get back down to sub-220 anymore even if he wanted to, at least without draining himself silly self-destructively like he did for Holmes. However, as I said before, there is no way he could've done what he did in Manila without being in absolutely elite physical condition.

[Bokaj]

Norton.

However, that's only because of the stage of his career. A peak Ali would've handled Norton much easier than a peak Ali would've handled Frazier. I thought it was pretty evident that when Ali was up on his toes, he was giving Norton fits. He couldn't sustain the dancing for the distance in the 70s though, not to mention the reflexes were nowhere near what they were.

I don't agree. As I've said, for me the versions of Ali from the rematches with Norton and Frazier (1973 resp. 1974) was the ones that was closest to peak Ali. (He had his peak weight of 212 lbs in both matches.)

And that Ali had more trouble with Norton than with Frazier. Even when he was dancing he had trouble getting to Norton with his jab and one-twos, and when he slowed down Norton gave him absolute hell. That shows to me that Norton would be difficult for any version of Ali.

[Bokaj]

Well, yes, I agree that Ali was sharper/trimmer against Foreman. I think he let himself go a bit after the Foreman fight, and consequently couldn't get back down to sub-220 anymore even if he wanted to, at least without draining himself silly self-destructively like he did for Holmes. However, as I said before, there is no way he could've done what he did in Manila without being in absolutely elite physical condition.

You're right. For me that version of Ali was on par with the one in FOTC, the difference being that he fought smarter in Manilla.

[Marciano Frazier]

You're right. For me that version of Ali was on par with the one in FOTC, the difference being that he fought smarter in Manilla.
I think a bigger difference would be that Frazier was 10 pounds heavier and heavily-declined since their first fight. I don't think either guy was as good as he had been four years earlier, as a result of their slowing, softening bodies. However, their hearts were as big as ever, and they certainly still both had the endurance and vigor of champions.

[Bokaj]

I think a bigger difference would be that Frazier was 10 pounds heavier and heavily-declined since their first fight. I don't think either guy was as good as he had been four years earlier, as a result of their slowing, softening bodies. However, their hearts were as big as ever, and they certainly still both had the endurance and vigor of champions.

Frazier wasn't quite what he had been in FOTC, but as you said the punchstats for both was even greater than in the first fight. They both had enough left for one great fight.

I think that Ali fought a better, smarter fight in Manilla than in FOTC. He didn't drop his right hand as much (thus exposing himself less for the great left hook) and paced himself better. Both fights were actually very much in the balance after 9-10 rds, but in Manilla Ali took command of the fight while Frazier did the same in FOTC.

[Bill Butcher]

I voted Frazier because both gave him trouble but IMO Joe made Ali hurt more.

Ali treated Frazier as a more dangerous threat & tried very hard & dug deep in every Frazier fight, Joe fought a very good Ali 3 times, Norton fought a very good Ali once & in that fight he lost, it was the 2nd Ali/Norton fight & I gave Ali 7 rds.
The 1st Norton fight, Ali was in terrible shape & the 3rd fight he was way past prime approaching shot as Joe took everything away from him in their 3rd fight in Manila.

I always imagine a prime Ali vs these 2 at their peaks & even tho I see a UD for Ali vs both, I get the feeling that Frazier gives him the much tougher fight.

Norton was more`complicated` but Frazier was`tougher` if that makes sense.

[Bummy Davis]

Frazier he had Alihurt badly in the 11th rd of the 1st fight and down hard in the 15th and the 2nd and 3 rd fights were hell in the ring for most of the fight, I think the difference in the 2nd two was that Frazier slipped but he was still alive enough to make it life or death...Norton's style and pressuer made it hard for Ali but Fraziers power inflicted more pain and the body shots landed by Frazier hurt more than a broken jaw which occured when Ali got hit with his mouth open.

[Ted Spoon]

Norton could never of pushed Ali like Frazier did in their first bout, but he certainly posed some stylistic dilemmas that the 'slowing Ali' had much trouble in negating.

Of the two, it should go to Frazier because he gave Ali his greatest beating at a time when Ali was in better shape than he ever was again, which means for any of the Norton fights.

When Norton beat Ali, preparation played a big part, not so much though when Joe initially sank Ali's ship.

To split honours, Norton was probably the most difficult to figure out whereas Frazier was most difficult to overcome.

[groove]

Very hard to call. Ali was a better fighter in the 2nd Norton fight that he was in FOTC - Ali got in very good shape for that rematch. He won the first 6 rounds easy by constantly moving. When he tired Norton took over. Similar story re Frazier. Peak Ali v peak Frazier would be a close fight. Peak Ali could move even more than in Norton 2 so i think peak Ali would win easier - maybe 9 rounds to 6. Still a close call whichever way you see it.

[Robbi]

The assertion by another poster that Norton was stronger than Frazier ,I find debatable,and the fact that he said Norton's height bothered Ali,Norton did not" fight tall" ,he came forward in a half crouch,tall men didnt trouble Ali as much as the shorter guys.

I said that Frazier's height was better suited when going to Ali's body and his 'bob and weave' style in general. I never said that Norton's height bothered Ali.

[mcvey]

I said that Frazier's height was better suited when going to Ali's body and his 'bob and weave' style in general. I never said that Norton's height bothered Ali.
You are entirely correct ,sorry ,my sloppy reading ,apolgies!

[Stonehands89]

I'd have to concur with Marciano-Frazier and Ted Spoon, et al. Ali trained harder, was closer to his prime, and had to go to hell for Frazier whereas Norton's stylistic difficulties posed problems.

However --Ali's most difficult opponent was that nappy head watching the fight from under the bottom rope in the opposite corner. The man who an ailing Ali met again years later, who he walked up to and mumbled "you always gave me problems." Eddie Futch.

[The Predator]

I think that Fraizer was the hardest of them two.
In the first Norton fight Ali had is jaw broken, that must have done it very difficult for Ali to fight at his best even if he wasn´t in the best shape at that time. The second fight was Ali the winner, the third one is close, so close that even I who has Ali as a housegod, wonder if he really won that one.
Ali -Frazier 1. I think that fight came little to early for Ali after his comeback and, yes Frazier won that one. A big difference in the first and the second fight was that in the first fight Ali just stod there and fought with Frazier and that is not very wise. In the second one Ali was dancing and moving for all 12 rounds that made it much harder for Frazier.
The third one was a total war but Ali won that one even if they would have went for all 15 rounds.
So how would Norton and Frazier do against Ali from the 60´s?
Well during this period Ali was to fast, to sharp and had superb reflexes, neither one of them would have been close to win a fight against him. I think Frazier would have been the one who had put up the best struggle but he would have taken a hell of a beating cause Ali was lethal at that time.
When you write about these guys it makes me wonder what happened to the heavyweight´s, it´s to boring today.
All the best my friends
The Predator

[timmers612]

Maricano-Frazier, I think you had the post manilla fights pegged right. I had Young outscore Ali, Ali win by a point in the third Norton fight, by Kenny's fault, he gave Ali that last round and with it the decision, and the Shaver's bout was close. I didn't see the second Ali-Frazier bout that close, and neither the second Ali-Norton bout. Both I had clear cut for Ali.

[Bokaj]

Maricano-Frazier, I think you had the post manilla fights pegged right. I had Young outscore Ali, Ali win by a point in the third Norton fight, by Kenny's fault, he gave Ali that last round and with it the decision, and the Shaver's bout was close. I didn't see the second Ali-Frazier bout that close, and neither the second Ali-Norton bout. Both I had clear cut for Ali.

It's really astonishing how fast he declined after Manilla. Suppose there are other examples, but I can't come to think of any right now.

[PaddyD1983]

Have to agree with the thread starter... Norton was stylistically all wrong for Ali. Frazier is the better boxer of the two but Ali just couldnt seem to figure Norton out to dominate him. The fights with Frazier were more punishing for Ali (despite the broken jaw Norton gave him in I) but in terms of a more difficult opponent I'd have to go with Norton.

[round15]

Hard to say who was the more difficult opponent because both gave Ali big problems in both trilogies.

I'd lean slightly towards Norton based on the medical factors surrounding both fighters' careers. It is arguable that Frazier was at his physical peak from 1967-1970 and declining slightly just prior to the FOTC. His body was at his best for the FOTC, but his vision problems, notably the cataract surgery he was putting off was becoming a serious issue. Norton on the other hand didn't have any documented medical problems although he stated that he showed up lighter and weaker for the rematch against Ali.

Both men would have given Ali problems at any time in his career, even during his first title reign before his exile. Norton however, was the fighter with the awkward style for Ali that he never really figured out.

[ljj]

Norton by far!