BoxRec

Norton-Ali III didn't have a lot of "close rounds" where "Norton did nothing" . . that's simply not accurate. There were lots of rounds where Ali practically did nothing.

Norton threw more, landed more, worked more, and won the fight. Period. I could give a toss what the "celebrity panel" scored the fight. Frazier pulled for Ali b/c he probably was still contemplating coming out of retirement for a 4th fight with the man he loved to hate for some big money. Other idiots gave Ali rounds simply b/c he "danced" that round . . without doing anything effective. Being generous to Ali he won 6 rounds tops.

Always amazes me that someone can watch a fight on fuzzy 1970s video, come up with a scorecard different from that of the ringside judges, and conclude that the only explanation is that the judges were corrupt.

Norton didn't win the second fight. Ali was well on top in the first half, then slowed so that the second half was close, Norton closing the gap slightly, but not by enough.

As for the third fight, I had Norton winning by 1 point. Joe Frazier agreed with me (the idea that he of all people was biased in favour of Ali is just bizarre). A wide range of observers agreed that it was a very close bout, including the United Press and the Associated Press (the UP scored it for Norton, the AP for Ali). The people who think it was a one-sided victory for Norton are the ones who give points for every eye-catching roundhouse swing that lands on Ali's shoulder and nothing for fast straight punches that connect with Norton's face.

Ali at this point was nearly 35 with bad hands, having his 9th world title fight in 2 years, including the near-death experience against Frazier in Manila, and had barely recovered from the blood clots in his legs he sustained during the fiasco against Antonio Inoki. It was a golden opportunity for Norton to beat him, and if he'd really had Ali's number all along the way people claim then he would have done so convincingly.

Who had a better view of proceedings than Ali --- who stated straight after the bout, "Yeah, I lost."

LOL.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Who had a better view of proceedings than Ali --- who stated straight after the bout, "Yeah, I lost."

LOL.

It's meaningless. Ali was exhausted and in pain, and bitterly aware of his own fading powers, and probably did feel that he'd lost. I just know you're not suggesting that he actually kept a round by round scorecard.

SolomonDeedes wrote:It was a golden opportunity for Norton to beat him, and if he'd really had Ali's number all along the way people claim then he would have done so convincingly.

Which he did and if you don't recognize that Norton gave Ali major problems in all three fights you must be blind. Stylistically Ali had more problems with Norton than any other fighter he faced.

if III is so one sided....and GI is right I've not said much either way on this....other than "check the record books"....

Someone explain what the judges saw....and why they all saw it differently than our new panel of experts. Were they all in on the conspiracy?

AND why the "CBS after the event panel" saw it as a draw with NO ONE seeing it as one sided...........AND why Joe Frazier gave it to Norton by one round..saying it was close....not a robbery.


Was Ali truly that mesmerizing of a figure.....and held a Svengali like hold over psyche of the public and all officials?


I do see that Norton gave Ali major problems.....I hope everyone sees that.


As for Young? I guess he just stuck his neck out a little too far.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Chuck1052 wrote:A very good case can be made that Ken Norton should have been given the decision in all three bouts with Muhammad Ali. I thought that Norton got robbed in the third bout, which I saw on closed-circuit television.

Norton matched up well with boxers such as Ali, Larry Holmes and Jimmy Young, but stopped in very short order when he faced the big punchers like George Foreman, Earnie Shavers and Gerry Cooney. As a result, I believe that Norton would have also been knocked out in short order by Joe Frazier and Ron Lyle.

- Chuck Johnston

Frazier, yes, and you're not likely to get much argument there. I would contend thats a class issue more than a power one, though. Frazier was just too good for Norton.

Lyle? Highly debatable fight, IMO. Either man may win it. My argument is, while Norton clearly preferred boxers, the evidence actually in-ring against him on the charge he could never handle a puncher is more circumstancial than convincing, IMO.

Foreman? How many men in all of history would beat a peak Foreman? C'mon.

Shavers? Pretty well shot by this point of his career was Norton.

Cooney? Please. He wouldve kicked this guy all over the ring seven or eight years earlier.

I'll add that a prime Quarry would have done the same to Norton.....

BoxBuzz wrote:if III is so one sided....and GI is right I've not said much either way on this....other than "check the record books"....

Someone explain what the judges saw....and why they all saw it differently than our new panel of experts. Were they all in on the conspiracy?

AND why the "CBS after the event panel" saw it as a draw with NO ONE seeing it as one sided...........AND why Joe Frazier gave it to Norton by one round..saying it was close....not a robbery.


Was Ali truly that mesmerizing of a figure.....and held a Svengali like hold over psyche of the public and all officials?


I do see that Norton gave Ali major problems.....I hope everyone sees that.


As for Young? I guess he just stuck his neck out a little too far.

Ali made money, Norton and Young didnt.

You already know this. You just prefer not to acknowledge it.

BoxBuzz wrote:
Someone explain what the judges saw....and why they all saw it differently than our new panel of experts. Were they all in on the conspiracy?

How are people of sound mind supposed to explain the actions of Boxing judges? Can you explain to me the mentality of a pedophile? Obviously the actions aren't remotely comparable, but the sentiment is reasonable.

SolomonDeedes wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Who had a better view of proceedings than Ali --- who stated straight after the bout, "Yeah, I lost."

LOL.

It's meaningless. Ali was exhausted and in pain, and bitterly aware of his own fading powers, and probably did feel that he'd lost. I just know you're not suggesting that he actually kept a round by round scorecard.

Did Ali say, "Yeah, I lost," straight after the FOTC?

Did Ali say, "Yeah, I lost," straight after Norton I?

Did Ali say, "Yeah, I lost," straight after Young?

Did Ali say, "Yeah, I lost," straight after Spinks I?

Why didnt Norton say, "Yeah, I lost," after the fight? Could it be because he wasnt exhausted and wasnt in pain?

BoxBuzz wrote:if III is so one sided....and GI is right I've not said much either way on this....other than "check the record books"....

Someone explain what the judges saw....and why they all saw it differently than our new panel of experts. Were they all in on the conspiracy?

AND why the "CBS after the event panel" saw it as a draw with NO ONE seeing it as one sided...........AND why Joe Frazier gave it to Norton by one round..saying it was close....not a robbery.


Was Ali truly that mesmerizing of a figure.....and held a Svengali like hold over psyche of the public and all officials?


I do see that Norton gave Ali major problems.....I hope everyone sees that.


As for Young? I guess he just stuck his neck out a little too far.

Explain to me the cards for these fights...

Casamayor-Cruz

Whitaker-Chavez

Lewis-Holyfield I

Ramirez-Whitaker I

Oh no, the judges saw it that way. It cant be illegitimate if thats how it turned out.

You're a feeble-minded minion of Ali's and its reflected in your feeble-minded defence of him.

"Ali beat Norton and Young, and BoxRec proves it."

As long as you bring up Lewis Holyfield 1.....might as well bring up LHII......they both seemed fishy. But the judges ARE part of the game.....and thus the end of the controversy. Whitaker Chavez is far more laughable than some of these closely fought and argued about fights.


Saad....as to Pedophiles & boxing judges.....hmm. You may have something there!

Is there a case that; today WE score fights differently?

What criteria changes have there been, and which areas of scoring are weighted higher now?

BoxBuzz wrote:As long as you bring up Lewis Holyfield 1.....might as well bring up LHII......they both seemed fishy. But the judges ARE part of the game.....and thus the end of the controversy. Whitaker Chavez is far more laughable than some of these closely fought and argued about fights.


Saad....as to Pedophiles & boxing judges.....hmm. You may have something there!

The judges saw it that way. Were they under some kind of Chavez spell?

Sorry, but theres nothing fishy about any of these results. The proof is right here on BoxRec...........by your own laughably weak rationale.

I think you highlighted the wrong spot......check out the "judges part of the game" aspect of the statement....there's my more durable rationale.


Your just emoting.......and lamenting.......and lambasting......Whereas....I....or perhaps I must revert to the royal "WE" (in order to

sufficiently annoy) are attempting to bring you to your empiracle senses.

Now come to conciousness and smell the coffee G.I. Judges are part of the grand matrix, and their decisions must be accepted and

rightfully validated.

BoxBuzz wrote:I think you highlighted the wrong spot......check out the "judges part of the game" aspect of the statement....there's my more durable rationale.


Your just emoting.......and lamenting.......and lambasting......Whereas....I....or perhaps I must revert to the royal "WE" (in order to

sufficiently annoy) are attempting to bring you to your empiracle senses.

Now come to conciousness and smell the coffee G.I. Judges are part of the grand matrix, and their decisions must be accepted and

rightfully validated.

You forgot to add, "when it suits me."

Im confused. If judges need and deserve validation, why arent you doing that for the bouts I listed?

it always suits me.......even when it adds a degree of comic relief to the sport.

Do we have a listing of the five or ten worst decisions of all time? Would any of these other than Whitaker Chavez be on the top ten list?

Or better yet....I can at least give some (have it your way WEAK) supportive statements regarding A-NIII, and A-Y.....such as citing other opinions from the time, and Youngs unexplainable antics.......


IS there anyone who will offer up an explanation of Whitaker Chavez? That's got to be top 10 material for goofiest decision on record.

Its not even the worst decision on my list.

Hell, it isnt even the worst one on my list involving Whitaker!!!

Why cant you tell me which rounds Ali won against Young? Stop leaning on other Ali fans as a crutch. Tell us how many rounds Ali won and why he won them.

Remember, there is no provision in scoring a bout which allows for points to be assigned to you if your rival puts his head between the ropes. You have to, like, you know...land the punches you throw, and stuff.

Last summer I inadvertently did a boxing experiment. I taped my one of my sons fights from one side of the ring and was able to obtain filming from opposite side of ring. I could see two different fights so I cn see how judges sitting at diff angles to the rings get diff results

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Its not even the worst decision on my list.

Hell, it isnt even the worst one on my list involving Whitaker!!!

Why cant you tell me which rounds Ali won against Young? Stop leaning on other Ali fans as a crutch. Tell us how many rounds Ali won and why he won them.

Remember, there is no provision in scoring a bout which allows for points to be assigned to you if your rival puts his head between the ropes. You have to, like, you know...land the punches you throw, and stuff.

Out of the ring antics...Are you serious? I'm not sure your correct on that sir. Though your opponent may not be awarded extra points, the offending fighter could suffer loss of points. Though your punches statement is sound.

I could easily tell you what rounds were won and lost...but then I'd have to kill you.

As I understand it; the ref has to highlight an offence (usually it's done with a point deduction or warning) for the judges to consider it in their scoring. I haven't seen this fight, so I'm not sure what was warranted.

JDC wrote:As I understand it; the ref has to highlight an offence (usually it's done with a point deduction or warning) for the judges to consider it in their scoring. I haven't seen this fight, so I'm not sure what was warranted.

You may be technically right, though I'm not sure judges will always behave as directed.

No one able to tell me which rounds Ali won?

I'll wait.

scallum wrote:Last summer I inadvertently did a boxing experiment. I taped my one of my sons fights from one side of the ring and was able to obtain filming from opposite side of ring. I could see two different fights so I cn see how judges sitting at diff angles to the rings get diff results

I've been saying for a while that judges should have TV screens. There is no doubt that the view is better.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

SolomonDeedes wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:Who had a better view of proceedings than Ali --- who stated straight after the bout, "Yeah, I lost."

LOL.

It's meaningless. Ali was exhausted and in pain, and bitterly aware of his own fading powers, and probably did feel that he'd lost. I just know you're not suggesting that he actually kept a round by round scorecard.

Did Ali say, "Yeah, I lost," straight after the FOTC?

Did Ali say, "Yeah, I lost," straight after Norton I?

Did Ali say, "Yeah, I lost," straight after Young?

Did Ali say, "Yeah, I lost," straight after Spinks I?

Why didnt Norton say, "Yeah, I lost," after the fight? Could it be because he wasnt exhausted and wasnt in pain?

And if fights were scored based on who feels fresher when the final bell rings then that would be a killer argument.

As for the others, since you have such a high regard for Ali's prowess as a judge I assume you accept that he won all of those.