Ken Norton and the hypnotist

dagosd2000 · Post by **dagosd2000** » 09 Sep 2007, 02:24

I remember watching Ken Norton when he started out fighting in San Diego in the late 60's. He was built like a Greek statue but for some reason he always had a problem with stamina. He built up a win streak against so-so fighters but didn't look that impressive because he started to run out of gas in the middle rounds.He trained hard but he would always tire He fought against a big Venezuelan heavyweight with a big punch by the name of Jose Luis Garcia at the Olympic Auditorium in Los Angeles. Norton started to do his tired act in the 5th round and Garcia hit him with a tremendous right cross and you could have counted Norton out with a calender. Now Norton goes to this hypnotist[ he went by the name of Dr. Dean ]and they figure it's something mental that he's running out of gas not a lack of training. Norton then fights a pretty good heavyweight by the name of Henry Clark and wins easy,plenty of gas in the tank. Muhammad Ali is fighting a bum of the month thing so they make match with Norton in San Diego. Ali spends more time on the microphone talking to the crowd watching him train than time he spends sparring. Well you know the story:Norton breaks Ali's jaw and almost knocks him out.
There's a rematch and Norton roughs him up again winning the last half of the fight and loses on a bum decision. The 3rd fight in New York is even a bigger robbery. Let's face it Ali had his toughest fights with Norton[ the Holmes fight shouldn't have been made] and should have lost all three fights. I talked to Norton about his fights with Ali and he told me he was not afraid of his punch. Norton was psyched out by big punchers=Shavers,Cooney,Foreman. What would their legacies have been if Norton had won all three fights? By the way I remember when Ali lost to Norton in that first fight Dr. Deant the hypnotist was in the ring congradulating Norton. After it was over Norton said Dr. Dean had nothing to do with his new found stamina. Interesting.

pound per pound · Post by **pound per pound** » 09 Sep 2007, 07:29

dagosd2000 wrote:I remember watching Ken Norton when he started out fighting in San Diego in the late 60's. He was built like a Greek statue but for some reason he always had a problem with stamina. He built up a win streak against so-so fighters but didn't look that impressive because he started to run out of gas in the middle rounds.He trained hard but he would always tire He fought against a big Venezuelan heavyweight with a big punch by the name of Jose Luis Garcia at the Olympic Auditorium in Los Angeles. Norton started to do his tired act in the 5th round and Garcia hit him with a tremendous right cross and you could have counted Norton out with a calender. Now Norton goes to this hypnotist[ he went by the name of Dr. Dean ]and they figure it's something mental that he's running out of gas not a lack of training. Norton then fights a pretty good heavyweight by the name of Henry Clark and wins easy,plenty of gas in the tank. Muhammad Ali is fighting a bum of the month thing so they make match with Norton in San Diego. Ali spends more time on the microphone talking to the crowd watching him train than time he spends sparring. Well you know the story:Norton breaks Ali's jaw and almost knocks him out.
There's a rematch and Norton roughs him up again winning the last half of the fight and loses on a bum decision. The 3rd fight in New York is even a bigger robbery. Let's face it Ali had his toughest fights with Norton[ the Holmes fight shouldn't have been made] and should have lost all three fights. I talked to Norton about his fights with Ali and he told me he was not afraid of his punch. Norton was psyched out by big punchers=Shavers,Cooney,Foreman. What would their legacies have been if Norton had won all three fights? By the way I remember when Ali lost to Norton in that first fight Dr. Deant the hypnotist was in the ring congradulating Norton. After it was over Norton said Dr. Dean had nothing to do with his new found stamina. Interesting.

If Norton got a " w ' in the 3rd fight with Ali, he probably passes Frazier legacy.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 09 Sep 2007, 08:29

If Norton would have won the second there would never have been a third fight. I'm one of those that think Ali got the better of Norton in the Series....agreeing with the majority of the judges. And finishing fight number one with a broken Jaw and remaining competitive is just one of the things that adds to Ali's legacy. EVen in defeat he turned in a remarkable performance.

harrygreb · Post by **harrygreb** » 09 Sep 2007, 16:47

wow! heres a first, me disagreeing with boxbuzz. i saw all three fights at the time and kenny won 'em all.
i agree though that ali's broken jaw says something immense about the fella.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 09 Sep 2007, 21:40

People will never accept that Ali wasn't at 100% for those fights.

Holmes-Norton was also a pretty close fight, with Holmes actually in his prime. I normally don't hear any whining about that fight, which was about as close as the Ali-Norton rematch. No one calls that a "bum decision."

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 10 Sep 2007, 09:31

I scored their rematch a draw but wouldn't say there was a robbery either way. Several rounds were very close.

Rubber match-As I've said before anyone who thinks Ali won that fight is watching with extreme bias for the Louisville Lip. Norton whipped his butt that fight. One of the worst decisions in a major title fight of all time. Much worse than Lewis-Holyfield I.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 10 Sep 2007, 12:58

Whipped his butt? Come on. You certainly could score it for Norton but it could also go ali's way or be scored a draw. There were several rounds where very little happened and could have been scored even or either way. This was defintley not Ali's best fight but it certainly wasn't Norton's either.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 10 Sep 2007, 13:03

Not as bad as Louis-Walcott I.

I thought Ali lost, but Lewis-Holyfield I it was not. And Ali should have been retired at that stage of his career, while Norton was in his prime.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 10 Sep 2007, 13:27

Ambling Alp wrote:Whipped his butt? Come on. You certainly could score it for Norton but it could also go ali's way or be scored a draw. There were several rounds where very little happened and could have been scored even or either way. This was defintley not Ali's best fight but it certainly wasn't Norton's either.

Norton controlled the tempo. forced the action, landed by far the more effective and damaging punches. Being extremely generous to Ali he wins 6 rounds at most.

Walcott-Louis was a fairly close fight when you are scoring on a rounds-basis, which is how they scored that fight (no 10-8 rounds for a KD). I believe Walcott won but still not as bad as Ali-Norton III.

It really doesn't matter if Ali was washed up. I'm not granberry trying to state that Norton was better best for best than Ali. But Norton should have won their series 2-1.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 10 Sep 2007, 14:35

How many damaging punches did Norton land in the entire fight? Ali was never hurt (not that Norton was either) at all. You certainly could give Ali more than 6 rounds. There were so many rounds where little happened that you could score it 10-5 either way. Ali was beatable at this stage of his career and Norton was capable of winning this easily. If Norton would have fought as well as he did in the first fight or some of his other fights he would have won easily. However, he didn't.

This crap about people complaining about so many of the decisions that Ali won is getting ridiculaus.

Up until a few years ago, rarely did you hear anyone complain about any of them except for the third Norton fight and Young fight.
Now you hear complaints about the 2nd Norton fight, the Shavers fight, even the 2nd Frazier fight and the Evangelista fight.

Even people who thought Norton won the third Norton-Ali fight would acknowlege that it was close. To complain And now the third Norton fight wasn't even close, Norton kicked his butt? Wow.

What's next? Chuvalo and Terrell got screwed? Richard Dunn would have won if the fight wasn't stopped too soon by the referee?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 10 Sep 2007, 17:01

I call it as I see it. The 3rd Norton fight at the time was widely seen as a robbery. And Ali was hurt at least once, including a hook to the body in the 6th which doubled Ali over. He took a vicious body beating the entire night. I hope someone has (or will) posted the whole fight on Youtube so you can show me the 8 rounds Ali could've possible won. Such was the status Ali had been elevated to at the time that you practically had to kill him to win rounds. Or if he danced around and threw a few pitty-pat jabs that didn't connect it was an automatic Ali round. It was BS. He was winning rounds on showboating and being Ali. And it was unfair to his opponents. This was an era in which Spinks-Ali I was a SPLIT DECISION. Or I guess you're going to tell me that could've gone either way too . . .

Clay-Jones was not close to being a robbery. Ali-Evangelista was not.

Norton-Ali III was plain and simple. Ali was not the better man that night.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 10 Sep 2007, 18:03

dempseyfire wrote:I call it as I see it. The 3rd Norton fight at the time was widely seen as a robbery. And Ali was hurt at least once, including a hook to the body in the 6th which doubled Ali over. He took a vicious body beating the entire night. I hope someone has (or will) posted the whole fight on Youtube so you can show me the 8 rounds Ali could've possible won. Such was the status Ali had been elevated to at the time that you practically had to kill him to win rounds. Or if he danced around and threw a few pitty-pat jabs that didn't connect it was an automatic Ali round. It was BS. He was winning rounds on showboating and being Ali. And it was unfair to his opponents. This was an era in which Spinks-Ali I was a SPLIT DECISION. Or I guess you're going to tell me that could've gone either way too . . .

Clay-Jones was not close to being a robbery. Ali-Evangelista was not.

Norton-Ali III was plain and simple. Ali was not the better man that night.

I disagree with the premise....at the time it was a "hotly debated" fight. But I don't recall it being considered a robbery. One that about 50% of the people thought Norton won and the other 50% thought Ali won. It was a close fight at a time when to actually fight a close fight with Ali was to beat Ali according to a certain segment of the population. They even had a nationally televised rerun of the fight where Joe Frazier and several other boxing officianodos "re judged" the fight and they turned in a verdict of "Draw'. As I recall even Joe only had Norton up by one round.

It was a close fight that Ali won in a legitimate fashion....at least to about about 48 to 52% of those who saw it. Close fights are just that.....Close fights.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 10 Sep 2007, 19:56

As I said, I thought Norton won the third fight. I believe I had him winning by three rounds the last time I saw it.

But, it seems there's a new thread every week where someone complains about some controversial fight that took place in the last five years of Ali's career. Is this the focus of Ali's career now? His defining moments are no longer Liston, Frazier and Foreman? The defining moments are now the last five years of close calls and losses, on his road to Parkinsons? This is now what defines Ali's career?

I said this in another thread, but if that's the case, why isn't this done to Robinson, Charles, Hearns, Duran, Chavez, Benitez, Holyfield? Why doesn't anyone downgrade them? The last five years of their career's were worse than Ali's.

And don't tell me its not about dislike of Ali. Holmes-Norton was a very close decision, about as close as the Ali fights, and I have never heard one person complain about that decision... that's not to say that I thought Holmes lost, but if the Ali fights were so controversial, I would figure Holmes-Norton would be as well. No one thought Norton won the Holmes fight, but now there's a whole stream of people calling Ali-Norton II a draw or a win for Norton? I wonder why?

And unlike Ali, Holmes was in his prime. Ali, in his 20's, in his prime, in shape, no hand injuries, no jaw injuries beats Norton clearly.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 11 Sep 2007, 07:12

I think the fights were close but I think Ali lost to Norton, Young and Shavers (though Ali very nearly stopped him at the end). I think the Lyle fight was stopped prematurely.

I haven't seen Ali-Norton II for about 10 years, so won't comment.

I think it's legitimate to raise these points. I don't see what the problem is.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 11 Sep 2007, 09:36

I Feel Fine wrote:As I said, I thought Norton won the third fight. I believe I had him winning by three rounds the last time I saw it.

But, it seems there's a new thread every week where someone complains about some controversial fight that took place in the last five years of Ali's career. Is this the focus of Ali's career now? His defining moments are no longer Liston, Frazier and Foreman? The defining moments are now the last five years of close calls and losses, on his road to Parkinsons? This is now what defines Ali's career?

I said this in another thread, but if that's the case, why isn't this done to Robinson, Charles, Hearns, Duran, Chavez, Benitez, Holyfield? Why doesn't anyone downgrade them? The last five years of their career's were worse than Ali's.

And don't tell me its not about dislike of Ali. Holmes-Norton was a very close decision, about as close as the Ali fights, and I have never heard one person complain about that decision... that's not to say that I thought Holmes lost, but if the Ali fights were so controversial, I would figure Holmes-Norton would be as well. No one thought Norton won the Holmes fight, but now there's a whole stream of people calling Ali-Norton II a draw or a win for Norton? I wonder why?

And unlike Ali, Holmes was in his prime. Ali, in his 20's, in his prime, in shape, no hand injuries, no jaw injuries beats Norton clearly.

Ali's fights will always receive more scrutiny and analysis, both positive and negative, than any other fighter b/c he is the most popular and recognized fighter of all time. I don't see why you have such an issue with people believing he had some questionable wins when the man is pretty much universally praised as "the Greatest" by the entire mainstream sports media and the public at large.

I think Ali was one of the greatest HWs who ever lived, (I have him at #2, so I can't be classified as an "Ali hater") but he was not perfect as a fighter and did have weaknesses, and also had a couple of gift decisions b/c he brought so much $ and attention to the sport. He was a "larger than life" character, and unfairly in my opinion, as his opponents were facing Ali the fighter and Ali the persona in that ring.

Norton-Ali II was closer than Norton-Holmes IMO. I could not see a Norton win vs Holmes despite his great comeback in the final 2 rounds (but if someone came on here and said they thought Norton won I won't consider them to have some grudge vs Holmes). I CAN see a Norton win in the Ali rematch. You are talking like Ali clearly won by several rounds and that to dare say it could've been a draw is heresy against Ali, which is a bunch of bull-larky.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 11 Sep 2007, 11:12

dempseyfire, I often agree with you on other topics.
However regarding Ali, you have said:

-You think Ali-Norton II was draw
-Norton kicked Ali's butt in the 3rd fight (A vicous body beating throughout the fight. Say what?)
-Norton-III was a much worse decision than Lewis-Holyfield I
-Even Ali-Frazier II was somehow a draw
-Naturally Ali is ranked behind Joe Louis
-The complaints that Ali was given all the breaks because he brought all the attention to the sport.
-Each of these things by themselves don't mean that you are a "hater" However, add all of them up...

Add that to your complaint that Ali was showboating and being Ali so he was given rounds that he was given rounds that he didn't deserve. I can read between the lines. You don't like Ali.

No I don't think Ali-Norton II was blowout or anything like that, but Ali deserved the decision.

Btw-Ali-Spinks is an example that Ali was not treated better than everyone else. Yes, it was a split decision and should have been a unanimous decision. No question about it. However, the important thing is that the verdict was correct. The decision was given to Spinks. Spinks clearly won. There is no question about that. There is a lot of question about Ali-Norton III.

I Feel Fine makes a good point about a good point about Homes-Norton. It could have been scored either way. In fact all 3 judges had it even going into the last round and Norton won more than 2 minutes of the last round when Holmes made a big rally before the bell. Yet no one makes a big deal about it and says that Norton was robbed against Holmes.

However, with Norton-Ali which was just as close (though not nearly as good of a fight) people say it's a robbery. A robbery is when even if you gave the declared winner every close round he still didn't win enough rounds. There is no way that Norton clearly won 8 rounds so that you couldn't concievably have given Ali the decision. You can say that you think Norton won, but saying that Norton kicked Ali's but in the 3rd fight is going overboard.

Ali wasn't perfect and it's fair enough to make valid criticism of him.
It's obvious that many complaints against Ali are based on a dislike of Ali. That is what bugs me and some others.

Other great fighers have won many more decsions in their careers than Ali. They often got the benefit of the doubt in a close fight. For example, Sugar Ray Robinson won 65 fights by decision in his career. Some of them were close but you hardly ever hear about them.
Ali won a grand total of 19 decisions in his career and it now seems that almost every one is scrutinized to death. (Not to mention his stoppages/ko's of Cooper,Lyle, Foreman etc.)
It's getting ridiculaus.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 11 Sep 2007, 12:17

Ambling Alp wrote:dempseyfire, I often agree with you on other topics.
However regarding Ali, you have said:

-You think Ali-Norton II was draw
-Norton kicked Ali's butt in the 3rd fight (A vicous body beating throughout the fight. Say what?)
-Norton-III was a much worse decision than Lewis-Holyfield I
-Even Ali-Frazier II was somehow a draw
-Naturally Ali is ranked behind Joe Louis
-The complaints that Ali was given all the breaks because he brought all the attention to the sport.
-Each of these things by themselves don't mean that you are a "hater" However, add all of them up...

Add that to your complaint that Ali was showboating and being Ali so he was given rounds that he was given rounds that he didn't deserve. I can read between the lines. You don't like Ali.

No I don't think Ali-Norton II was blowout or anything like that, but Ali deserved the decision.

Btw-Ali-Spinks is an example that Ali was not treated better than everyone else. Yes, it was a split decision and should have been a unanimous decision. No question about it. However, the important thing is that the verdict was correct. The decision was given to Spinks. Spinks clearly won. There is no question about that. There is a lot of question about Ali-Norton III.

I Feel Fine makes a good point about a good point about Homes-Norton. It could have been scored either way. In fact all 3 judges had it even going into the last round and Norton won more than 2 minutes of the last round when Holmes made a big rally before the bell. Yet no one makes a big deal about it and says that Norton was robbed against Holmes.

However, with Norton-Ali which was just as close (though not nearly as good of a fight) people say it's a robbery. A robbery is when even if you gave the declared winner every close round he still didn't win enough rounds. There is no way that Norton clearly won 8 rounds so that you couldn't concievably have given Ali the decision. You can say that you think Norton won, but saying that Norton kicked Ali's but in the 3rd fight is going overboard.

Ali wasn't perfect and it's fair enough to make valid criticism of him.
It's obvious that many complaints against Ali are based on a dislike of Ali. That is what bugs me and some others.

Other great fighers have won many more decsions in their careers than Ali. They often got the benefit of the doubt in a close fight. For example, Sugar Ray Robinson won 65 fights by decision in his career. Some of them were close but you hardly ever hear about them.
Ali won a grand total of 19 decisions in his career and it now seems that almost every one is scrutinized to death. (Not to mention his stoppages/ko's of Cooper,Lyle, Foreman etc.)
It's getting ridiculaus.

Ahh but that's where you are wrong. I DO like Ali. I have no grudge like some do due to the war issue/Nation of Islam affiliation. I think he was a extremely charismatic and brilliant individual. And I think he was one of the very best HWs who ever fought. But:

-Scoring both Frazier and Norton rematches as draws

-Saying the Norton rubber match was a big robbery

And saying I believe Joe Louis was better makes me an Ali hater???

Huh?

The fact that a judge managed to award Spinks I to Ali shows you the credibility of judges. If Ali had somehow won that fight it would have been the WORST DECISION OF ALL TIME IN A MAJOR FIGHT. Spinks dominated him.

Norton-Ali II is right here. I invite everyone here at Boxrec to look at the fight objectively and score it yourself. As stated I have no problem with a close Ali victory but a draw or close Norton victory is also very justifiable. I wish the 3rd fight was here also in full but alas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm0x4Nx9iIE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_ZKaGzg ... ed&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrCxkdV1 ... ed&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQF5Dsbc ... ed&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPWI7GJR ... ed&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ss_ProWU ... ed&search=

Great fight by the way. One of Ali's most entertaining.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 11 Sep 2007, 12:37

If it was just one opinion, that wouldn't make me think that you are biased against Ali. As I said before, saying all of the things that you have said against Ali makes it seem that you are biased against Ali.

Homocidehenry also says that he doesn't have anything against Ali and he constantly trashes him. Dave V 17 does this as well. Maybe you really do like him as showman or as a person, I don't know. You certainly don't seem to be very objective about him.

The 3rd Ali-Norton fight has been shown on ESPN (though they sometimes skip a couple of rounds) many times. I would think any serious fan would have seen it by now.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 11 Sep 2007, 13:51

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 11 Sep 2007, 13:57

Ambling Alp wrote:If it was just one opinion, that wouldn't make me think that you are biased against Ali. As I said before, saying all of the things that you have said against Ali makes it seem that you are biased against Ali.

Homocidehenry also says that he doesn't have anything against Ali and he constantly trashes him. Dave V 17 does this as well. Maybe you really do like him as showman or as a person, I don't know. You certainly don't seem to be very objective about him.

The 3rd Ali-Norton fight has been shown on ESPN (though they sometimes skip a couple of rounds) many times. I would think any serious fan would have seen it by now.

"All of those things" . . it would be one thing if Frazier II and Norton II were clear as crystal Ali wins . . .they wern't. Saying they could have been draws isn't even something you could conjure as being "anti-Ali". That's completely ridiculous . . along with saying Louis was better . . .so thinking Ali wasn't the best HW of all time is a notch in the cap towards Ali bias?? I have gotten in spars with granberry and others about their ridiculous anti-Ali bias, but you are drifting towards the ridiculous on the other side. One can objectively look at Ali as a fighter and raise all the issues I've raised. Prove how any of what I've said points towards "bias" . . . .

In the third Norton fight, did Norton not land a large number of body shots? Did Ali not double over in pain in the 6th round? Was Ali so tired by the last couple of rounds that he couldn't mount much of an offense? One doesn't have to have their face busted up to take a beating. Despite all the showboating, I'd bet you Ali was feeling the effects of that fight for over a week and pissing blood after the fight. He basically gave Norton his body. He was incredibly tough (one of the toughest ever, and the fact that in this late stage of his career he was able to go 15 with the likes of Norton and Shavers is amazing), but tough don't win you rounds.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 11 Sep 2007, 15:20

dempseyfire,
First of all, Ali-Frazier II was crystal clear. Ali won. Period. It wasn't that close. Frazier did almost nothing in the first 4 rounds. Ali won this fight at least 8 rounds to 4. Absolutely no reason to dispute this verdict. None.

No, I don't think that Norton landed a huge amount of body shots. I don't seriously doubt that Ali was 'pissing blood for a week". Ali didn't look any more tired than Norton at the end. Didn't Ali win the last round?

By itself, no one single opinion by itself that you had earlier made means that you are biased against Ali.

However:

You rate Louis ahead of Ali (some people do, but they are in the minority)
and

You think Ali-Norton II was a draw (most people think Ali won)
and
You think in Norton-Ali III that Norton kicked Ali butt, a worse decision than Louis-Walcott and Lewis-Holyfield. (Most people think it was a close fight, many think Ali won. Have never heard anyone say it was as bad a verdict as those two fights)
and
You think Ali-Frazier II was a draw (Almost everyone thinks think Ali won)
and
Correct me me if I am wrong, didn't you say in a thread several months ago, something to the effect that Ali's title defenses in the 1960's weren't against very good competition?

That's a lot against Ali for someone that's completely objective.

Whether it's a subconcious thing or something, I don't think you are objective toward Ali. Maybe it's that you like Norton and Frazier more than you are anti-Ali, I don't know. I don't think you are as bad as some people out there.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 11 Sep 2007, 16:20

Clay-Jones, Ali-Frazier II were close fights, yes. But I think one would have to go out of their way to give the losers those fights. That's all there is to say. There are some fights that are close enough to merit controversy, those two fights are not among them. Ali-Norton II is, I can see how someone can score that fight for Norton. But, like I said, I could say the same about Holmes-Norton, and no one seems to find controversy there. So you have two fights about equally close, one gets scrutiny and controversy, one does not. I don't think its unfair to assume bias there.

Dave is making up stories about Ali-Evangelista and has likely not seen the fight, that one is ludicrous.

As for the real controversial decisions that I would agree that Ali lost; Ali-Young, Ali-Norton III, and I would add Ali-Shavers; scrutiny is one thing, propaganda is another. Larry Holmes in his declining years got a couple of gifts against Witherspoon and Williams. Spinks got a gift against Holmes in the rematch. Louis had the first Walcott fight. Walcott had the fourth Charles fight. Holyfield had the first Lewis fight and to my understanding the first Ruiz fight was also controversial (haven't seen that one, wouldn't want to.) Sharkey had the second Schmeling fight, Marciano to my understanding got a close call in the first LaStarza fight. Some would say Lewis had the Mercer fight. Its not exclusive to Ali to get a couple of gifts or close calls in your career, but these other fights don't get three threads a week made about them. No one in this forum sits around once a week thinking of a new way to inject Holmes-Williams into a thread. No one calls Louis-Walcott the worst decision in history.

Ali dominated the vast majority of his fights. He beat all time great Heavyweights, he beat Heavyweight who might have beaten Joe Louis in his prime. I would say that Ali should have eight losses in his career, and not five. But not one of them was a definitive loss. None of those losses or controversial fights came when Ali was in his prime. None of those losses or controversial fights came when Ali was in great shape (Norton, Young, Spinks), or under the age of 34 (Young, Norton III, Shavers, Spinks, Holmes, Berbick), or without him coming off a long layoff (Frazier I, Holmes). If Ali was 24-32, in shape, active, no injuries, etc. I don't believe he loses to those men.

As for Louis, I don't really see the case for Louis as #1 at Heavyweight, but I certainly respect it and wouldn't normally object to someone ranking him there. But if the vast majority of boxing fans put him and Ali top 2 at Heavyweight-regardless of who you put at #1- and if Ali's ranking requires great scrutiny, and perhaps it does, when is this scrutiny going to be applied to Louis? If Ali deserves scrutiny for his performance against Young, when will that scrutiny be applied to Louis for his performance against Charles? If Ali's controversial decisions are going to be scrutinized, when is Louis-Walcott I going to get that? If we're going to spend so much time speculating about how Liston, Patterson, Frazier and Foreman were somehow all not at their best for Ali, or were overrated wins for Ali, or whatever it is; why isn't the same done to Louis' opponents? Baer, Sharkey, Schmeling, Walcott are really that much better, that spotless, all in their prime? If someone puts a gun to your head and says "pick the correct winner of Liston-Braddock, Foreman-Baer and Frazier-Schmeling or I'll shoot you" who are you going to pick?

Answer me all this, and then I'll be convinced that this is indeed legitimate scrutiny and not bias. I think it is, frankly. I think that anti-Ali folks play games and focus on irelevant parts of his career, and give him the kind of scrutiny that they would never apply to their favorites. If you used enough spin, focused on very small parts of his career, played up his faults, played up his losses and his close fights, etc. you could likely come up with an excuse to take Ray Robinson out of the #1 P4P slot.. hell, you might even come up with enough crap to take him out of the top 10 P4P all together. That wouldn't make it right, but it can be done, as its being done to Ali by his critics.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 11 Sep 2007, 16:44

ffs, Alp I done made the "Ali vs The Greats" thread stating that the only people Ali would have had a chance of losing to was Johnson, Holmes and Holyfield in a prime vs prime basis. If I recall several on this forum, as well as you, thought it was a good thread and put Ali in a good light.

but I guess i'm back to being a "basher" again, whatever u say mate.

anyways, I think Norton won the last fight, though it wasn't as wide as people usually make it out to be; it was heavily contested and it was arguably Ali's last great ring performance; and really you could have flipped a coin, it could have went either way, but Norton did seem to have the edge and it also seemed Ali needed to rally back, not Norton, to win it.

I guess thats why the fight gets blown out of proportion, because Norton had enough in the tank to have done more in that last round, but he believed he was winning so he took it easy that round, while Ali came back to win that round...supposedly being enough to have sealed the deal on Norton...if Norton lost, it was due to his own mistake of believing he done enough against Ali, when you know you can't pull that off against him, you have to be busy constantly.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 11 Sep 2007, 17:09

Homocidehenry,
Well you will have to excuse me if I am a bit skeptical after the 7 anti-Ali threads that you started and the many statements that you have made in various threads.

Perhaps you are being more objective toward Ali. I will watch carefully what you say in the future. For now I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

HomicideHenry · Post by **HomicideHenry** » 11 Sep 2007, 17:18

For now I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

Good, that's all I ever asked for. Will do the same for you, as I would any other poster.[/quote]

Ken Norton and the hypnotist

Ken Norton and the hypnotist

Re: Ken Norton and the hypnotist