did holmes beat a over the hill norton?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 08 Nov 2005, 00:30

whats ur thoughts

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 08 Nov 2005, 02:28

Decagon wrote:No. Now stop writing like a 12-year-old girl on AIM.

- im not the one that said "Stanley Ketchel was an unskilled, 160 pound John Ruiz"

that statement reflects ur intelligence on the sport

kick asner · Post by **kick asner** » 08 Nov 2005, 06:46

I don't think Norton was over the hill for that fight, but loosing the decsision might have been what led to his subsequent downfall. He looked pretty well shot right after that, everyone knows what happened against Shavers, but he also fought to a draw with Scott Ladoex. Just unable to bounce back after the Holmes fight.

The Great John L · Post by **The Great John L** » 08 Nov 2005, 08:33

He was definitely not in his prime, and his skills were heading south. He was still a formidable opponent, but his performances after this fight (especially against LeDoux) clearly show the decline.

Haven't you brought this up several times before?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 08 Nov 2005, 10:14

He was perhaps slightly past his best but def. not over the hill

His stamina in that fight was unbelievable . . .

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 08 Nov 2005, 11:45

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Decagon wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:whats ur thoughts
No. Now stop writing like a 12-year-old girl on AIM.

- im not the one that said "Stanley Ketchel was an unskilled, 160 pound John Ruiz"

that statement reflects ur intelligence on the sport

he wuz talkin bout ur writen homie not ur ?

learn how 2 read

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 08 Nov 2005, 14:20

Decagon wrote:10 or 15 years ago, Oakland declared that Ebonics was a language, and that most black students were bilingual. It won't be too long before people who write like you get put in ESL classes.

this is a boxing forum not english class. You need to learn more about boxing far more than I need to work on "my writing".

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 08 Nov 2005, 14:24

Norton fought a great fight, one of his best. It would have been good enough to win most of the time. He just used up all that he had left in this fight. It was sort of like what happended to Ali and Frazier after their 3rd fight. It was one last great effort.
So, no he wasn't over the hill during this fight, but after this fight he was. Basically he used up the gas that was left in his tank.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 08 Nov 2005, 14:39

Decagon wrote:No. You don't know shit about boxing. You're not fit to carry my jock, to paraphrase Larry Holmes.

ok then tell me how stanley ketchell is overated and is not a top 10 middleweight??

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 08 Nov 2005, 14:41

Ambling Alp wrote:Norton fought a great fight, one of his best. It would have been good enough to win most of the time. He just used up all that he had left in this fight. It was sort of like what happended to Ali and Frazier after their 3rd fight. It was one last great effort.
So, no he wasn't over the hill during this fight, but after this fight he was. Basically he used up the gas that was left in his tank.

agree but disagree, frazier and ali were well past there primes in that fight. it looked good because both were washed up and it was like to old legends going at it

- norton was at or near his best when he fought holmes so though it was one last great effort, he was basically at his best.

much like marcino-walcott I and norton-holmes, norton and walcott were never the same after the fight.

RazorKO · Post by **RazorKO** » 08 Nov 2005, 14:42

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:whats ur thoughts

Norton was not past his prime. He was the champion for hells sake! So that he means he was the best in division and Holmes beat him fair and square. Norton showed endurance that I have rarely seen in a HW title fight and if you think that a fighter past his prime can show the stamina Norton showed that means you know nothing.

Im sick to death on hearing people saying Holmes beat an over the hill Norton, Suprising that this thread gets created by a Marciano fan.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 08 Nov 2005, 15:01

RazorKO wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:whats ur thoughts
Norton was not past his prime. He was the champion for hells sake! So that he means he was the best in division and Holmes beat him fair and square. Norton showed endurance that I have rarely seen in a HW title fight and if you think that a fighter past his prime can show the stamina Norton showed that means you know nothing.

Im sick to death on hearing people saying Holmes beat an over the hill Norton, Suprising that this thread gets created by a Marciano fan.

??

what does a marciano fan have to do with it. i am more than just a marciano fan, i like joe louis just as much as marciano.

read my post, IMO norton was in his prime when holmes beat him and was never the same again after holmes fight. i am simply asking what others think so i can defend my case. i heard in another thread someone say holmes beat an over the hill norton, so i decided to make this thread.

what does marciano have to do with it??

Cojimar 1945 · Post by **Cojimar 1945** » 08 Nov 2005, 16:42

I seem to recall that the punchstats for Ali-Frazier III were very impressive which might indicate they were still in their prime. Both men weighed a bit more than one might have expected since Ali was lighter in some subsequent fights and Frazier weighed 211 pounds in a fight earlier in 1975.

Cojimar 1945 · Post by **Cojimar 1945** » 08 Nov 2005, 16:44

With Walcott its a bit hard to tell since aside from the second fight with Marciano he never fought again. I would have thought Ezzard Charles was well past his prime when he fought Marciano but some people feel the first Marciano fight was one of his best performances.

tagjohnson · Post by **tagjohnson** » 08 Nov 2005, 17:26

My brilliant :) past post on Ken Norton should explain everything. I'll try to bring it up.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 08 Nov 2005, 22:32

do you people have something against BB or something? it was a simple question that u guys made a big deal out of.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 09 Nov 2005, 14:21

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:Norton fought a great fight, one of his best. It would have been good enough to win most of the time. He just used up all that he had left in this fight. It was sort of like what happended to Ali and Frazier after their 3rd fight. It was one last great effort.
So, no he wasn't over the hill during this fight, but after this fight he was. Basically he used up the gas that was left in his tank.

agree but disagree, frazier and ali were well past there primes in that fight. it looked good because both were washed up and it was like to old legends going at it

- norton was at or near his best when he fought holmes so though it was one last great effort, he was basically at his best.

much like marcino-walcott I and norton-holmes, norton and walcott were never the same after the fight.

BB- I really have to strongly disagree with you about Ali-Frazier III. They weren't washed up in this fight. Sure, Ali had lost some of his speed by then, but he was still fighting at a very high level. They fought at a fast pace for 14 rounds with the tempature being over 100 degrees. This was one of Frazier's best fights, he was even more relentless than usual. He would have beaten almost anyone else that day.
I and many other people consider it the best heavyweight fight of all time.
This fight took a lot out of each man and neither was the same afterward, even though Ali was still the champion for a while after that. It was the straw that broke the camel's back.

did holmes beat a over the hill norton?

did holmes beat a over the hill norton?

Re: did holmes beat a over the hill norton?

Re: did holmes beat a over the hill norton?

Ali vs Frazier III

Marciano foes

Actually