BoxRec

Yes


What I see may not be what they saw .......agreed?

Put up your card.

Tell us which rounds Ali won.

Okay......but it could take some time.....I'm on vacation.....and thus very busy.

Its the new Elmers list.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:How about you, Alp? You want to step up and tell us which eight rounds Ali won?

The last time I scored the fight, I scored 6-6 with three rounds even. There were many rounds that were very close. I seldom score 1 round in a fight even. Don't have time to look at the specific rounds, but will sometime in the future if you want. If you have your score sheet handy, let me know which 8 rounds Norton won that weren't even close.

Arthur......wasn't he a pretty fair minded fella?


I think a "rationale for conspiracy" needs to be articulated in credible fashion. Something other than. The ol' "Isn't it obvious"? That a fella like granberry would trot out.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:How about you, Alp? You want to step up and tell us which eight rounds Ali won?

The last time I scored the fight, I scored 6-6 with three rounds even. There were many rounds that were very close. I seldom score 1 round in a fight even. Don't have time to look at the specific rounds, but will sometime in the future if you want. If you have your score sheet handy, let me know which 8 rounds Norton won that weren't even close.

See that Buzz?

Goodnight, Irene wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:How about you, Alp? You want to step up and tell us which eight rounds Ali won?

The last time I scored the fight, I scored 6-6 with three rounds even. There were many rounds that were very close. I seldom score 1 round in a fight even. Don't have time to look at the specific rounds, but will sometime in the future if you want. If you have your score sheet handy, let me know which 8 rounds Norton won that weren't even close.

See that Buzz?

I do indeed.....looks like fair minds could easily call it a close one.

BarryWashington wrote:September 28, 1976

Muhammad Ali vs. Ken Norton III

Round 1: 10-9 MA
Round 2: 10-9 KN
Round 3: 10-9 KN
Round 4: 10-9 MA
Round 5: 10-9 KN
Round 6: 10-9 KN
Round 7: 10-9 MA
Round 8: 10-9 KN
Round 9: 10-9 MA
Round 10: 10-9 KN
Round 11: 10-9 MA
Round 12: 10-9 KN
Round 13: 10-9 KN
Round 14: 10-9 KN
Round 15: 10-9 KN

10-5, 145-140, Ken Norton

I agree that Norton clearly won the fight but I noticed you had Norton winning the 15th.

Haven't seen this fight in a long time, but I thought Norton backed off in the last round and Ali was generally accepted as winning the 15th.

This subject gets real old real fast. You could say that all three fights were very closely fought and the judges just picked someone to call a winner. There's always enough B.S. and bias when it comes to close fights. The Bias is especially wacked with an Ali or a Whitaker fight You either loved them or you hated them. Fact is neither of these two guys M.A. or K.N. could get over on the other guy very effectively. But if you don't like Ali you bellyache that your guy, not that these folks really care who that may be, didn't get a fair shake. Since everyone expected Ali to win easy, the Anti Ali mob starts the griping game and screams foul on the close ones. For some, if Ali didin't knock the guy out, he lost the fight. Same with Sweet P.

You should look up some of the great quotes by a guy named granberry who used to post here. Whenever a fighter he liked got beat, he would be all too happy to explain in great detail, to anyone who would listen, that he had all the inside information on the conspiracy. It takes all kinds.

Norton was beat 2 out of 3 in close fights. Case Closed.

Tuff Customer wrote:You could say that all three fights were very closely fought and the judges just picked someone to call a winner. There's always enough B.S. and bias when it comes to close fights. The Bias is especially wacked with an Ali or a Whitaker fight.

Many of the fights were not close at all. Still, it would be strange coincidence that Ali always wins a "close" fight and Whitaker always loses one. It is OK if you toss twice and you get tails both times, but if you get it ten times in a row you may guess something is wrong with it and the judges are not just picking someone to call a winner.

Someone already offered much better explanation - Ali made money while Norton and Young didn't (the same with Whitaker/ODH)

gregor wrote:

Tuff Customer wrote:You could say that all three fights were very closely fought and the judges just picked someone to call a winner. There's always enough B.S. and bias when it comes to close fights. The Bias is especially wacked with an Ali or a Whitaker fight.

Many of the fights were not close at all. Still, it would be strange coincidence that Ali always wins a "close" fight and Whitaker always loses one. It is OK if you toss twice and you get tails both times, but if you get it ten times in a row you may guess something is wrong with it and the judges are not just picking someone to call a winner.

Someone already offered much better explanation - Ali made money while Norton and Young didn't (the same with Whitaker/ODH)

Bingo.

Looks like Buzz never made it back from vacation. It should astound me that a man can refuse to produce a scorecard, yet so stubbornly cling to the notion his man won, despite punching with the accuracy of a drunken dwarf after a pinata blind-folded...but literally nothing surprises me with Ali's hardcore worshippers.

elmersalsa wrote:Have I posted this topic before?

I saw all 3 fights and I gotta say that Ken Norton had the great Muhammad Ali's number...To me, Norton won all those fights. Your comments.

Please remember that Ali was a long way from his best in 1973 & 1976.

In answer to your question, the answer is no..

I think Ali did enough to eek out a win in the 2nd fight, but I will not argue with those who say that Norton deserved the verdict in the 1976 rubber match, although, again, it was close.

yancey wrote:

BarryWashington wrote:September 28, 1976

Muhammad Ali vs. Ken Norton III

Round 1: 10-9 MA
Round 2: 10-9 KN
Round 3: 10-9 KN
Round 4: 10-9 MA
Round 5: 10-9 KN
Round 6: 10-9 KN
Round 7: 10-9 MA
Round 8: 10-9 KN
Round 9: 10-9 MA
Round 10: 10-9 KN
Round 11: 10-9 MA
Round 12: 10-9 KN
Round 13: 10-9 KN
Round 14: 10-9 KN
Round 15: 10-9 KN

10-5, 145-140, Ken Norton

I agree that Norton clearly won the fight but I noticed you had Norton winning the 15th.

Haven't seen this fight in a long time, but I thought Norton backed off in the last round and Ali was generally accepted as winning the 15th.

No, that's a myth. Not much happens in the 15th (Ali certainly does nothing except miss jabs) but Norton kept pressing forward and came on strong in the last 30 seconds, landed some good shots, and won the round, landing the only power shots landed. Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOYLRsM4 ... ure=relmfu

Dempsey, you gave that round to Norton? I didn't. I don't think all those jabs missed Kenny (as you described) and I honestly don't think you would have given that round to Ali if the roles had been reversed. Would you? Maybe I'm wrong on that assumption, I don't attempt to know your mind, but surely Ali was in control of the round for about 2 1/4 minutes of the fighting. And though Norton wins the last 30 seconds, I'm not sure it was enough. To me either call is not a crime.

If you would have honestly given that round to Ali with everything reversed, then it's just your honest call. I call that round for Ali. He also won the opening round albeit both of them squeakily.

Sometimes that little trick can carry with it more gravitas than it deserves. As I'm sure many feel it did in this case. But Ali was nearly as much a bologna peddler as he was a fighter. And he peddled (and sold) some bologna in this fight. I just don't think the judges were corrupt, or incompetent, but I do believe they were genuinely buying some of what he was selling. I mean that very sincerely in this case. I think one more thing is in play....a champion back then, needed to be dominated in order to lose his championship. I don't believe that has always been the case.

Lot's of nuances have been bantered here....."Ali won the decision, but he didn't win the fight". Or...like I just paraphrased above..."Norton didn't dominate enough to take the title". Something that surely was not in play when the judges handed Shannon Briggs a win over George Foreman.

G.I. wants me to hand in my score card.... Maybe I'll just say it differs from Joe Frazier's take, by only one round. And I respect the fact that it puts me in the minority.

No one has addressed the odd outcome of Joe Frazier calling this fight by only one round for Norton. Was he nearly as bad as me as a judge of this fight? And was the "aura of Ali" still in play a week later when the celebrity panel (which included Joe) went back and judged it a draw? With NO ONE giving more than a two round lead to either man?

I'll answer for G.I. and Jaclem and probably for Yancey and Dempsey......with the assumed "Yes".

BoxBuzz wrote:Dempsey, you gave that round to Norton? I didn't. I don't think all those jabs missed Kenny (as you described) and I honestly don't think you would have given that round to Ali if the roles had been reversed. Would you? Maybe I'm wrong on that assumption, I don't attempt to know your mind, but surely Ali was in control of the round for about 2 1/4 minutes of the fighting. And though Norton wins the last 30 seconds, I'm not sure it was enough. To me either call is not a crime.

If you would have honestly given that round to Ali with everything reversed, then it's just your honest call. I call that round for Ali. He also won the opening round albeit both of them squeakily.

Sometimes that little trick can carry with it more gravitas than it deserves. As I'm sure many feel it did in this case. But Ali was nearly as much a bologna peddler as he was a fighter. And he peddled (and sold) some bologna in this fight. I just don't think the judges were corrupt, or incompetent, but I do believe they were genuinely buying some of what he was selling. I mean that very sincerely in this case. I think one more thing is in play....a champion back then, needed to be dominated in order to lose his championship. I don't believe that has always been the case.

Lot's of nuances have been bantered here....."Ali won the decision, but he didn't win the fight". Or...like I just paraphrased above..."Norton didn't dominate enough to take the title". Something that surely was not in play when the judges handed Shannon Briggs a win over George Foreman.

G.I. wants me to hand in my score card.... Maybe I'll just say it differs from Joe Frazier's take, by only one round. And I respect the fact that it puts me in the minority.

No one has addressed the odd outcome of Joe Frazier calling this fight by only one round for Norton. Was he nearly as bad as me as a judge of this fight? And was the "aura of Ali" still in play a week later when the celebrity panel (which included Joe) went back and judged it a draw? With NO ONE giving more than a two round lead to either man?

I'll answer for G.I. and Jaclem and probably for Yancey and Dempsey......with the assumed "Yes".

Norton didn't throw very much, but Ali's connect percentage was VERY low that round. You basically had an even stanza with a slight edge to Ali the first 2 minutes, with Norton coming forward and Ali throwing more punches . .until the last 30 seconds, when Norton comes in with hard shots, and lands some clean power shots to the head and body. If Ali had truly been "outboxing" Norton for the first 2 minutes, you could have an argument, but he wasn't.

I've never alleged direct corruption in the fight, but Ali had built up an already mythological public figure in himself by that time. People loved his act and he raked in the big bucks. People would see Ali up on his toes and give him magical points for dancing, like that is effective ring generalship in and of itself (which it isn't). With a guy like that, that stupid adage that you have to "take the title away" (which in some minds means completly annihilate just short of a KO) swayed judges into giving Ali rounds he simply didn't win.

As for Frazier, as I said before I definitely think he had a 4th fight with Ali in the back of his mind while he scored the fight. Look at Norton embarassingly keep touting how Ali was doing vs Jimmy Young in that broadcast . . .a Young victory meant no big payday!

OR....they really saw what they said they saw. And I will give my statement a big "margin of error" aspect...lol.

I can not argue against a truly solid point that you make....money can, has, and forever will, warp many of the rules of physics as well as on occasion, profoundly distort the time space continuum.

By the way....Norton's "formula" for that last round was a typical Ali ritual correct? Do little until the end of a round and then attempt to get something that may impress the judges done. Ali "mixed it up" and did not follow true to form that round. I have to wonder if this helped him somehow confuse those who had been told "don't fall for that trick".

Like I say.....if you can find me a better bologna peddler than Ali, I want his name here and now.

I didnt ask for your Ali-Norton III card, it was Ali-Young.

Of course, you are unable to do so, because you know as well as I do you cant find eight rounds Ali won. Youd be hard-pressed to find eight minutes he won.

Time to hide behind the judges cards again, mate

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I didnt ask for your Ali-Norton III card, it was Ali-Young.

Of course, you are unable to do so, because you know as well as I do you cant find eight rounds Ali won. Youd be hard-pressed to find eight minutes he won.

Time to hide behind the judges cards again, mate

Well.....they do seem to remain stable and consistent to this day.

As does the footage.

HELL no.

Goodnight, still waiting which 8 rounds that Norton won convincingly in the 3rd fight.

2
3
5
6
8
10
12
13
14

Thats nine, but keep the change. Norton doesnt need it in a bout he won 9-5-1.

You're surely not going to tell me Ali clearly won eight rounds in this bout, are you?