YOUR score for the Ali-Norton fights.

[Ambling Alp]

You know it's funny how things have changed. Right after the fight, opinion was very divided on who won the 3rd fight. Almost everyone had it close. It remained a close fight for many years. Now, it seems that many people on this forum as a "robberry". Perhaps the biggest robbery in the history of heavyweight title fights.

I watched the fight again for the first time in years. Oddily enough, Norton did not pound Ali from pillar to post this time either. Once again he didn't have him in serious trouble even once. Once again there were several close rounds.

Maybe it's the way fights are now scored?
I would think that even most of Ali's biggest detractors would agree that Ali won rounds 1, 7, 9, 11 and 15.

I thought Ali won round 10 and but it was close and could see someone calling it even or even giving it to Norton.

Rounds 3, 4 and 8 were even.

Rounds 12,13, and 14 were close, but I gave them to Norton. I could see someone scoring any of them even or for Ali.

Norton clearly won rounds 2,5, and 6.

So I suppose if you gave Norton every remotely close round, you could have him winning 10 rounds to 5. Even if you do that, a reasonable person would have to admit that it a deceptive score.

Apparently the way that it was judged by most people at the time was different. Apparently some people don't think that every remotely close round should have gone to Norton. Apparently, some people had the gall to give some of the close rounds to Ali. Doing that, you could have it even or (gasp) score it for Ali.

[BoxBuzz]

Alp, your antagonizing many of the folks without reason. I've got a good mind to issue you a warning for being balanced in your presentation. Please attempt to spin things is some sort of controversial way if you want to remain in good stead with the hoity paloi.

If you say there are 5 rounds one way and three rounds in the other direction....then if you divi out the close rounds equally you end up with......well I won't say it as it is Heresy to do so. I for one do not intend to cause further panic and consternation within the ranks. I feel this sort of passionate display coming from an obviously bias "zealot of balance and reason" is a bit graphic and over the top.

Please use better judgment in future contributions or risk further alienating many of our esteemed and highly valued contributors.

[dempseyfire]

You know it's funny how things have changed. Right after the fight, opinion was very divided on who won the 3rd fight. Almost everyone had it close. It remained a close fight for many years. Now, it seems that many people on this forum as a "robberry". Perhaps the biggest robbery in the history of heavyweight title fights.

I watched the fight again for the first time in years. Oddily enough, Norton did not pound Ali from pillar to post this time either. Once again he didn't have him in serious trouble even once. Once again there were several close rounds.

Maybe it's the way fights are now scored?
I would think that even most of Ali's biggest detractors would agree that Ali won rounds 1, 7, 9, 11 and 15.

I thought Ali won round 10 and but it was close and could see someone calling it even or even giving it to Norton.

Rounds 3, 4 and 8 were even.

Rounds 12,13, and 14 were close, but I gave them to Norton. I could see someone scoring any of them even or for Ali.

Norton clearly won rounds 2,5, and 6.

So I suppose if you gave Norton every remotely close round, you could have him winning 10 rounds to 5. Even if you do that, a reasonable person would have to admit that it a deceptive score.

Apparently the way that it was judged by most people at the time was different. Apparently some people don't think that every remotely close round should have gone to Norton. Apparently, some people had the gall to give some of the close rounds to Ali. Doing that, you could have it even or (gasp) score it for Ali.

12, 13, 14, 3 and 8 were not even, they were clear Norton rounds. Myself and many others scored round 15 for Norton, that was not a clear Ali round at all. Ali dances around flicking jabs and landing NOTHING, while Norton is the aggressor and lands the only clear and damaging shots in the round in the last 30 seconds . .he's also the one pressing the fight. To me a solid Norton round.

When did a fighter have to get a fighter in major trouble to clearly win a round?

Many thought Norton-Ali III was a big robbery at the time (there was a reason Kenny was introduced in the Bobick fight as the man "generally recognized as the uncrowned HW champion of the world), and many do now.

[Ambling Alp]

Alp, your antagonizing many of the folks without reason. I've got a good mind to issue you a warning for being balanced in your presentation. Please attempt to spin things is some sort of controversial way if you want to remain in good stead with the hoity paloi.

If you say there are 5 rounds one way and three rounds in the other direction....then if you divi out the close rounds equally you end up with......well I won't say it as it is Heresy to do so. I for one do not intend to cause further panic and consternation within the ranks. I feel this sort of passionate display coming from an obviously bias "zealot of balance and reason" is a bit graphic and over the top.

Please use better judgment in future contributions or risk further alienating many of our esteemed and highly valued contributors.

Sorry Buzz. I forgot that I am not supposed to be balanced.
I am supposed to pretend that rounds 3, 8, 12, 13, 14 were not close. I am supposed to believe that they were "clear" Norton rounds.
My mistake about round 15. I didn't know I was supposed to p0retend about that one as well. I am supposed to pretend that none of Ali's jabs landed in round 15, and Norton won the round even though he did little but breath until the last 10 seconds. I am supposed to believe that round 15 was a "solid round" for Norton.

Not only that, I should believe thas since the ring announcer of the Norton-Bobick fight introduced Norton as the "generally recognized as the uncrowned HW champion of the world" that it was a robbery indeed. When in doubt, always go with the ring announcer's babble before a fight.

Buzz-One last thing, since this may well have been the biggest robbery in heavyweight title history, are we supposed to pretend that Louis-Walcott, Holmes-Williams, Lewis-Holyfield (among others) did not happen? Or were the decisions correct in those fights?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

There is nothing balanced on any of your opinions when it comes to Ali. Not a one.

[BoxBuzz]

It did look to me that Norton was a bit lumbering in that last round. And what he landed was less significant over all than what Ali landed in that particular round.

If I was going to choose which fighter appeared to be less affected by the previous 14 rounds, I probably couldn't in good faith claim it was Norton. However, that does not tell the story of who won a fight. It is merely one dynamic.

[Goodnight, Irene]

You know it's funny how things have changed. Right after the fight, opinion was very divided on who won the 3rd fight. Almost everyone had it close. It remained a close fight for many years. Now, it seems that many people on this forum as a "robberry". Perhaps the biggest robbery in the history of heavyweight title fights.

I watched the fight again for the first time in years. Oddily enough, Norton did not pound Ali from pillar to post this time either. Once again he didn't have him in serious trouble even once. Once again there were several close rounds.

Maybe it's the way fights are now scored?
I would think that even most of Ali's biggest detractors would agree that Ali won rounds 1, 7, 9, 11 and 15.

I thought Ali won round 10 and but it was close and could see someone calling it even or even giving it to Norton.

Rounds 3, 4 and 8 were even.

Rounds 12,13, and 14 were close, but I gave them to Norton. I could see someone scoring any of them even or for Ali.

Norton clearly won rounds 2,5, and 6.

So I suppose if you gave Norton every remotely close round, you could have him winning 10 rounds to 5. Even if you do that, a reasonable person would have to admit that it a deceptive score.

Apparently the way that it was judged by most people at the time was different. Apparently some people don't think that every remotely close round should have gone to Norton. Apparently, some people had the gall to give some of the close rounds to Ali. Doing that, you could have it even or (gasp) score it for Ali.

Apparently, Ali didn't score it for Ali, nor did he think it was much of an argument.

[BoxBuzz]

GI....you are not being fully accurate now are you? The actual record would indicate that Ali was ambivalent. The genuine, non edited, historical account indicates that Ali had more than one expressed opinion on this matter over the course of time. You seem to be choosing to report only the opinion he expressed, that you may have an affinity for. Now I'm not throwing accusations around, but I've learned that those who only report a portion of the facts, often times have an agenda, or a bias. Something that has no place in an honorable analytical dialogue. That is IF that dialogue is genuinely in the spirit of pursuing only the facts that will hopefully reveal the truth of the matter.

NOW IF you weren't aware that Ali had expressed more than one opinion on this matter, AND IF you were not aware that the opinion you are reporting was not his most recent opinion, AND THUS less reflected upon, AND THUS less pertinent, then of course you would not be guilty of the sort of bias of which I speak and perhaps suspect.

However I caution you. When you contribute statements to this forum with full awareness that you are withholding vital information during such discourse, others will likely find it difficult if not impossible to faithfully rely on your input as a stable and dependable source of information. Thus minimizing just how seriously your comments can be factored in. Pure neutrality, dedicated integrity, and the pursuit of truth with NO stake in the outcome is required when offering relevant content that leads to true illumination.

[dempseyfire]

It did look to me that Norton was a bit lumbering in that last round. And what he landed was less significant over all than what Ali landed in that particular round.
.

If you truthfully believe that you are a blind man. I don't know how else to retort . .

[Goodnight, Irene]

GI....you are not being fully accurate now are you? The actual record would indicate that Ali was ambivalent. The genuine, non edited, historical account indicates that Ali had more than one expressed opinion on this matter over the course of time. You seem to be choosing to report only the opinion he expressed, that you may have an affinity for. Now I'm not throwing accusations around, but I've learned that those who only report a portion of the facts, often times have an agenda, or a bias. Something that has no place in an honorable analytical dialogue. That is IF that dialogue is genuinely in the spirit of pursuing only the facts that will hopefully reveal the truth of the matter.

NOW IF you weren't aware that Ali had expressed more than one opinion on this matter, AND IF you were not aware that the opinion you are reporting was not his most recent opinion, AND THUS less reflected upon, AND THUS less pertinent, then of course you would not be guilty of the sort of bias of which I speak and perhaps suspect.

However I caution you. When you contribute statements to this forum with full awareness that you are withholding vital information during such discourse, others will likely find it difficult if not impossible to faithfully rely on your input as a stable and dependable source of information. Thus minimizing just how seriously your comments can be factored in. Pure neutrality, dedicated integrity, and the pursuit of truth with NO stake in the outcome is required when offering relevant content that leads to true illumination.

You have it right in your second paragraph. I have heard Ali say (immediately after the bout) he felt he lost the fight. I haven't heard a take to the contrary, but it wouldn't surprise me, & if you tell me, I believe it. I've heard him say he won & lost the first fight with Frazier, after all.

Did you really think Ali landed more significant punches in the last round, though?

[BoxBuzz]

It did look to me that Norton was a bit lumbering in that last round. And what he landed was less significant over all than what Ali landed in that particular round.
.

If you truthfully believe that you are a blind man. I don't know how else to retort . .

Well if Ali's jab is meaningless to you then I see where your coming from. He did land them pretty cleanly.

However if you continue to bait me on this matter, you'll soon feel the pain that can be inflicted by the hurling of a glass eye right at the center of your temple.

[Robinson]

Whether now or straight after the fight, I still do not know how
you could score the 3rd fight a clear win for Ali.

[Goodnight, Irene]

Whether now or straight after the fight, I still do not know how
you could score the 3rd fight a clear win for Ali.

& my basic grudge here is not against Ali --- as Ali fans have sometimes labelled me, in all-too-convenient fashion. It is to do with the more hardcore Ali fans, rather than the man (who I find both amusing & annoying, depending on the quote).

Some of them are ultra-defensive about his close decisions. Ultra-defensive --- he absolutely lost that fight with Norton.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I grew up adoring Ali, but the blindness of some of his fans is lethal and quite honestly more insulting than his "haters". As I aged I became more of a Frazier man, but I'm still quite fond of Ali. Though I've been labeled a hater several times around here.

[dempseyfire]

It did look to me that Norton was a bit lumbering in that last round. And what he landed was less significant over all than what Ali landed in that particular round.
.

If you truthfully believe that you are a blind man. I don't know how else to retort . .

Well if Ali's jab is meaningless to you then I see where your coming from. He did land them pretty cleanly.

However if you continue to bait me on this matter, you'll soon feel the pain that can be inflicted by the hurling of a glass eye right at the center of your temple.

I saw about 6-7 jabs that landed, and over 30 jabs that either parried, slipped, or fell short completly. Ali lands no power punches clean the entire round. Norton lands a hard left hook, several big right hands, and several clean body shots. Norton landed the only flush and clean shots that entire round, and was the aggressor/one pressing the fight. It's all here for anyone else to dissect: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOYLRsM4 ... re=related

[Robinson]

GI

I know what you are saying. As you know I am a Holmes fan, I can admit
he lost a couple of fights in his career, why can't the Ali fans do the same ? :)

[dempseyfire]

GI

I know what you are saying. As you know I am a Holmes fan, I can admit
he lost a couple of fights in his career, why can't the Ali fans do the same ? :)

Exactly. I have no problem with Ali winning their rematch, I had him CLEARLY beating Doug Jones with no controversey, and hell if you take points from Young for slipping through the ropes (the ref did give Young a count one of the times) then I can see Ali winning that fight legit. But Norton III I can't see a legit scorecard for Ali as a possibility. I don't think Holyfield-Lewis or Louis-Walcott were nearly as bad. Nor was Williams-Holmes, although I do think the Truth was a clear winner in that one.

[Robinson]

I just can not see it in the 3rd fight. I want to give Ali and his supporters
the benefit, but I think its a clear robbery for Ken. Even the 'Greatest' gets
whooped sometimes.

[Darling]

I just can not see it in the 3rd fight. I want to give Ali and his supporters
the benefit, but I think its a clear robbery for Ken. Even the 'Greatest' gets
whooped sometimes.

Ali lost that one and the Young fight.

It gives comfort to Gran and Little Gran at night.

[Robinson]

I thought Norton 3 was more convincing that Young, as far as
'robberies' go.

I thought Ali won the Doug Jones fight, it was a good scrap but
Ali won it.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I thought Shavers beat him too.

[Robinson]

I have not scored that fight, but I think while close Ali did get the win.
Atleast that was the impression I had after watching that one.

[GranberryReturns]

Dempseyfire and saadoffthedeck are some of the most astute observers on this board. Ali's acolytes should pay more heed to these enlightened gentlemen.

[hhaehre]

It did look to me that Norton was a bit lumbering in that last round. And what he landed was less significant over all than what Ali landed in that particular round.

If I was going to choose which fighter appeared to be less affected by the previous 14 rounds, I probably couldn't in good faith claim it was Norton. However, that does not tell the story of who won a fight. It is merely one dynamic.

Fanboys and haters aside, I think the how one score that last round is really the key to how one score any Ali fight, espescially late in his career.
Personally I scored the round for Norton. It was not the most dominant round for Norton but clearly his round imo. What I saw was Ali flicking jabs, most of which were short, and dancing away from Norton. Norton pressed the action and landed all the hard shots. I have never awarder Ali for dancing alone, and when most of his punches fail to hit the target I simply can not award him the round.

It is also interesting to see the reactions of the fighters at the final bell. Norton raises his hands and shouts something to Ali. Ali slumps in his corner, never raising his hands in victory. Ali knew he lost the fight, just as Louis knew he lost the first Walcott fight.

[BoxBuzz]

....If we agree that Norton (even if narrowly) won this fight, the next matters to address would be:

1. How did these judges and referees come up with their scores?

2. How did the 9 person celebrity panel conclude it was a draw?

3. How did Joe Frazier score it one round in favor of Norton?


I know some will think that folks were paid (granberry & co)

Some may think it was about sentiment...(let's give one to the ol' legend)

Some may feel it was a matter of subjective scoring (rather than objective, but strictly ruling out sentiment).

Are there any other possible explanations? Does the sentiment one have legs? Were we "in love" with this guy as a society? So that people from all walks of life looked at this and had an "emperor's new clothes" mentality about it?

Are there any credible boxing experts that believe Ali won to this day?


Was Harlold Lederman one of the judges? Can someon interview him on this?

I think it's an interesting topic at this point.