BoxRec

Summary of First fight: Ali was hurt early and only gave flashes after that(rds. 3 and 11 for sure after round 2). Other than that, there were a lot of rounds that could and should go to Norton on activity and Ali's lack of it; plus, round 12 consummated the fight for Norton. Norton wins.

Summary of 2nd fight: Ali wins the first 6 rounds BIG; In fact, Norton did nothing but chase and get tagged(not even landing so much as a jab or two in the entire stanza) until round 6--where Norton was badly hurt! Ali was so dominant here that since 2 points were in effect here--or so the commentator said--that the argument can be made that all of these or all except 1 or 2 of the rounds were 2 point rounds. Robbing Ali of that or to that extent, is bigoted or criminal. Bigoted because Norton is the white hope OR criminal by stealing Ali's value or defacing it. For all this dominance, it only went back and forth after that. Even after round 6--despite Norton having won at least two 2 point rounds in that part of the fight--he was supposed to be so far behind that he needed a knockout or multiple knockdowns to win. Still, if the judges gave Ali only a point for every round 1-6--as apparently they did--then Ali needed the 12th to win, which he did. The difference was that Ali had a historic round and Norton finished it to have a very good round. Either way--whether big victory or close--Ali won this fight!

In fight 3, Norton had a lot rounds where he landed one or two good punches or less in the round and did not hurt Ali(can't assume that he was--Ali had the best chin of any fighter) for the most part as he did in the second fight either, all-the-while, he was out boxing him in those same rounds. That was the blueprint as close as one can get; even though, certain rounds such as round 5, 6, and 13 differed from that(with Norton winning 2 out of 3 of those said rounds--I gave the 13th to Ali because he landed more haymakers than Norton). This was arguably the closest of the 3(fight 1 was pretty close, though, but it could be argued that Norton won 3 or more than Ali after round 1 on activity alone). I thought the judges had it right in fight 3. Ali wins, because many times he doubled Norton or more in punches landed and Norton couldn't solidify the round. If Norton had did what Shavers did(it was clear that Shavers hurt Ali) with those one or two punches and with the 2 point system in place(as the commentators said it was, then Norton would have won no doubt). How is fair if one man is doubling up his opponent(landing hard punches at times, too: mainly, Ali's right cross) and his opponent isn't hurting him(not showing) for judges to award that opponent those rounds? Ali won that third fight. Ali wins the last 2 fights.

A fundamental mistake is made when viewers of a fight use a point system to evaluate a fight that was scored on a round by round basis.

There were no 10-8 rounds or 10-7 round. Whether Ali or Norton won a round by an inch or a mile they both were rewarded one round on the judges cards.

All three fights were hotly contested, especially the last two, and the referees saw what they saw...

BoxBuzz wrote:Finally a fair and balanced accounting by a IBHOF inductee with no dog in the fight.

FIXED

http://www.BS.com/ali-norton-i ... yes--28324

http://www.ibhof.com/pages/about/induct ... uyler.html

Yep, Ali won a close fight.....and yep could have gone the other way.

Nope....not a "stolen" fight by any stretch. And Schuyler and every official saw it Ali's way.

And Joe Frazier gave it to Norton by 1 round.

The Celebrity judges a week later totaled it out as a draw as did some reporters ringside.

This should not get up in any reasonable person's crawl.

If this was two unknown fighters would that have tipped the odds to the other fighter? Mebbe so. But not certainly so.


However this remains perhaps the single most controversial fight on this forum.

BoxBuzz wrote:Yep, Ali won a close fight.....and yep could have gone the other way.

Nope....not a "stolen" fight by any stretch. And Schuyler and every official saw it Ali's way.

And Joe Frazier gave it to Norton by 1 round.

The Celebrity judges a week later totaled it out as a draw as did some reporters ringside.

This should not get up in any reasonable person's crawl.

If this was two unknown fighters would that have tipped the odds to the other fighter? Mebbe so. But not certainly so.


However this remains perhaps the single most controversial fight on this forum.

Enjoy:


http://sports.espn.go.com/new-york/colu ... id=5247526

I had read that article, thanks for bringing it up in this context.

However.....prepare for the obligatory over reaction from those who espouse that they "know" just what happened in that ring.

They will make you pay for your insinuations.

(As we know many of those that "know" are still residing on the east coast).

BoxBuzz wrote:I had read that article, thanks for bringing it up in this context.

However.....prepare for the obligatory over reaction from those who espouse that they "know" just what happened in that ring.

They will make you pay for your insinuations.

(As we know many of those that "know" are still residing on the east coast).

They are entitled to their opinion and I'm entitled to mine.

BTW, Harold Lederman who was one of the refs for the third fight is still judging fights for HBO. I'm trying to get his e-mail to get his take nearly forty years later.


Of interest he called both Holmes-Spinks fights for Larry and had SRL winning his bout with Hagler easily.

It sounded that way to me from the end scores, too, but the commentators were scoring this round or that(sportswriters very educated about what was going on) as two point rounds; listen to the commentators in each of the last two fights(the actual broadcasts). Either way, Norton still loses the last two fights, fight 2(Ali wins the first 6, then the fight goes back and forth after that) and fight 3(there were no 2 point rounds--nobody dominated a round to that distinction; still, There were many rounds that looked more special for Norton than they were; he landed 2 good shots or--in some cases--only 1 and Ali spent the round either jabbing or with combinations; I can't give Norton credit with one or two punches(unless they were stone punches like Shavers) and Ali is landing to the head as is custom for him). When I first watched the 3rd fight for the first time, I thought Norton had won the fight(because Norton's couple of big--not huge--punches looked special and I was overlooking what Ali was doing--which as it is at times: boring and not flashy, but scoring nonetheless!) When I looked at it with an unbiased account(not looking for the pizzazz), Ali won the fight!

1st fight 7-5 Norton
2nd fight 7-4-1 Ali
3rd fight 7-6-2 Norton

First 2 bouts were pretty clear, and as for the 3rd, I think it was pretty close.

IBHOF inductee and winner of the Nat Fleischer Award for Excellence in Boxing Journalism:




Article Link - http://www.BS.com/?m=show&opt= ... z2j1CbK7US
This is a legal waiver. By copying and using the material from this article, you agree to give full credit to BS.com or provide a link to the original article.

For the record, Schuyler scored the bout 9-6 Ali, and he did so without an ounce of doubt or regret.

"I don’t know what the controversy was about because I couldn’t see any," he declared. "Ali took the fight and Norton didn’t. Close? Yes. But close doesn’t count except in quakes. I’ve never, ever thought over the years that Norton might have won the fight. From where I sat, Ali dictated the pace with his jab and right hand. It was an even fight after eight rounds and then Ali took charge. Norton came forward, but you don’t get points just for coming forward. It was Ali’s fight and I have no qualms about the decision or the way I scored it."

http://www.BS.com/?m=show&opt= ... e&id=28324

Il Duce wrote:Fair Minded Individuals

Norton - Ali I...........{Kenny Norton}........116-111
Norton - Ali II..........{Kenny Norton}........115-114
Norton - Ali III.........{Kenny Norton}........145-142

And That's The Way It Was........

Ok, if you say so.......

But would you mind disclosing what "fair" minded individuals you are alluding to?....and just what "fairs" they may (or may not) have attended? Otherwise you may appear to some of our die hard biased eccentrics to have an "agenda".

Now you and I know that you are as balanced as Dolly Parton........but I have heard through the rumor mill that a few actually suspect you have some stealth "leanings".

Imagine that? YOU? biased? ........ I know I know......you are the Mother Theresa of our little forum....and yet...we have doubters.

Was Joe Frazier fair minded? Or was he Kenny's friend? I forget. He did call the fight clearly for Ken. By one round.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Il Duce wrote:Fair Minded Individuals

Norton - Ali I...........{Kenny Norton}........116-111
Norton - Ali II..........{Kenny Norton}........115-114
Norton - Ali III.........{Kenny Norton}........145-142

And That's The Way It Was........

Ok, if you say so.......

But would you mind disclosing what "fair" minded individuals you are alluding to?....and just what "fairs" they may (or may not) have attended? Otherwise you may appear to some of our die hard biased eccentrics to have an "agenda".

Now you and I know that you are as balanced as Dolly Parton........but I have heard through the rumor mill that a few actually suspect you have some stealth "leanings".

Imagine that? YOU? biased? ........ I know I know......you are the Mother Theresa of our little forum....and yet...we have doubters.

Was Joe Frazier fair minded? Or was he Kenny's friend? I forget. He did call the fight clearly for Ken. By one round.

One of the denizens of this board said that was because Joe had an agenda. That agenda being a desire to fight Ali for a fourth time.

This field has been plowed before and before...

Il Duce wrote:Fair-Minded

I believe that would be, just and impartial, not prejudiced.

If you voted for Muhammad Ali to be the victor in any of those '3' bouts,
you would be undressing yourself.

"The Ali Syndrome' = 'guilt ridden white men, voting in favor of someone undeserving, to help cleanse their soul'

Many if not most of the official judges of his fights were white men. Perhaps he never won a fight.

So...according to Il Duce......anyone who feels Ali won any of those fights...is suffering from a bias. Perhaps without even being "self aware".


And of course....his assessment of this is unbias and we are fortunate to have this clear thinking soul around in order to provide the "clarity" we all seek.


Thanks Ducer!

I of course have now changed my "opinion" in order to fall into line with your "plan".

Consider me a new and faithful minion. And please advise as to what a reasonable penance for independent thought might be.

BoxBuzz wrote:So...according to Il Duce......anyone who feels Ali won any of those fights...is suffering from a bias. Perhaps without even being "self aware".


And of course....his assessment of this is unbias and we are fortunate to have this clear thinking soul around in order to provide the "clarity" we all seek.


Thanks Ducer!

I of course have now changed my "opinion" in order to fall into line with your "plan".

Consider me a new and faithful minion. And please advise as to what a reasonable penance for independent thought might be.

Duce lecturing others about bias would be like Plaxico Burress lecturing others about gun safety.

I specifically remember three black fellas in the ring in Lewiston.

Il Duce wrote:

ThatOne wrote:I specifically remember three black fellas in the ring in Lewiston.

You Lose,

Jersey Joe Walcott was 'not' a scoring Official.

He was a Celebrity Referee 'non scoring only'.

Did I say he was a scoring official?

I merely stated a matter of fact.

SMH

ThatOne wrote:

Il Duce wrote:

ThatOne wrote:I specifically remember three black fellas in the ring in Lewiston.

You Lose,

Jersey Joe Walcott was 'not' a scoring Official.

He was a Celebrity Referee 'non scoring only'.

Did I say he was a scoring official?

I merely stated a matter of fact.

SMH

He's got a point there Ducey (If it's ok to mention it here)

I don't remember my scores (it was too long ago), but I remember that I thought Norton won the first and third pretty convincingly. I also thought he won the second, but it was close enough that I have no serious argument with anyone who scored it for Ali.

He's got a point there Ducey (If it's ok to mention it here)
-BoxBuzz

Duce wants to turn it into a fact free zone.

A fact can be very inconvenient at times.

raylawpc wrote:I don't remember my scores (it was too long ago), but I remember that I thought Norton won the first and third pretty convincingly. I also thought he won the second, but it was close enough that I have no serious argument with anyone who scored it for Ali.

Agree that Kenny won the 1st and 3rd pretty convincingly.

raylawpc wrote:I don't remember my scores (it was too long ago), but I remember that I thought Norton won the first and third pretty convincingly. I also thought he won the second, but it was close enough that I have no serious argument with anyone who scored it for Ali.

I think I had Ali by a point in the second but it was the only close fight of the three imo.

Il Duce wrote:Muhammad Ali,

Loved to have 'White' Officials Scoring his bouts.

He had them all convinced, that if they scored against him, it was because they were 'Racists'
and disliked a real Black Man.

Muhammad could not pull that S**T with a Black Official.

This is pretty opinionated crap.....opinion opinion opinion.

You may be right, but you sure aint shy.

You could be wrong....but you sure aint sure.

Because you only know your own heart.......no one elses.

Though you sure seem damned committed to convince us all that you got this figured out.

Some will agree with you because they feel the facts support your opinion.

Some will agree with you because it conveniently figures in to their world view.

Some will disagree with you for many of the same reasons.

But at the end of the day....you OFTEN don't KNOW what you are talking about.

But you have yourself convinced that you do.

Often wrong you are.

But never in doubt.

This is my most recent

short and to the point shout.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Il Duce wrote:Muhammad Ali,

Loved to have 'White' Officials Scoring his bouts.

He had them all convinced, that if they scored against him, it was because they were 'Racists'
and disliked a real Black Man.

Muhammad could not pull that S**T with a Black Official.

This is pretty opinionated crap.....opinion opinion opinion.

You may be right, but you sure aint shy.

You could be wrong....but you sure aint sure.

Because you only know your own heart.......no one elses.

Though you sure seem damned committed to convince us all that you got this figured out.

Some will agree with you because they feel the facts support your opinion.

Some will agree with you because it conveniently figures in to their world view.

Some will disagree with you for many of the same reasons.

But at the end of the day....you OFTEN don't KNOW what you are talking about.

But you have yourself convinced that you do.

Often wrong you are.

But never in doubt.

This is my most recent

short and to the point shout.

I assume if all of the judges for Ali's fights were right it was because all of the judges at the time were white.