Ken Norton and the hypnotist

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 11 Sep 2007, 17:36

Ambling Alp wrote: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.

?? Plenty of people rate Louis over Ali

Most people haven't even seen Frazier-Ali II in whole. Sorry, I don't give rounds to fighters who excessively hold after throwing one or two punches, be it John Ruiz or Muhammad Ali. And I score body shots, something some Ali fans seem to not count. I count one hard body punch over 3 pitty-pat shots to the head.

Norton didn't land a bunch of body shots? Look at this and this is only an 8 min HL clip!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w998PLvkqeA

Even andreachor the Youtube poster who seems to be a HUGE Ali fan doesn't think Ali won!!

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 11 Sep 2007, 17:39

dempsey....... Ali Frazier II was a pretty clear victory for Ali. Just clean your glasses, get yourself a big screen tv...no popcorn or bathroom breaks until the fight is over. And you'll see what the judges saw.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 11 Sep 2007, 17:49

BoxBuzz wrote:dempsey....... Ali Frazier II was a pretty clear victory for Ali. Just clean your glasses, get yourself a big screen tv...no popcorn or bathroom breaks until the fight is over. And you'll see what the judges saw.

No glasses mate, 20/20 vision. I scored it a draw. I don't think either fighter did enough to win it. Frazier was much more ineffective and slower than he was in the first fight and Ali grabbed Frazier once every 10 seconds. If you want to argue a close win for Ali you get no gripes from me but it was not a one-sided fight and not a great performance by Ali.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 11 Sep 2007, 19:40

Room for all sorts of opinions....no worries....just no agreement in this case. Ali was in control, delivered the pain...even had him in trouble once. Even Joe knew he had been outpointed. The judges got it right IMHO.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 11 Sep 2007, 21:47

dempseyfire wrote:?? Plenty of people rate Louis over Ali

There are, in part because of the negative spin and revisionism of Ali's career as opposed to the exaggerated nostalgic views people have of Louis. Ali did a lot more than you give him credit for in the Frazier rematch. Frazier didn't do much of anything for six rounds, and he certainly didn't sweep the last six.

Frazier wouldn't call Ali a pitty pat puncher.

DaveV17 wrote:IFF wrote:
"Dave is making up stories about Ali-Evangelista and has likely not seen the fight, that one is ludicrous."

Why would I do that? The fight was free on television, it was no classic. I don't care about any of this enough to lie about what I have seen. I have not seen the fight since the night it was televised. I recently saw a post about the fight on another forum and found that I was not the only one who thought Evangelista won that one.

Some of you bring up the Holmes - Norton fight, saying it was a controversial decision. It is another fight I have not seen since it happened, but at the time I thought that Holmes won and thought that the judges had the fight closer than it should have been. Holmes also fought that fight with a torn bicep. If I remember right, he concealed the injury so that the fight would not be cancelled. A torn bicep is a fairly serious injury that usually needs surgery or at least time for recovery. I saw an article in the newspaper today about a football player who will miss the rest of the season for a torn bicep. Holmes essentially beat Norton with one good arm.

Ok, you say you've seen the fight once, a thousand years ago. I saw it as recently as five months ago. It was not a robbery.

I think I do remember hearing something about Holmes being injured in the Norton fight, not sure that its true or not, but that's irrelevent to the point of it being a close fight, and its an interesting point in and of itself, isn't it? You accept that Holmes had an injury in his Norton fight, yet you don't accept that Ali had a hand injury in his Norton rematch. I wonder why?

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 11 Sep 2007, 22:24

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 11 Sep 2007, 22:41

Evangelista could have been as well known as Jesus Christ, it had nothing to do with the fact that it was not a particularly close fight.

Ali might not have felt it would be a good idea to delay a fight with Norton, perhaps he didn't want to be accused of ducking the fighter he had just lost to, perhaps he thought the hand would get better. Whatever the reason, he threw few right hands for the Norton fight, and didn't throw any right hands for the first half of the Lubbers fight. Pacheco had to give him injections in the hand, but apparently you know more about Ali's condition than his doctor did.

I have no reason to make excuses for Ali, especially in the second Norton fight which I thought he won. But for the sake of exposing the little biases and double standards here, I think this is worth pointing out. I think its rather clear that some people give Ali a lot less of a benefit of the doubt than they do other fighters. Holmes was telling the truth, but that Cassius Clay must be lying.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 11 Sep 2007, 23:07

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 11 Sep 2007, 23:49

Now this one should be obvious to anyone, but I'll answer...

... if Ali had thrown more right hands he would have won rounds more clearly, so we wouldn't have to hear the Ali haters claim that Norton won the fight. I didn't say anything about a knock out, but throwing more right hands sort of helps you win a decision, Holmes certainly wouldn't have beaten Norton on points with one hand. Whatever injuries Holmes may or may not have had, he was a two fisted fighter against Norton, Ali was not in the rematch, and Ali-Norton II was about as close as Holmes-Norton. Saying that Holmes clearly beat Norton and that Norton clearly beat Ali in the second fight is sort of a good example of the bias I was talking about earlier in the thread.

Norton did not have Ali's number, and I think that's my underlying point. Norton never met Ali in his prime and he never met Ali at 100%, even in the fight that most people would say Ali did win. As I said earlier in this thread, some don't want to accept that fact, but its clearly evident. Whether it was conditioning, injury or age, Norton never met Ali at his best.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 12 Sep 2007, 01:03

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 12 Sep 2007, 02:50

There were three fights that Ali won that he should have lost, not fifteen, and all when he was 34 or older and should have been in retirement. So get over it, he was not the only one who got breaks.

dempseyfire wrote: but he was not perfect as a fighter and did have weaknesses,

Oh, and thank you dempsey for again pointing that out to me. I'm sure I never realized that before.

Did Joe Louis have any flaws?

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 12 Sep 2007, 04:04

Everyone has to be open to scrutiny. The greater you're considered to be the sharper the focus should be.

Maybe a similar thread could be started on Louis?

Interesting how Louis and Ali are both defined by the wars they did or didn't particicpate in, and how both were immensely popular.

I don't mind wich way round you have them as long as they are 1 and 2.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 12 Sep 2007, 09:37

I Feel Fine wrote:There were three fights that Ali won that he should have lost, not fifteen, and all when he was 34 or older and should have been in retirement. So get over it, he was not the only one who got breaks.

dempseyfire wrote: but he was not perfect as a fighter and did have weaknesses,
Oh, and thank you dempsey for again pointing that out to me. I'm sure I never realized that before.

Did Joe Louis have any flaws?

This thread isn't about Joe Louis!! Why deter the argument. Your comment about why some would rate Louis over Ali is ridiculous "There are, in part because of the negative spin and revisionism of Ali's career as opposed to the exaggerated nostalgic views people have of Louis" I can state that I have no problems with a person rating Louis or Ali as their top HW, but if it's not Ali they have some sort of problem? Whatever man.

Boxbuzz-That's fine with me. I don't have a problem with someone thinking Ali won Frazier II, but we just have a difference of opinion upon viewing the fight.

IFF: I don't even believe Holmes was that injured for the Norton fight (no-one with a "torn bicep" throws that many hard shots, be it their left or right arm, I don't care how stoic they are). Norton was an excellent fighter, who gave a prime Holmes a very tough fight and ARGUABLY (as in, it is possible to defend rationally) beat Ali 3 out of 3. Some people's love affairs with the man seem to get to a point where they just can't accept differences of opinion to the established norm i.e. Ali was the greatest of all time.

BTW: Has anyone re-watched Norton-Ali II which is posted and scored round by round? I'd be interested in seeing others' scorecards.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 12 Sep 2007, 11:46

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 12 Sep 2007, 12:09

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 12 Sep 2007, 12:27

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 12 Sep 2007, 12:47

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 12 Sep 2007, 13:15

I scored the first 4 rounds to Ali (on that I disagree with you Dave . . Norton was pursuing in the early rounds but not landing much), but I'll have to re-watch the entire fight later to post my entire score later.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 12 Sep 2007, 17:39

Here we go:

Rounds 1-3: Ali dancing, feet as fast as before the layoff. Norton stalking, landing occasional hard body shots that pay later dividends. Round 2 closer as neither fighter lands much but Norton lands the harder shots. Ali showing some beautiful foot-speed and a hard consistant jab. I score all rounds Ali.

Round 4: Ali dancing, still throwing the hard jab. Norton focusing on the body. Ali lands some nice combinations. Norton comes on in last 20 seconds, lands best punch of the night so far, a right hand, at the bell but still Ali outlanded him for most of the round. Round to Ali

Round 5: Ali still dancing, but not throwing the jab as much . .Norton steps up the pace and starts to throw and land the jab much more often. His pressure is getting to Ali. Lands some hard body shots against the ropes. Ali steps it up in the last 20 seconds but Norton comes back with hard left hooks. Norton round

Round 6: Ali looking more tired. Norton easily slipping Ali's jabs and countering with his own jab. Ali lands his best punches in the final minute with a sharp right hand and left hook, but it only stirs Norton to anger who comes back with his jab. Closer round, but I edge it to Norton.

After 6 I have it Ali: 4 Norton: 2

Round 7: Ali again tired. Norton pressing, landing good combinations on the ropes. Last minute, Norton starts really working Ali over on the ropes. Ali hurt. Norton's best round by far so far; Round to Norton.

Round 8: Ali still dancing but not as fast. Ali lands some nice counters flat-footed. Norton landing a few good shots while Ali's on the ropes. A closer, quieter round. Norton lands a HARD left hook and right hand combination in the final 30 seconds, along with a final left hook at the bell that gives him the round; Round to Norton.

Round 9: Norton slipping most of Ali's jabs. Landing his own jab. Good right hand from Norton. Norton working over Ali's body against the ropes again. Ali lands a couple of right hands which stun Norton, but it's not enough to pull the round and Ken comes back with his own shots: Round to Norton

Round 10: Ali opens up with a beautiful one-two. Ali coming back with movement and the jab. Norton is tired. Norton in the last minute begins to land with Ali on the ropes, including two big left hooks. Close round, I give it to Ali. Round to Ali.

After 10 I have it Ali 5 Norton: 5

Round 11: Ali starts off the round strong. They stand toe to toe. Norton hurts Ali to the body and starts really working Ali over. Both fighters tired. Ali able to avoid Norton's follow-up. Norton lands a good uppercut to Ali. Ali evades Norton and makes a mini-comeback in the final 10 seconds. Round to Norton.

Round 12: Ali giving it all he has. Lands some great combinations. Norton dead tired. Norton comes on in final minute to lands some hard hooks but it's not enough to win the round. Round to Ali.

Final score is 6-6. Dead even. I wouldn't have a problem with someone scoring the 6th for Ali, nor would I have an issue with someone scoring round 2 to Ali or round 4 even as the commentators did.

Final Verdict: Close fight that could have gone EITHER WAY.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 12 Sep 2007, 18:03

dempseyfire wrote:This thread isn't about Joe Louis!! Why deter the argument. Your comment about why some would rate Louis over Ali is ridiculous "There are, in part because of the negative spin and revisionism of Ali's career as opposed to the exaggerated nostalgic views people have of Louis" I can state that I have no problems with a person rating Louis or Ali as their top HW, but if it's not Ali they have some sort of problem? Whatever man.

It seems that on more than one ocassion that you have implied that I don't know that Ali had faults. I'm turning that around and asking you if Joe Louis had any faults. I've recognized Ali's faults, I want to see you do the same for Louis. You suggest that Ali's fame should entitle him more scrutiny, as if Louis doesn't have scores of fans (which I would count myself as one) and isn't one of the most popular fighters in boxing history. If fame requires more scrutiny, then lets see some scrutiny for Louis, shall we?

I already stated that I generally don't have a problem with someone ranking Joe Louis over Ali, but what I will say is that a lot of it may be due to bias and because of the rosy picture people have of Louis as opposed to the ridiculous and constant criticisms of every little thing in Ali's career. When Louis gets that kind of scrutiny then I'll be a little less skeptical of how some come to their ranking of Louis over Ali.

dempseyfire wrote:IFF: I don't even believe Holmes was that injured for the Norton fight (no-one with a "torn bicep" throws that many hard shots, be it their left or right arm, I don't care how stoic they are). Norton was an excellent fighter, who gave a prime Holmes a very tough fight and ARGUABLY (as in, it is possible to defend rationally) beat Ali 3 out of 3.

Dave mentioned it, I don't know if its true or not, but I do remember hearing from somewhere about a Holmes injury in the Norton fight. But I do agree, and pointed that out, Holmes was a two fisted fighter for the Norton fight, he didn't show any problems throwing punches with either arm.

I never denied that Norton was a great fighter, quite the opposite. But the idea that he had Ali's number is inaccurate. He never met Ali in his prime nor at 100%.

dempseyfire wrote:Some people's love affairs with the man seem to get to a point where they just can't accept differences of opinion to the established norm i.e. Ali was the greatest of all time.

Yeah, again, regardless of your insistence I understand what Ali's flaws were and weren't, and I would again maintain that many fans are the same way in the other direction, letting their dislike of Ali influence their judgement of his career, and at the same time being biased for other fighters that they support. Its as if Louis and Marciano and all those guys suddenly don't have millions of fans and don't have their own aura around them that prevents people from judging them objectively. I think I've seen quite enough of Ali to know what his faults were, and I think the criticisms of Ali are above and beyond what they should be. I can accept a difference of opinion on Ali, but the bias is evident and when I see less of it and when I see this kind of scrutiny aimed at other fighters who are supposed to be as good or better than Ali, according to some, then I'll be less skeptical of why people make the claims they make. It seems that according to some Ali should have something like 13 losses.

Its funny, they're accusing the judges of having a bias towards Ali (and they may have) and that the judges gave Ali the nod in all his close fights, but yet they're doing just the same thing that those judges did, but in reverse, giving every close fight that Ali had to Ali's opponent. I wonder why?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 12 Sep 2007, 18:12

I Feel Fine wrote:
dempseyfire wrote:This thread isn't about Joe Louis!! Why deter the argument. Your comment about why some would rate Louis over Ali is ridiculous "There are, in part because of the negative spin and revisionism of Ali's career as opposed to the exaggerated nostalgic views people have of Louis" I can state that I have no problems with a person rating Louis or Ali as their top HW, but if it's not Ali they have some sort of problem? Whatever man.
It seems that on more than one ocassion that you have implied that I don't know that Ali had faults. I'm turning that around and asking you if Joe Louis had any faults. I've recognized Ali's faults, I want to see you do the same for Louis. You suggest that Ali's fame should entitle him more scrutiny, as if Louis doesn't have scores of fans (which I would count myself as one) and isn't one of the most popular fighters in boxing history. If fame requires more scrutiny, then lets see some scrutiny for Louis, shall we?

I already stated that I generally don't have a problem with someone ranking Joe Louis over Ali, but what I will say is that a lot of it may be due to bias and because of the rosy picture people have of Louis as opposed to the ridiculous and constant criticisms of every little thing in Ali's career. When Louis gets that kind of scrutiny then I'll be a little less skeptical of how some come to their ranking of Louis over Ali.

dempseyfire wrote:IFF: I don't even believe Holmes was that injured for the Norton fight (no-one with a "torn bicep" throws that many hard shots, be it their left or right arm, I don't care how stoic they are). Norton was an excellent fighter, who gave a prime Holmes a very tough fight and ARGUABLY (as in, it is possible to defend rationally) beat Ali 3 out of 3.
Dave mentioned it, I don't know if its true or not, but I do remember hearing from somewhere about a Holmes injury in the Norton fight. But I do agree, and pointed that out, Holmes was a two fisted fighter for the Norton fight, he didn't show any problems throwing punches with either arm.

I never denied that Norton was a great fighter, quite the opposite. But the idea that he had Ali's number is inaccurate. He never met Ali in his prime nor at 100%.

dempseyfire wrote:Some people's love affairs with the man seem to get to a point where they just can't accept differences of opinion to the established norm i.e. Ali was the greatest of all time.
Yeah, again, regardless of your insistence I understand what Ali's flaws were and weren't, and I would again maintain that many fans are the same way in the other direction, letting their dislike of Ali influence their judgement of his career, and at the same time being biased for other fighters that they support. Its as if Louis and Marciano and all those guys suddenly don't have millions of fans and don't have their own aura around them that prevents people from judging them objectively. I think I've seen quite enough of Ali to know what his faults were, and I think the criticisms of Ali are above and beyond what they should be. I can accept a difference of opinion on Ali, but the bias is evident and when I see less of it and when I see this kind of scrutiny aimed at other fighters who are supposed to be as good or better than Ali, according to some, then I'll be less skeptical of why people make the claims they make. It seems that according to some Ali should have something like 13 losses.

Its funny, they're accusing the judges of having a bias towards Ali (and they may have) and that the judges gave Ali the nod in all his close fights, but yet they're doing just the same thing that those judges did, but in reverse, giving every close fight that Ali had to Ali's opponent. I wonder why?

Basically, it seems you've picked a bone with the wrong poster. I'm not one of these people who whines about the Henry Cooper fight.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 12 Sep 2007, 18:18

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 12 Sep 2007, 18:37

dempseyfire wrote:Basically, it seems you've picked a bone with the wrong poster. I'm not one of these people who whines about the Henry Cooper fight.

I'm not picking a bone with anyone, though, that said, you should be aware that not everything in that post was directed at you, I was quoting your posts and I should have made that a little more clear-some of it was directed at dave, actually- but I think much of that is very relevant to some of the points you've made in this thread.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 12 Sep 2007, 23:46

DaveV17 wrote:This is a link to an article concerning Larry Holmes' torn bicep. It was done 6 days before the Norton fight. As I mentioned earlier there are some more articles if you Google "Holmes Norton torn bicep".

http://www.BS.com/?m=show&id=2497

That article is simply taking as fact Holmes' assertion that he tore his bicep before the bout. There's no proof (and the best proof, i.e. the fight, strongly suggests not such a serious injury)

Larry Holmes was a great fighter, but he will give you an excuse for every loss or bad performance till the cows come home. He's a very proud guy and will not admit he was bested when the playing field was level.