Ken Norton and the hypnotist

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 13 Sep 2007, 16:10

harrygreb wrote: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 have not seen fight #2 of Ali vs Norton but I would not be surprised if Norton won them all. I saw 1 and 3, and Norton won clearly.

Was Ali in shape in fights 1 and 3?

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 13 Sep 2007, 16:17

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.

Bullshit!!! Norton won fight #3 clearly, fair and square. Norton won the fight, but Ali's won the judges' hearts.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 13 Sep 2007, 16:22

Even Ali admitted to his doctor Ferdie Pacheco that he lost the third fight. 8) 8) 8)

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 13 Sep 2007, 17:04

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 13 Sep 2007, 17:33

In the late stages Ali became a master of stealing close rounds and keeping himself in fights. He did this in Norton III for sure. It made the fight close IMO.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 13 Sep 2007, 22:10

The only other thing I would say in this thread is that while I thought that Ali won the second fight and Norton the third, Arthur Mercante (who scored the third fight for Ali) is someone with a lot more credibility and integrity than any of Ali's critics in this thread. And I would also say that its hypocrisy to say that the judges were biased towards Ali, while at the same time some here are clearly biased against Ali and are scoring every possible close fight for his opponent. Saying that Norton won the second fight is pushing it in my opinion, but anyone who claims that Norton won it "clearly" is full of it.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 13 Sep 2007, 22:15

I Feel Fine wrote:The only other thing I would say in this thread is that while I thought that Ali won the second fight and Norton the third, Arthur Mercante (who scored the third fight for Ali) is someone with a lot more credibility and integrity than any of Ali's critics in this thread. And I would also say that its hypocrisy to say that the judges were biased towards Ali, while at the same time some here are clearly biased against Ali and are scoring every possible close fight for his opponent. Saying that Norton won the second fight is pushing it in my opinion, but anyone who claims that Norton won it "clearly" is full of it.

Mercante actually was involved with quite a few shady characters throughout his career. Not Mr. Clean by any means.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 13 Sep 2007, 22:20

Well I don't know anything about that. But he gave Frazier the first fight for example, which I was alluding to. He wasn't protecting Ali. He's said that he gave Ali the fight because Norton didn't do anything in the last round.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 13 Sep 2007, 22:45

theone · Post by **theone** » 13 Sep 2007, 22:57

IFF, you seem to be one of those Ali fans who gave Ali rounds if he bounced around a little, threw a few arm punches, held, and didn't get knocked down.

Frazier was hospitalized after the fight wasn't he? Seems Ali must have did a little more than what you described above.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 13 Sep 2007, 22:59

The point I was making, if you knew how to read, was that if he was so biased for Ali he could just as well have given Ali that fight. He gave the right score for the Frazier fight, and he almost had Norton beating Ali. He was not biased towards Ali as you suggest all the officials were who gave Ali some of the close decisions he had at the end of his career.

You're a dickless idiot to claim that I don't score Ali's fights objectively. I've conceded three fights that Ali won that I thought he should have lost, and I've even said that I can understand how someone could score the second fight for Norton, even if I disagree. What I did say was that its crazy to say that Norton won the second fight "clearly."

You, my friend, are the one not scoring Ali's fights objectively.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 13 Sep 2007, 23:15

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 13 Sep 2007, 23:30

If Norton trained two weeks for an Ali fight and suffered a broken jaw in the fight, if Norton came into an Ali fight with an injured right hand, and if a 34 year old Norton fought a prime Ali Norton would have no chance of winning. Ali, under those circumstances, won 1/3 in my opinion, and many had him winning 2/3, which was the official result.

Ali in his prime at 100% does not lose to Norton. Norton never fought Ali at his best; this is fact, not opinion.

I haven't said anything innacurate or insupportable about Ali here; the only one telling myths about Ali is you, suggesting that Norton II and Evangelista were robberies. No objective boxing fan would say so, and the latter should not even be in the discussion.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 13 Sep 2007, 23:35

DaveV17 wrote:I do score the fights objectively. I am no fan of any fighter. Ali couldn't punch hard enough to deter Norton, Norton slipped and parried Ali's jab effectively the entire fight, AND, Norton landed good, hard jabs, almost every left hook he threw, and plenty of hard uppercuts when Ali went to the ropes.

You get angry whenever anyone points out the obvious concerning Ali. It seems that you know that the myth can not stand up to unbiased scrutiny.
Ali would not beat Norton if they fought 10 times. Norton just had the style to beat him, EVERYTIME. AND the more Ali danced, the worse it got for Ali. Ali, like all ofher fighters could not punch hard off of his toes. Aggressive fighters like Norton could walk right through those weak punches. Just watch Ali after the 12th round - his actions are the actions of a beaten man. Ali knew.

What myth would that be?

That the peak Ali was the best, 2nd best or, at worst, 3rd best heavyweight champ of all time?

Most impartial fans would agree with that ranking wouldn't they? Sure, you get the odd Granberry in here but he's in a tiny minority.

The Ali of the Norton fights was a great fighter in decline. Or is that the myth of which you speak?

Norton DID have a style that caused that version of Ali a lot of trouble. But the peak Ali of the mid-sixties wouldn't have the same sort of trouble as the much slower 70's version IN MY OPINION. I just can't picture that version of Ali being forced back onto the ropes and being unable to keep Norton at bay for large periods of time. I see him sticking and moving, sticking and moving and Norton being made to constantly miss and re-adjust.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 13 Sep 2007, 23:41

Collins2000 wrote:
DaveV17 wrote:I do score the fights objectively. I am no fan of any fighter. Ali couldn't punch hard enough to deter Norton, Norton slipped and parried Ali's jab effectively the entire fight, AND, Norton landed good, hard jabs, almost every left hook he threw, and plenty of hard uppercuts when Ali went to the ropes.

You get angry whenever anyone points out the obvious concerning Ali. It seems that you know that the myth can not stand up to unbiased scrutiny.
Ali would not beat Norton if they fought 10 times. Norton just had the style to beat him, EVERYTIME. AND the more Ali danced, the worse it got for Ali. Ali, like all ofher fighters could not punch hard off of his toes. Aggressive fighters like Norton could walk right through those weak punches. Just watch Ali after the 12th round - his actions are the actions of a beaten man. Ali knew.
What myth would that be?

That the peak Ali was the best, 2nd best or, at worst, 3rd best heavyweight champ of all time?

Most impartial fans would agree with that ranking wouldn't they? Sure, you get the odd Granberry in here but he's in a tiny minority.

The Ali of the Norton fights was a great fighter in decline. Or is that the myth of which you speak?

Norton DID have a style that caused that version of Ali a lot of trouble. But the peak Ali of the mid-sixties wouldn't have the same sort of trouble as the much slower 70's version IN MY OPINION. I just can't picture that version of Ali being forced back onto the ropes and being unable to keep Norton at bay for large periods of time. I see him sticking and moving, sticking and moving and Norton being made to constantly miss and re-adjust.

Ali was forced back against the ropes by Chuvalo, I doubt Norton wouldn't have had success.

While I would concur Ali was past his peak by the Norton rematch, to say he was "much slower" is baloney. I see practically the same hand and footspeed he had 6 years earlier. He never "danced for 15 rounds" in his prime . . that's a myth. Terrell, Chuvalo, even Folley etc. . . he always had to stand his ground to take some breathers . . .he actually danced MORE in the Norton rematch than he did for many of his fights in the mid 60s.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 13 Sep 2007, 23:43

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 13 Sep 2007, 23:51

dempseyfire wrote:
Collins2000 wrote:
DaveV17 wrote:I do score the fights objectively. I am no fan of any fighter. Ali couldn't punch hard enough to deter Norton, Norton slipped and parried Ali's jab effectively the entire fight, AND, Norton landed good, hard jabs, almost every left hook he threw, and plenty of hard uppercuts when Ali went to the ropes.

You get angry whenever anyone points out the obvious concerning Ali. It seems that you know that the myth can not stand up to unbiased scrutiny.
Ali would not beat Norton if they fought 10 times. Norton just had the style to beat him, EVERYTIME. AND the more Ali danced, the worse it got for Ali. Ali, like all ofher fighters could not punch hard off of his toes. Aggressive fighters like Norton could walk right through those weak punches. Just watch Ali after the 12th round - his actions are the actions of a beaten man. Ali knew.
What myth would that be?

That the peak Ali was the best, 2nd best or, at worst, 3rd best heavyweight champ of all time?

Most impartial fans would agree with that ranking wouldn't they? Sure, you get the odd Granberry in here but he's in a tiny minority.

The Ali of the Norton fights was a great fighter in decline. Or is that the myth of which you speak?

Norton DID have a style that caused that version of Ali a lot of trouble. But the peak Ali of the mid-sixties wouldn't have the same sort of trouble as the much slower 70's version IN MY OPINION. I just can't picture that version of Ali being forced back onto the ropes and being unable to keep Norton at bay for large periods of time. I see him sticking and moving, sticking and moving and Norton being made to constantly miss and re-adjust.
Ali was forced back against the ropes by Chuvalo, I doubt Norton wouldn't have had success.

While I would concur Ali was past his peak by the Norton rematch, to say he was "much slower" is baloney. I see practically the same hand and footspeed he had 6 years earlier. He never "danced for 15 rounds" in his prime . . that's a myth. Terrell, Chuvalo, even Folley etc. . . he always had to stand his ground to take some breathers . . .he actually danced MORE in the Norton rematch than he did for many of his fights in the mid 60s.

We all see what we want to see, I suppose.

If you think the Ali of the first two Norton fights was just as fast as the Ali of the mid-60's then so be it. I'm not sure it's the majority view but who knows, actually in here it may well be.

I see it differently. If that makes it 'baloney', I think I can live with that, sir.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 13 Sep 2007, 23:54

Ali was as fast in the Norton fights as he was in the 60's... the Ali-Norton fights weren't close, Norton would beat Ali everytime... can we stop pretending that you guys aren't biased against Ali?

Ali showed that he could handle Norton's style in the second fight. He won the fight in the minds of the vast majority of boxing fans, and he did it with one hand. I think Ali-Norton fights would always be close, even in Ali's prime, but saying that Norton had his number is incorrect. The results of those fights were the result of circumstances more so than Norton's style. Ali was out of shape in the first fight and he was shot in the third. Holyfield lost the Bowe trilogy, maybe if he had been in better condition he wins the third fight, who knows. Fighters get injuries, they get old, they have an off night; it happens.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 14 Sep 2007, 00:00

DaveV17 wrote:Norton had a style that Ali couldn't handle. Norton beats him everytime. None of the 3 fights were even close. The judges could give them to Ali, the Ali fans can pretend that Ali won, but he lost them all. Look at Ali after the fight, he KNOWS he LOST.

Ali was only 212 for the second fight, danced as much as he ever did (ineffectively), most of the fight. He just couldn't punch hard enough to keep Norton away. Nobody beats everybody. Ali couldn't beat Norton, Norton couldn't beat Foreman, Foreman couldn;t beat Ali, etc.

Nobody can punch off of their toes. If Shavers, Marciano, Dempsey, Tyson, or anyone else bounced on their toes, they wouldn't be able to punch. Ali was no exception. Norton exploited that weakness, easily handled Ali's jab, and handled Ali. Norton could exploit that same technique at anytime in Ali's career. Norton would always win.

The version of Ali who fought Norton certainly had a lot of problems with Ken's style. Still, I thought Ali won the rematch. I'm not alone in that view. If that version of Ali could beat a peak Norton, then my view is that what I consider to be the peak Ali (mid 60's) would be even better suited to turn the trick.

But, like I have said before, it's just opinion. Interestingly, to me at least, some of the loudest most arrogant posters in here who can tell you the result of every hypothetical match of the past with absolute certainty have tried their hand at picking the results of up and coming fights in The Current Scene with notable lack of success.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 14 Sep 2007, 00:16

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 14 Sep 2007, 00:24

DaveV17 wrote:IFF wrote:
"Fighters get injuries, they get old, they have an off night; it happens.'

And, fighters face opponents that they simply can't beat. Norton just had the style to beat Ali. I am not biased against any fighter. I just watch the fights.

You and many others seem to have an excuse for every Ali fight.

You say that Ali had a lay off before Frazier in 1971. Did he? He wasn't in jail, he could train and spar as much as he wanted from the Folley fight until the Quarry fight. Just because he didn't fight doesn't mean he didn't train. In addition, Ali had two good tune ups prior to Frazier - Quarry and Bonavena. Frazier had only 1 full round of fighting in the prior 13 months. It would seem that Ali would have been better prepared than Frazier.

Ali was too old against Leon Spinks. If any other "great" fighter had lost to 8 fight novice Leon Spinks, no one would be calling that fighter the best ever. Ali lost at age 36 (barely) to a guy who had fought a draw with Scott LeDoux. If Holyfield, Louis, Marciano, or anybody else had lost to a novice like Spinks, their claim to greatness would be gone.

Ali had Parkinsons or took too much Thyroid medicine, or didn't sleep enough, or whateever, when he fought Larry Holmes. Nobody said that at the time. The Ali fans/boxing writers thought he would win, and only after he was soundly beaten by a merciful Larry Holmes did anyone come up with the excuses like Parkinsons or that he took too much thyroid medicine, or whatever. The truth is that many writers and fans and Ali himself, said that Ali was in fantastic condition prior to the fight and many picked him to beat Holmes.

Ali was a human. Some of you need to understand that he was not super human. He did well for a long time, but like everyone else, he lost fights and he met fighters he just couldn't beat.

Dave, let me get this clear. You say that any fighter other than Ali who lost to a fighter like Spinks would not be considered a great.

So, because Ali did lose to Spinks, by your own logic, he is not a great.

Is that your position?

Don't be shy. Controversial positions are nothing new in here. They are almost the norm some weeks.

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 14 Sep 2007, 00:32

"Ali was as fast in the Norton fights as he was in the 60's... the Ali-Norton fights weren't close, Norton would beat Ali everytime... can we stop pretending that you guys aren't biased against Ali?"

You know what, I'm going to take this one back. Not because I'm trying to avoid an argument with dempsey, who I respect as a poster in other areas, but because if you asked me this a couple of years ago I might have agreed with dempsey, in a way. I used to watch Ali-Foreman for example and would think to myself "Ali still had the same hand speed he did in the 60's." But then I actually compared Zaire to one of Ali's 60's fights and I saw that he clearly didn't. So I disagree with dempsey that Ali was just as fast in the Norton fights as he was in the 60's, but I can see how someone could come to that conclusion without necessarily being biased. It is deceptive.

Collins2000 · Post by **Collins2000** » 14 Sep 2007, 00:36

DaveV17 wrote:Ali was a human. Some of you need to understand that he was not super human. He did well for a long time, but like everyone else, he lost fights and he met fighters he just couldn't beat.

Of course he was human. Who apart from the Ali detractors talk about him being viewed otherwise?

In the 2nd half of his career, he was very definately beatable but, until almost the very end it took a certain calibre of fighter to best him.

In his peak, which I believe ran from when he beat Liston and was effectively over once they stopped him fighting, no one came close to beating him. The Ali detractors usually never mention this time, claim his peak included the early 70's and / or claim the big Ali wins of this period were fixed.

DaveV17 · Post by **DaveV17** » 14 Sep 2007, 00:37

I Feel Fine · Post by **I Feel Fine** » 14 Sep 2007, 00:41

If someone wants to say that Muhammad Ali is overrated because he got old and started losing fights then that's a fair deal. But, if that is the case, then Sugar Ray Robinson, Henry Armstrong, Joe Louis, Sugar Ray Leonard, Thomas Hearns, Wilfero Benitez, Kid Gavilan, Roberto Duran, Jack Johnson, Evander Holyfield and many, many other fighters are also overrated. Are we willing to say that of those fighters as well? Many of those fighters had much worse endings to their careers than Ali did, including Robinson who is regarded by almost everyone, including myself, as the greatest fighter of all time.

We can all talk and BS, but in the end what matters is proof. I've shown that I am able to score a close fight for an Ali opponent, while you dave have not shown yourself capable of scoring a close fight for Ali. Therefore, objectively speaking, you cannot in any way accuse me of bias.

I would concede that every fighter is going to encounter a style that he just can't handle. There are certainly fighters in boxing history who might have beaten Ali at his best. But, going by their trilogy, I would say that Ken Norton is not one of them. Norton met Ali when he was not in his prime. That alone doesn't necessarily matter, since Ali was still a great fighter in the 70's. But Norton also never met Ali at 100%. Whatever the argument is, whatever the spin is; this is fact, not opinion. Norton never met Ali in his prime, at 100%.

The fact is, dave, that you are as biased as any of the judges who scored Ali-Norton III or Ali-Young for Ali, but in the opposite way.