Re: Ali vs Norton III 1976 my score..finally
Posted: 26 Aug 2008, 17:27
I saw the fight again recently as well. I hadn't seen it in a couple of years, so I wondered if I would have a different result, but I had it the same, Norton by a couple of rounds. Still, not the worst robbery in boxing history, as I've heard some call it hyperbolically. And Norton certainly didn't win by five rounds, that's a bit of a stretch.
Ali had been at his peak probably ten years earlier, while Norton was close to or at his own peak in this fight, so its not hard to figure out what happened. Ali didn't even really have his handspeed anymore, Norton's hands were almost as fast, which wasn't the case in the second fight where Ali won more clearly. Frankly, I'm surprised Ali did as well as he did.
Still, I don't see that its any worse a decision than some of the other robberies in boxing history. I'm not even sure that this could be called a robbery, really. It wasn't a blowout, unlike fights like Lewis-Holyfield, and on two of the judges scorecards Ali only won by a single round, unlike the lopsided scores in Holmes-Williams. When its just the difference of one round, its hard to cry foul as one might if Ali had won by a more blatantly bad score on the judges cards. It was simply a close (yes, I said close) fight that went the champions way. Understandable, even if most of us would disagree with the decision. But, no worse than Louis-Walcott or some other fight where the aging champ gets the benefit of the doubt.
As for criteria, I personally try not to give the champion any leeway, though I also don't care much about who is "setting the pace" of the fight. It's about effective punching in my view, and little else. And in regards to the 15th, I had it even. Norton did "NOT" win that round, and his lackluster showing in that round is what cost him the fight. When you are the challenger and you don't fight hard in the last round of a championship fight, bad things will happen to you. Leon Spinks never stopped punching in the last round of his first fight with Ali, and thats why Leon Spinks took Ali's title and why Norton didn't. Its really that simple.
Ali had been at his peak probably ten years earlier, while Norton was close to or at his own peak in this fight, so its not hard to figure out what happened. Ali didn't even really have his handspeed anymore, Norton's hands were almost as fast, which wasn't the case in the second fight where Ali won more clearly. Frankly, I'm surprised Ali did as well as he did.
Still, I don't see that its any worse a decision than some of the other robberies in boxing history. I'm not even sure that this could be called a robbery, really. It wasn't a blowout, unlike fights like Lewis-Holyfield, and on two of the judges scorecards Ali only won by a single round, unlike the lopsided scores in Holmes-Williams. When its just the difference of one round, its hard to cry foul as one might if Ali had won by a more blatantly bad score on the judges cards. It was simply a close (yes, I said close) fight that went the champions way. Understandable, even if most of us would disagree with the decision. But, no worse than Louis-Walcott or some other fight where the aging champ gets the benefit of the doubt.
As for criteria, I personally try not to give the champion any leeway, though I also don't care much about who is "setting the pace" of the fight. It's about effective punching in my view, and little else. And in regards to the 15th, I had it even. Norton did "NOT" win that round, and his lackluster showing in that round is what cost him the fight. When you are the challenger and you don't fight hard in the last round of a championship fight, bad things will happen to you. Leon Spinks never stopped punching in the last round of his first fight with Ali, and thats why Leon Spinks took Ali's title and why Norton didn't. Its really that simple.