What Happened To Ken Norton?

[My2Sense]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fb0Qidm9Fg

The answer to your question can actually be summed up in two words: EARNIE SHAVERS.

Contrary to what some people in this thread have suggested, Norton was still considered a top fighter going into the Shavers fight. Not only did he get knocked out in that fight, but he took a pretty bad beating in that short span of time, from an absolutely mammoth puncher. Just think about it: the hardest puncher in history, simply teeing off on you wherever and however he wanted to hit you, even if only for a minute straight. Norton was finished after that fight, both as a contender and as a fighter in general. In his next fight, he barely escaped with a draw against the very average Scott Ledoux, and then barely edged another close fight with another average fighter, Tex Cobb. I think he was knocked down in either one or both of those fights, if I remember correctly. It was obvious from those two fights that he was just a shell of himself, and after that he was basically fed to Cooney.

[Ambling Alp]

That is true that Norton was still considered a top fighter going into the Shavers fight. He had given Holmes a great fight. His only fight after that was against a journeyman. He looked ok in that fight but it was hard to tell since the competition wasn't that good.

Generally a champion who loses his title in great fight and hasn't lost again is going to be rated pretty high. (I believe Norton was the #1 contender.)
However, hindsight being 20/20, perhaps we should have known that he didn't have much left.
A fight like he had against Holmes is going to take a lot out of a 35 year old.

How much Norton had left going into the Shavers fight is something I have often thought about.
This is sort of a gray area. Was Norton shot or close to his best?
There isn't any evidence of him declining before the Shavers fight. It's does seem strange (though not unheard of) for a guy to lose it over night. Usually a fighter declines more gradually.

However, if you factor in his age, the punishment he took against Holmes, and how he looked against Shavers even before he was hurt, it seems that he was past it.

Shavers does deserve some credit. His own performance was impressive. His deserves more credit for his win than Cooney's but less than Foreman should get.

[My2Sense]

That is true that Norton was still considered a top fighter going into the Shavers fight. He had given Holmes a great fight. His only fight after that was against a journeyman. He looked ok in that fight but it was hard to tell since the competition wasn't that good.

Generally a champion who loses his title in great fight and hasn't lost again is going to be rated pretty high. (I believe Norton was the #1 contender.)
However, hindsight being 20/20, perhaps we should have known that he didn't have much left.
A fight like he had against Holmes is going to take a lot out of a 35 year old.

How much Norton had left going into the Shavers fight is something I have often thought about.
This is sort of a gray area. Was Norton shot or close to his best?
There isn't any evidence of him declining before the Shavers fight. It's does seem strange (though not unheard of) for a guy to lose it over night. Usually a fighter declines more gradually.

However, if you factor in his age, the punishment he took against Holmes, and how he looked against Shavers even before he was hurt, it seems that he was past it.

Shavers does deserve some credit. His own performance was impressive. His deserves more credit for his win than Cooney's but less than Foreman should get.

I agree with a good deal of your points.

For starters, the Norton-Cooney fight was indeed irrelevent. Not strictly because of Norton's age (37 or whatever) but because it was obvious from the LeDoux and Cobb fights that Norton was spent. Those fights were the equivalent of David Reid's post-Tito efforts. Norton-Cooney was irrelevent to any knowledgable boxing fan who saw it 30 years ago, and there's no reason it should be looked on any better since then.

Also, I agree that it's probably oversimplifying things to say that Norton simply had a "glass chin". Even in the Shavers fight, he took a sh*tload of big punches before finally going out. However, I think the fact that he was so impotent against Shavers even at that time has to reveal some kind of limitations about him.

Norton very possibly was starting his decline around then, but I don't believe a case can really be made that he was outright shot or close to that yet. I also don't believe that he really can be excused for being so inept against a fighter that was as limited as Shavers really was. Although Norton's age was around 35-ish, keep in mind that he was at his peak just a few years earlier (at around 32-33), when he fought Quarry, Jose Luis Garcia, and Ron Stander, so 35 wasn't necessarily a bad age for him. Muhammad Ali was older and much farther past his prime when he fought Shavers (and a younger Shavers) and yet he was able to find a way to stay with him (although personally, I felt Shavers won that fight). I also believe that Jerry Quarry, even though he was probably only about 30 at the time, was farther past his own prime when he fought Shavers than Norton was when he did (remember, Quarry peaked in the late '60s), yet he took some of Earnie's best shots and came right back to flatten him, and that was when Shavers was at his own peak. Outside of his exceptional power, Shavers (unlike Foreman) was a pretty limited fighter.

Furthermore, I don't even believe Shavers was in his own prime when he fought Norton. I feel they both peaked around the same time, and they both were at around the same stage in their careers when they fought (and probably around the same age, too). Both men were making one final run for a title. Shavers won and duly got his title shot, but both men were pretty much finished thereafter. Shavers looked shot against Tex Cobb around the same time Norton did.

As far as using the Quarry fight as proof of Norton's ability to handle big punchers, I think it should be remembered that there's a big difference between taking Quarry's powerpunches and taking Shavers'. Quarry was really only a cruiserweight-sized fighter, only about 190-195 pounds at his peak. Shavers was naturally about 15-20 pounds heavier than that, and almost certainly carried the heavier punch regardless. When facing Shavers, Norton was fighting a bigger man with a bigger punch than Quarry was. Also, Quarry was himself pretty much spent by the time he fought Norton. As said, he was already considered past his prime when he fought Shavers (which is what made that result such a big surprise) and he looked close to shot against Frazier, and that was a year or two before the Norton fight.

Now, Duane Bobick was reputed to be a big puncher at the time he fought Norton, and like Shavers was a pretty limited fighter otherwise. That would suggest that in order to beat a big puncher, Norton had to catch them fast and blow them out quickly. If he felt their power before he scored with his (as happened against Shavers), then he stood a good chance of "freezing" and falling apart. Especially if the puncher comes out the way Shavers did and just throws caution to the wind.

I suppose it's possible that under other circumstances, Norton might have started faster and Shavers started slower, and the result would have been switched. But then, I think you could argue for the same for Bobick taking out Norton early rather than vice versa.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

I wish I could change my title...The video goes more to the character of a boxer who would punch a helpless man four times...

If it was momentum then there is no case to be made but if he willingly hit a helpless man four times I wish he would have been served up to a up and coming hungry Mike Tyson who would have no compunctions about beating a helpless man silly...

[My2Sense]

All true, but I thought his tactics for the Shavers fight were plain stupid, he came out basically looking to counter off the ropes, instead of using his jab and circling. Dumb move...

I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me that he came out trying to stick and move and did that for about 20 seconds into the round, until he got a taste of Shavers' power. Watch at around 45 seconds into the youtube video, Shavers fires a right hand to Norton's side, and although it appears to be partially blocked, you can see Norton jump back as if reacting to Shavers' power. Shavers then pours it on and Norton looks clueless as to what to do under the onslaught. It's as if he's waiting for Shavers to slow down or stop punching before getting down to his own fight plan, but Shavers just won't stop, and the result is that Norton gets steamrolled. People talk about a lot of potential factors in this fight, but I think it all came down to one thing: Norton just couldn't handle Shavers' power, mentally or physically. As soon as he got a hint of it, he choked.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

All true, but I thought his tactics for the Shavers fight were plain stupid, he came out basically looking to counter off the ropes, instead of using his jab and circling. Dumb move...

I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me that he came out trying to stick and move and did that for about 20 seconds into the round, until he got a taste of Shavers' power. Watch at around 45 seconds into the youtube video, Shavers fires a right hand to Norton's side, and although it appears to be partially blocked, you can see Norton jump back as if reacting to Shavers' power. Shavers then pours it on and Norton looks clueless as to what to do under the onslaught. It's as if he's waiting for Shavers to slow down or stop punching before getting down to his own fight plan, but Shavers just won't stop, and the result is that Norton gets steamrolled. People talk about a lot of potential factors in this fight, but I think it all came down to one thing: Norton just couldn't handle Shavers' power, mentally or physically. As soon as he got a hint of it, he choked.

Which goes back to my argument that styles make fights...Norton was able to hang with two of the ten best boxers of all time for fifty four rounds but couldn't hang with sluggers like Foreman and Shavers... Boxers feared that Ali or a Holmes might cut them or humiliate them...Boxers feared that a Shavers or Foreman might take their head off...It has to affect how they react in the ring...

[Jaclem]

i thin i'm expressing for everyone here a vote of gratitude to THEONEcoming on here in july and telling us that styles make fights.
it's an addition to our boxing knowledge that we never have thought of.

[My2Sense]

Which goes back to my argument that styles make fights...Norton was able to hang with two of the ten best boxers of all time for fifty four rounds but couldn't hang with sluggers like Foreman and Shavers...

I agree, except I would change the word sluggers to read big punchers, to make it clear just what it was about those two particular sluggers that bothered Norton.

[Flump]

All true, but I thought his tactics for the Shavers fight were plain stupid, he came out basically looking to counter off the ropes, instead of using his jab and circling. Dumb move...

I'm not so sure about that. It seems to me that he came out trying to stick and move and did that for about 20 seconds into the round, until he got a taste of Shavers' power. Watch at around 45 seconds into the youtube video, Shavers fires a right hand to Norton's side, and although it appears to be partially blocked, you can see Norton jump back as if reacting to Shavers' power. Shavers then pours it on and Norton looks clueless as to what to do under the onslaught. It's as if he's waiting for Shavers to slow down or stop punching before getting down to his own fight plan, but Shavers just won't stop, and the result is that Norton gets steamrolled. People talk about a lot of potential factors in this fight, but I think it all came down to one thing: Norton just couldn't handle Shavers' power, mentally or physically. As soon as he got a hint of it, he choked.

He had the opportunity to grab Shavers and move away from the ropes, instead he willingly traded with his back to the ropes, and paid the penalty. I'm sure buy that stage of his career Norton knew how to hold, he just chose the wrong tactics IMHO.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Which goes back to my argument that styles make fights...Norton was able to hang with two of the ten best boxers of all time for fifty four rounds but couldn't hang with sluggers like Foreman and Shavers...

I agree, except I would change the word sluggers to read big punchers, to make it clear just what it was about those two particular sluggers that bothered Norton.

I'm curious...Did you think those final four punches were gratuitous?

[My2Sense]

Which goes back to my argument that styles make fights...Norton was able to hang with two of the ten best boxers of all time for fifty four rounds but couldn't hang with sluggers like Foreman and Shavers...

I agree, except I would change the word sluggers to read big punchers, to make it clear just what it was about those two particular sluggers that bothered Norton.

I'm curious...Did you think those final four punches were gratuitous?

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if you're trying to criticize Cooney for wailing away on a defenseless Norton like that, I think you're wrong. The fighter isn't supposed to show considerartion for his opponent's condition. That's the job of the referee, the ringside doctor, the opponent's cornermen, the commissioner - basically, everyone but the fighter. That's the whole reason those people are there. Cooney did exactly what his job description is, which is to keep fighting within the rules until the referee instructs him otherwise. To have stopped throwing punches is contrary to everything that he's expected to do and instructed to do. If any person should be criticized here, it should be the referee, for being too slow to do his job and stop it.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

i thin i'm expressing for everyone here a vote of gratitude to THEONEcoming on here in july and telling us that styles make fights.
it's an addition to our boxing knowledge that we never have thought of.

I apologize if you find my musings offensive or just plain banal...

I do think it is remarkable that Ken Norton fought fifty four more or less competitive rounds with two consensus top ten heavyweights like Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes and was so quickly disposed of by Earnie Shavers and George Foreman... Sometimes Willam Ockham and the principle of lex parsimoniae is correct...

[TheOneIsHere2008]

I'm curious...Did you think those final four punches were gratuitous?

I'm not sure what you mean by that, but if you're trying to criticize Cooney for wailing away on a defenseless Norton like that, I think you're wrong. The fighter isn't supposed to show considerartion for his opponent's condition. That's the job of the referee, the ringside doctor, the opponent's cornermen, the commissioner - basically, everyone but the fighter. That's the whole reason those people are there. Cooney did exactly what his job description is, which is to keep fighting within the rules until the referee instructs him otherwise. To have stopped throwing punches is contrary to everything that he's expected to do and instructed to do. If any person should be criticized here, it should be the referee, for being too slow to do his job and stop it.

Gerry Cooney had no affirmative obligation to stop hitting him however I have seen instances where fighters have shown mercy on opponents that weren't in nearly as vulnerable position as Ken Norton...

[Ambling Alp]

That is true that Norton was still considered a top fighter going into the Shavers fight. He had given Holmes a great fight. His only fight after that was against a journeyman. He looked ok in that fight but it was hard to tell since the competition wasn't that good.

Generally a champion who loses his title in great fight and hasn't lost again is going to be rated pretty high. (I believe Norton was the #1 contender.)
However, hindsight being 20/20, perhaps we should have known that he didn't have much left.
A fight like he had against Holmes is going to take a lot out of a 35 year old.

How much Norton had left going into the Shavers fight is something I have often thought about.
This is sort of a gray area. Was Norton shot or close to his best?
There isn't any evidence of him declining before the Shavers fight. It's does seem strange (though not unheard of) for a guy to lose it over night. Usually a fighter declines more gradually.

However, if you factor in his age, the punishment he took against Holmes, and how he looked against Shavers even before he was hurt, it seems that he was past it.

Shavers does deserve some credit. His own performance was impressive. His deserves more credit for his win than Cooney's but less than Foreman should get.

I agree with a good deal of your points.

For starters, the Norton-Cooney fight was indeed irrelevent. Not strictly because of Norton's age (37 or whatever) but because it was obvious from the LeDoux and Cobb fights that Norton was spent. Those fights were the equivalent of David Reid's post-Tito efforts. Norton-Cooney was irrelevent to any knowledgable boxing fan who saw it 30 years ago, and there's no reason it should be looked on any better since then.

Also, I agree that it's probably oversimplifying things to say that Norton simply had a "glass chin". Even in the Shavers fight, he took a sh*tload of big punches before finally going out. However, I think the fact that he was so impotent against Shavers even at that time has to reveal some kind of limitations about him.

Norton very possibly was starting his decline around then, but I don't believe a case can really be made that he was outright shot or close to that yet. I also don't believe that he really can be excused for being so inept against a fighter that was as limited as Shavers really was. Although Norton's age was around 35-ish, keep in mind that he was at his peak just a few years earlier (at around 32-33), when he fought Quarry, Jose Luis Garcia, and Ron Stander, so 35 wasn't necessarily a bad age for him. Muhammad Ali was older and much farther past his prime when he fought Shavers (and a younger Shavers) and yet he was able to find a way to stay with him (although personally, I felt Shavers won that fight). I also believe that Jerry Quarry, even though he was probably only about 30 at the time, was farther past his own prime when he fought Shavers than Norton was when he did (remember, Quarry peaked in the late '60s), yet he took some of Earnie's best shots and came right back to flatten him, and that was when Shavers was at his own peak. Outside of his exceptional power, Shavers (unlike Foreman) was a pretty limited fighter.

Furthermore, I don't even believe Shavers was in his own prime when he fought Norton. I feel they both peaked around the same time, and they both were at around the same stage in their careers when they fought (and probably around the same age, too). Both men were making one final run for a title. Shavers won and duly got his title shot, but both men were pretty much finished thereafter. Shavers looked shot against Tex Cobb around the same time Norton did.

As far as using the Quarry fight as proof of Norton's ability to handle big punchers, I think it should be remembered that there's a big difference between taking Quarry's powerpunches and taking Shavers'. Quarry was really only a cruiserweight-sized fighter, only about 190-195 pounds at his peak. Shavers was naturally about 15-20 pounds heavier than that, and almost certainly carried the heavier punch regardless. When facing Shavers, Norton was fighting a bigger man with a bigger punch than Quarry was. Also, Quarry was himself pretty much spent by the time he fought Norton. As said, he was already considered past his prime when he fought Shavers (which is what made that result such a big surprise) and he looked close to shot against Frazier, and that was a year or two before the Norton fight.

Now, Duane Bobick was reputed to be a big puncher at the time he fought Norton, and like Shavers was a pretty limited fighter otherwise. That would suggest that in order to beat a big puncher, Norton had to catch them fast and blow them out quickly. If he felt their power before he scored with his (as happened against Shavers), then he stood a good chance of "freezing" and falling apart. Especially if the puncher comes out the way Shavers did and just throws caution to the wind.

I suppose it's possible that under other circumstances, Norton might have started faster and Shavers started slower, and the result would have been switched. But then, I think you could argue for the same for Bobick taking out Norton early rather than vice versa.

I will tell you what I disagree with:
-Norton had much more reason to be washed up than Quarry. I don't belieive that Quarry peaked in the 1960's.
He was only 29 when he fought Norton. Norton was 35 when he fought Shavers. That is a gigantic difference.

If Norton was younger, he may have started faster and/or been more difficult to hit. He also may have been able to survive Shavers onslaught.

I don't think you can make that comparison with Bobick. Bobick could punch, but he was no Earnie Shavers. If Norton fought Bobick 10 times, the result would probably be similar 9 times.

If Norton would have fought Shavers 10 times a few years earlier, Shavers wouldn't have blown him away 9 times.

Likewise, if Shavers fought Quarry again, the result may have been a lot different. Almost anything could have happened with those two.

Earnie Shavers wasn't exactly the most consistent fighter. Judging someone on what they did against Shavers isn't as reliable as juding someone on how they did against a consistent fighter.

Just watch Norton, especially the first 45 seconds or so before he gets hurt. He is doing nothing. It's obvious that he isn't the same guy who fought Larry Holmes.

I agree that Ali did much better than Norton did against Shavers. That's is just the umpteenth example of Ali's greatness. Ali was better than Norton. To some extent, it's the difference between a great chin (Ali) and good chin (Norton) Against most fighters it wouldn't matter. Against Shavers (especially at the age of 35) it does matter.

My main problem with criticizing Norton for the Shavers fight: I can't think of anyone else who gets criticized for a fight when they are 35. Why Norton gets this criticism makes little sense.

[Knucklez]

"Beating" fighters who are shot proves nothing.

Poor old Granberry puts the final nail in the coffin of his "Young was better than Ali" argument.

[granberry]

Jimmy Young gave Ali a boxing lesson for 15 rounds.

That's why members of The Religion of Ali like knukhead HATE Young with such a passion.

[My2Sense]

I will tell you what I disagree with:
-Norton had much more reason to be washed up than Quarry. I don't belieive that Quarry peaked in the 1960's.
He was only 29 when he fought Norton. Norton was 35 when he fought Shavers. That is a gigantic difference.

If Norton was younger, he may have started faster and/or been more difficult to hit. He also may have been able to survive Shavers onslaught.

I don't think you can make that comparison with Bobick. Bobick could punch, but he was no Earnie Shavers. If Norton fought Bobick 10 times, the result would probably be similar 9 times.

If Norton would have fought Shavers 10 times a few years earlier, Shavers wouldn't have blown him away 9 times.

Likewise, if Shavers fought Quarry again, the result may have been a lot different. Almost anything could have happened with those two.

Earnie Shavers wasn't exactly the most consistent fighter. Judging someone on what they did against Shavers isn't as reliable as juding someone on how they did against a consistent fighter.

Just watch Norton, especially the first 45 seconds or so before he gets hurt. He is doing nothing. It's obvious that he isn't the same guy who fought Larry Holmes.

I agree that Ali did much better than Norton did against Shavers. That's is just the umpteenth example of Ali's greatness. Ali was better than Norton. To some extent, it's the difference between a great chin (Ali) and good chin (Norton) Against most fighters it wouldn't matter. Against Shavers (especially at the age of 35) it does matter.

My main problem with criticizing Norton for the Shavers fight: I can't think of anyone else who gets criticized for a fight when they are 35. Why Norton gets this criticism makes little sense.

A few of your points I think are very questionable.

-Norton had much more reason to be washed up than Quarry. I don't belieive that Quarry peaked in the 1960's.
He was only 29 when he fought Norton. Norton was 35 when he fought Shavers. That is a gigantic difference.

I think Quarry had far more reason to be washed up than Norton. You mentioned the punishment that Norton had taken in his career, but it almost pales to what Quarry took. Quarry had had his head and face bashed in more times than I can remember. Off the top of my head, he'd already been stopped five times before fighting Norton, and in at least three of those he took terrible, terrible poundings. Not to mention other tough battles he had along the way, like his two with Patterson. Without looking at their records, I'd reckon he had more fights in general than Norton too.

It is indeed a huge difference in years, but years are not the sole determinent for when a fighter ages, and perhaps not even the biggest one.

Just watch Norton, especially the first 45 seconds or so before he gets hurt. He is doing nothing. It's obvious that he isn't the same guy who fought Larry Holmes.

Is it? He was fighting a different style of fighter than Holmes, so it made sense that he would fight a different way. He may not have looked the same way as he did against Holmes, but IMO he looked the same he did against other sluggers/punchers like Quarry, Garcia, or Stander. He started off those fights the same, not pressing the fight, but jabbing and circling away, and letting the other guys come to him. It just looks to me that when the other guys landed their first punches, Norton reacted like, "Whatever". When Shavers landed, he said, "Oh sh*t!" Since the disparity between Shavers' power and those others' is pretty substantial, I don't believe that kind of disparity in reaction is surprising either.

My main problem with criticizing Norton for the Shavers fight: I can't think of anyone else who gets criticized for a fight when they are 35. Why Norton gets this criticism makes little sense.

Well for starters, it isn't exactly common that a fighter is considered in or near his prime at around the age of 35, but it does happen. I can think of at least several fighters that were considered at the height of their powers in their early or mid 30s: Dick Tiger, Bernard Hopkins, Lennox Lewis, Jose Napoles, Archie Moore, Jersey Joe Walcott, Joe Calzaghe, Roy Jones, just off the top of my head.

Tiger was criticized for losing to Joey Giardello at around 34, Lewis was criticized for losing to Rahman at around 35, and Moore was criticized for losing to Leonard Morrow (by first round KO) at around 35/36, to name a few examples. The difference in all those cases is that all of those fighters avenged those losses in very decisive fashion, and were considered to have redeemed themselves by doing that. But none of those fighters were given a free pass because of their age. All were expected to avenge those losses in order to maintain their reputations/legacies.

[HomicideHenry]

After Holmes, lets face it, Norton was NEVER the fighter or near the fighter he once was. The last real victory he had that was exciting was against the very limited human anvil Randall "Tex" Cobb [which was a 10 round split]. Norton was still a name by the time Cooney came rolling around, but his previous outings had shown he was no longer "with it".

What happened to Norton? Age [38], inactivity [in the last 2 years he had 3 fights], and he was going up against the single most hardest hitting heavyweight in the division at that time, and arguably was the hardest hitting heavy of all time [even when Foreman fought Cooney in 1990, he said that nobody he had ever fought in his career came close to hitting as hard as the inactive Cooney]. And its not too surprising to think that after 49 fights that it would eventually come crashing down on you, the years of wear and tear, extensive training, the wars in the ring, etc.

Norton was never the same after 1978 when he defended his WBC title claim against Larry Holmes, which was no doubt the best heavyweight fight of that year, and its logical to think that Norton left everything he had left in the ring that night. It happens to fighters.

[granberry]

i thin i'm expressing for everyone here a vote of gratitude to THEONEcoming on here in july and telling us that styles make fights.
it's an addition to our boxing knowledge that we never have thought of.

Learn something new every day, huh Jaclem?
.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

"Beating" fighters who are shot proves nothing.

-granmama

Poor old Granberry puts the final nail in the coffin of his "Young was better than Ali" argument.

- knucklez

Jimmy Young gave Ali a boxing lesson for 15 rounds.

That's why members of The Religion of Ali like knukhead HATE Young with such a passion.

-granmama

Why don't you explain to us the difference between a done Ken Norton being beaten silly by Gerry Cooney and a done Muhammad Ali fighting gamely but awkwardly to a unanimous decision over Jimmy Young instead of issuing one of your patented obscurantist responses...

P.S. The Young fight was scored on the point system...One wonders how many points Young lost for sticking his head out of the ring to avoid punishment.. I counted at least four times ...There were probably more...

[granberry]

Jimmy Young is hated with a passion by the Thomas Hauser indoctrinated members of The Religion of Ali.

Jimmy Young gave Ali a boxing lesson.

The walking army of the Grovelers for Ali cannot stand that.

Ali looked like an ass against Young.

[Jaclem]

..theone.....i shall accept your apology with the same drollery in which i made the quoted comment. now, in case it was sincere (har har) i pass along to you a mantra i live by..."never apolgize...never explain.

actually in some ways i found that post razor sharp.

[Tantum]

Hey look... It's Miguel... Gerry Cooney's long lost Mexican Cousin...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_rtm4vk_N0

[My2Sense]

Hey look... It's Miguel... Gerry Cooney's long lost Mexican Cousin...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_rtm4vk_N0

This vid is better:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JgAgifCl ... re=related

It shows the white guy talking about his intense prison background, slitting an inmate's throat, etc.

Then the Mexican comes on and just says, "Hi, my name is Miguel!"

It also has great slow motion replays.

[TheOneIsHere2008]

Jimmy Young is hated with a passion by the Thomas Hauser indoctrinated members of The Religion of Ali.

Jimmy Young gave Ali a boxing lesson.

The walking army of the Grovelers for Ali cannot stand that.

Ali looked like an ass against Young.

Muhammad Ali won the fight and Jimmy Young looked like the common euphenism for a woman's nether parts, something you have never had since it had you, when he stuck his head out the ring ropes on at least four occasions to avoid further punishment...

Howard Cosell and Ken Norton were calling the fight...Actually, Norton was more of a guest as he arrived after the fight began:

Howard Cosell - "Kenny , have you ever seen that before?" -referring to Jimmy Young sticking his head out the ring to avoid punishment

Ken Norton "No,Howard, I haven't"

LOL


P.S. "You are so full of your own falsehoods and delusions . If you could be half the man Muhammad Ali was in the ring you might like yourself."

-Ringsider (changed Ray Leonard to Muhammad Ali)