BoxRec

edit

Ali admitted publically that he thought he lost the third Norton fight. He did say he thought he won the second fight.

I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me that Norton won the third fight, I've said repeatedly that I thought he did.

Collins2000 wrote:

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.

Just to verify, I wasn't saying I think Norton beats the absolute best Ali, although I do think he could and that either way it's a tough fight for him. In terms of the hand and footspeed, yes I'm sure at 31 years old he had lost a smidgen of the speed he had at 28. But it's not verifiable by the film. Look at Ali's flurries and shuffles in the Norton rematch and Ali vs Chuvalo, Patterson I, Mildenberger etc. If you can see a noticeable absence of speed you are lying to yourself. I don't recall anyone ever talking about the "lost speed" of more modern fighters in their early 30s (When Jones Jr was in his early 30s knocking out Glen Kelly with one arm behind his back I don't recall people discussing a loss of handspeed).

Ali trained extremely hard for the Norton rematch. Peak Ali? No, I believe a fighter will reach his physical peak in his late 20s. But I would say it was pretty close.

I can live with an argument for Ali-Frazier I being close, but Ali-Spinks I?

Ali won 5 of the 15 rounds AT MOST. Spinks dominated him the entire night.

dempseyfire wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

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.

Just to verify, I wasn't saying I think Norton beats the absolute best Ali, although I do think he could and that either way it's a tough fight for him. In terms of the hand and footspeed, yes I'm sure at 31 years old he had lost a smidgen of the speed he had at 28. But it's not verifiable by the film. Look at Ali's flurries and shuffles in the Norton rematch and Ali vs Chuvalo, Patterson I, Mildenberger etc. If you can see a noticeable absence of speed you are lying to yourself. I don't recall anyone ever talking about the "lost speed" of more modern fighters in their early 30s (When Jones Jr was in his early 30s knocking out Glen Kelly with one arm behind his back I don't recall people discussing a loss of handspeed).

Ali trained extremely hard for the Norton rematch. Peak Ali? No, I believe a fighter will reach his physical peak in his late 20s. But I would say it was pretty close.

Your really not sure if Ali had some a smidgen of handspeed? Come on. Most of us aren't blind. How can you seriously say that Ali's hand speed was as good in 1973 as it was in 1964-1967?

The flurries? How many flurries did Ali even throw against Norton? Some rounds in which Norton wasn't doing much Ali just threw jabs because he was conserving energy and knew that was all that he had to do to win the round.

Btw, Norton himself does complain about the decision third fight with Ali but does not complain about the 2nd.

What kind of comparison is that with Roy Jones and Glenn Kelly? Kelly was another in a long line of complete stiffs that Jones fought at lightheavyweight. Of course Jones looked great against him.

Almost every fighter has lost some hand speed by the time they are in their 30's. In addition, Ali was off for more than 3 years. It was never all going to come back.

As I said earlier, I've already done this, but to be fair I re-re-watched some of Ali-Folley and some of Ali-Norton II and again, your statements are incorrect dempsey. The difference in hand speed is even more noticable than I thought it would be. Ali didn't show too much flashy leg movement in the Folley fight but he was clearly faster in that department as well.

Maybe my biased pro-Ali eyes are lying to me

Ali's leg speed in some of the fights you mention, like Patterson I, is so much faster than it was in the 70's that I'm not going to even bother trying to watch the film and compare; I wonder if you even believe that comment. And you mention Chuvalo, who fought Ali in the 60's and 70's, and Chuvalo said that Ali was not the same in the comeback and didn't have the same physical attributes.

I've only seen the fight once, but I think I had Ali winning maybe the first 1/3 of the first Spinks fight, and Spinks winning the rest. I had a similar score for Ali-Frazier I.

edit

You guys gotta be pulling my chain now.

The difference in speed is evident, whatever opponent you want to name from the 60's and 70's.

If Ali ran for ten miles you guys would say he ran for two.

Ambling Alp wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

Collins2000 wrote: 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.

Just to verify, I wasn't saying I think Norton beats the absolute best Ali, although I do think he could and that either way it's a tough fight for him. In terms of the hand and footspeed, yes I'm sure at 31 years old he had lost a smidgen of the speed he had at 28. But it's not verifiable by the film. Look at Ali's flurries and shuffles in the Norton rematch and Ali vs Chuvalo, Patterson I, Mildenberger etc. If you can see a noticeable absence of speed you are lying to yourself. I don't recall anyone ever talking about the "lost speed" of more modern fighters in their early 30s (When Jones Jr was in his early 30s knocking out Glen Kelly with one arm behind his back I don't recall people discussing a loss of handspeed).

Ali trained extremely hard for the Norton rematch. Peak Ali? No, I believe a fighter will reach his physical peak in his late 20s. But I would say it was pretty close.

Your really not sure if Ali had some a smidgen of handspeed? Come on. Most of us aren't blind. How can you seriously say that Ali's hand speed was as good in 1973 as it was in 1964-1967?

The flurries? How many flurries did Ali even throw against Norton? Some rounds in which Norton wasn't doing much Ali just threw jabs because he was conserving energy and knew that was all that he had to do to win the round.

Btw, Norton himself does complain about the decision third fight with Ali but does not complain about the 2nd.

What kind of comparison is that with Roy Jones and Glenn Kelly? Kelly was another in a long line of complete stiffs that Jones fought at lightheavyweight. Of course Jones looked great against him.

Almost every fighter has lost some hand speed by the time they are in their 30's. In addition, Ali was off for more than 3 years. It was never all going to come back.

So Kelly being a stiff made Roy's hands look faster??? How would that work again??

Chuvalo said the Ali he fought the 2nd time needed more rests, he never said he had slower hands.

I never said his speed was exactly the same but I do think the difference in speed up to the Foreman fight is miniscule. A layoff in your 20s would affect your timing and precision, not how fast you can punch. A fighter should be able to have the same handspeed until their mid 30s or so when a human's body begins to slightly deteriorate and decline.

Look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwSmUSgA ... ed&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm0x4Nx9iIE

And the difference is . . . .?

Also look at the difference of the opponent, which says a lot.

edit

And he said Ali didn't have the same physical attributes. I would interpret that to mean speed, among other things, as the difference in speed between Ali-Chuvalo I and Ali-Chuvalo II isn't even worth debating.

I don't know that the layoff was what effected his speed, but no viewer of those fights can say it was the same. As I said earlier, I used to have a similar idea before I actually sat down and compared. But if you're comparing and you still don't see a difference, then I'm not sure what else there is to say. The difference in speed was even greater than I remembered it being.

As collins said, I guess people are going to believe what they want to believe. I've heard Joe Louis fans claim that Louis was faster than Ali, I guess this is the same thing.

dempseyfire wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

dempseyfire wrote: Just to verify, I wasn't saying I think Norton beats the absolute best Ali, although I do think he could and that either way it's a tough fight for him. In terms of the hand and footspeed, yes I'm sure at 31 years old he had lost a smidgen of the speed he had at 28. But it's not verifiable by the film. Look at Ali's flurries and shuffles in the Norton rematch and Ali vs Chuvalo, Patterson I, Mildenberger etc. If you can see a noticeable absence of speed you are lying to yourself. I don't recall anyone ever talking about the "lost speed" of more modern fighters in their early 30s (When Jones Jr was in his early 30s knocking out Glen Kelly with one arm behind his back I don't recall people discussing a loss of handspeed).

Ali trained extremely hard for the Norton rematch. Peak Ali? No, I believe a fighter will reach his physical peak in his late 20s. But I would say it was pretty close.

Your really not sure if Ali had some a smidgen of handspeed? Come on. Most of us aren't blind. How can you seriously say that Ali's hand speed was as good in 1973 as it was in 1964-1967?

The flurries? How many flurries did Ali even throw against Norton? Some rounds in which Norton wasn't doing much Ali just threw jabs because he was conserving energy and knew that was all that he had to do to win the round.

Btw, Norton himself does complain about the decision third fight with Ali but does not complain about the 2nd.

What kind of comparison is that with Roy Jones and Glenn Kelly? Kelly was another in a long line of complete stiffs that Jones fought at lightheavyweight. Of course Jones looked great against him.

Almost every fighter has lost some hand speed by the time they are in their 30's. In addition, Ali was off for more than 3 years. It was never all going to come back.

So Kelly being a stiff made Roy's hands look faster??? How would that work again??

Chuvalo said the Ali he fought the 2nd time needed more rests, he never said he had slower hands.

I never said his speed was exactly the same but I do think the difference in speed up to the Foreman fight is miniscule. A layoff in your 20s would affect your timing and precision, not how fast you can punch. A fighter should be able to have the same handspeed until their mid 30s or so when a human's body begins to slightly deteriorate and decline.

Look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwSmUSgA ... ed&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm0x4Nx9iIE

And the difference is . . . .?

Also look at the difference of the opponent, which says a lot.

You are now arguing against yourself. You imply that Ali looked faster because Folley wasn't as good as Norton, but you also think that it doesn't make sense that Jones would fast because he was fighting a stiff.

Yes Kelly being a stiff does make Jones look faster. When you have someone standing there doing nothing and you hit him with a combination it is going to make you look fast by comparison.

The difference is that Ali looked faster against Folley. (when he wasn't playing around early on.) He also had better reflexes and more energy.

Again, how many combinations did he throw against Norton? Do you really think it was about the same amount as threw in his fights in the 1960's?

A fighter should have the same handspeed until his mid 30s? What in the world are you talking about? Hardly anyone has the same handspeed that long. Are you telling me that Larry Holmes had the same handspeed when he fought Carl Williams Spinks as when he fought Norton ? Did Joe Louis have the same handspeed after world War II as before? Of course not.

Completely Objective Dave-In the video "Kings of the Ring" Norton said that he won the first fight, the second fight was close, and he thought he won the third fight.

Yet on your completely objective scorecard, you gave Ali one round.

Ambling Alp wrote:[Completely Objective Dave-In the video "Kings of the Ring" Norton said that he won the first fight, the second fight was close, and he thought he won the third fight.

Yet on your completely objective scorecard, you gave Ali one round.

Dave only gave Ali one round in the 2nd fight with Norton?

And he claims WE are the ones who can't look at Ali objectively?

I think the disconnect here is that while dempsey says he see's a difference he's saying the difference is miniscule, and I think he's wrong in two ways; a) its clearly not miniscule, its not the difference between Mayweather and Baldomir but it is clearly there, in terms of leg speed and hand speed but b) any loss of speed would hurt Ali because in the 60's Ali could avoid shots by mere inches, in the 70's he was that much slower and was therefore a lot easier to hit. The thing that happened was that Ali discovered that his chin was one of the best in Heavyweight history, if he didn't have such a great chin he wouldn't have been half the fighter he was in the 60's and Frazier, Foreman and Norton would have knocked him out 20 times over. So the fact that he had the chin to fall back on makes the difference in speed and reflexes less important, it allowed him to remain the best Heavyweight in the world, but its still incorrect to say that there wasn't a difference in speed, there clearly was.

Dave, as I said, is as biased as any of the judges he's accusing of bias.

I Feel Fine wrote:And he said Ali didn't have the same physical attributes. I would interpret that to mean speed, among other things, as the difference in speed between Ali-Chuvalo I and Ali-Chuvalo II isn't even worth debating.

I don't know that the layoff was what effected his speed, but no viewer of those fights can say it was the same. As I said earlier, I used to have a similar idea before I actually sat down and compared. But if you're comparing and you still don't see a difference, then I'm not sure what else there is to say. The difference in speed was even greater than I remembered it being.

As collins said, I guess people are going to believe what they want to believe. I've heard Joe Louis fans claim that Louis was faster than Ali, I guess this is the same thing.

Ali had faster reflexes no doubt, but Louis was a faster combination puncher concerning punches with POWER. Ali could out shoe-shine Louis all night but Louis was the fastest combination power-hitter in HW history.

I agree. I would say the same for Patterson, or even Tyson. I'm talking about pure speed, though, and the difference in leg speed is no where close.

And, that said, Liston and Frazier hardly thought Ali's combinations were totally lacking in power.

Ambling Alp wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote: Your really not sure if Ali had some a smidgen of handspeed? Come on. Most of us aren't blind. How can you seriously say that Ali's hand speed was as good in 1973 as it was in 1964-1967?

The flurries? How many flurries did Ali even throw against Norton? Some rounds in which Norton wasn't doing much Ali just threw jabs because he was conserving energy and knew that was all that he had to do to win the round.

Btw, Norton himself does complain about the decision third fight with Ali but does not complain about the 2nd.

What kind of comparison is that with Roy Jones and Glenn Kelly? Kelly was another in a long line of complete stiffs that Jones fought at lightheavyweight. Of course Jones looked great against him.

Almost every fighter has lost some hand speed by the time they are in their 30's. In addition, Ali was off for more than 3 years. It was never all going to come back.

So Kelly being a stiff made Roy's hands look faster??? How would that work again??

Chuvalo said the Ali he fought the 2nd time needed more rests, he never said he had slower hands.

I never said his speed was exactly the same but I do think the difference in speed up to the Foreman fight is miniscule. A layoff in your 20s would affect your timing and precision, not how fast you can punch. A fighter should be able to have the same handspeed until their mid 30s or so when a human's body begins to slightly deteriorate and decline.

Look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwSmUSgA ... ed&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm0x4Nx9iIE

And the difference is . . . .?

Also look at the difference of the opponent, which says a lot.

You are now arguing against yourself. You imply that Ali looked faster because Folley wasn't as good as Norton, but you also think that it doesn't make sense that Jones would fast because he was fighting a stiff.

Yes Kelly being a stiff does make Jones look faster. When you have someone standing there doing nothing and you hit him with a combination it is going to make you look fast by comparison.

The difference is that Ali looked faster against Folley. (when he wasn't playing around early on.) He also had better reflexes and more energy.

Again, how many combinations did he throw against Norton? Do you really think it was about the same amount as threw in his fights in the 1960's?

A fighter should have the same handspeed until his mid 30s? What in the world are you talking about? Hardly anyone has the same handspeed that long. Are you telling me that Larry Holmes had the same handspeed when he fought Carl Williams Spinks as when he fought Norton ? Did Joe Louis have the same handspeed after world War II as before? Of course not.

If a fighter stays in shape, for the most part yes. Holmes and Louis by 34-35 had put on a deal of fat and were not training like they had. Ali after Foreman and esp. after Manilla put on a good deal of weight and slowed down quite a bit in his mid 30s. He also was not a Hopkins-level gym rat.

On the other hand look at tape of Hopkins vs Tito and Hopkins-Mercado and I don't see much of a difference.

Anyway, Ali in Norton II was 31, not 35.

Looked faster vs Folley . . .can you honestly objectively say that? Again I'll concede he slipped a little but not to the extent that the 67 Ali beats Norton no problem.

dempseyfire wrote:

I Feel Fine wrote:And he said Ali didn't have the same physical attributes. I would interpret that to mean speed, among other things, as the difference in speed between Ali-Chuvalo I and Ali-Chuvalo II isn't even worth debating.

I don't know that the layoff was what effected his speed, but no viewer of those fights can say it was the same. As I said earlier, I used to have a similar idea before I actually sat down and compared. But if you're comparing and you still don't see a difference, then I'm not sure what else there is to say. The difference in speed was even greater than I remembered it being.

As collins said, I guess people are going to believe what they want to believe. I've heard Joe Louis fans claim that Louis was faster than Ali, I guess this is the same thing.

Ali had faster reflexes no doubt, but Louis was a faster combination puncher concerning punches with POWER. Ali could out shoe-shine Louis all night but Louis was the fastest combination power-hitter in HW history.

I enjoy watching peak Louis in destructive action against the top men of his day. Totally awesome.

And when I watch peak Ali destroy the top men of his day, albeit in a different fashion, I find that awesome too.

Just because they didn't often end up flat on their backs doesn't mean Ali's victims weren't as comprehensively destroyed as Louis' victims to me. Total domination is total domination. And both men achieved it.

dempseyfire wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:

dempseyfire wrote: So Kelly being a stiff made Roy's hands look faster??? How would that work again??

Chuvalo said the Ali he fought the 2nd time needed more rests, he never said he had slower hands.

I never said his speed was exactly the same but I do think the difference in speed up to the Foreman fight is miniscule. A layoff in your 20s would affect your timing and precision, not how fast you can punch. A fighter should be able to have the same handspeed until their mid 30s or so when a human's body begins to slightly deteriorate and decline.

Look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwSmUSgA ... ed&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vm0x4Nx9iIE

And the difference is . . . .?

Also look at the difference of the opponent, which says a lot.

You are now arguing against yourself. You imply that Ali looked faster because Folley wasn't as good as Norton, but you also think that it doesn't make sense that Jones would fast because he was fighting a stiff.

Yes Kelly being a stiff does make Jones look faster. When you have someone standing there doing nothing and you hit him with a combination it is going to make you look fast by comparison.

The difference is that Ali looked faster against Folley. (when he wasn't playing around early on.) He also had better reflexes and more energy.

Again, how many combinations did he throw against Norton? Do you really think it was about the same amount as threw in his fights in the 1960's?

A fighter should have the same handspeed until his mid 30s? What in the world are you talking about? Hardly anyone has the same handspeed that long. Are you telling me that Larry Holmes had the same handspeed when he fought Carl Williams Spinks as when he fought Norton ? Did Joe Louis have the same handspeed after world War II as before? Of course not.

If a fighter stays in shape, for the most part yes. Holmes and Louis by 34-35 had put on a deal of fat and were not training like they had. Ali after Foreman and esp. after Manilla put on a good deal of weight and slowed down quite a bit in his mid 30s. He also was not a Hopkins-level gym rat.

On the other hand look at tape of Hopkins vs Tito and Hopkins-Mercado and I don't see much of a difference.

Anyway, Ali in Norton II was 31, not 35.

Looked faster vs Folley . . .can you honestly objectively say that? Again I'll concede he slipped a little but not to the extent that the 67 Ali beats Norton no problem.

Not sure anyone has said '67 Ali beats Norton no problem. Actually, I think it was the other way round. Dave is saying any version of Ali just didn't have the skill set to ever beat a peak Norton.

All evidence suggests to any objective fan at least that Norton would set even the peak Ali some problems to solve. I just happen to believe that the peak Ali of the mid 60's would be much better suited to solve them than the early 70's version.

edit

DaveV17 wrote:Collins wrote:
"Dave only gave Ali one round in the 2nd fight with Norton?

And he claims WE are the ones who can't look at Ali objectively?"

Take a look at it yourself. It's on Youtube. Turn off the sound, the commentators are clueless, look at the fight objectively and it is hard to give Ali one round. He didn't win any rounds clearly, while Norton won a lot of them dominiantly, and Norton was the aggressor, and landed the harder punches in the others. If you want to give Ali rounds because, he danced, threw some arm punches, then clinched, you might be able to give him a few more. But, watch how easily Norton walks him down, slipping and parrying his jab, cornering him and landing his hooks and uppercuts at will.

The truth is evident when the 12 round ends. Ali pushes, and punches at Bundini, and Ali has the look of a man who lost big. He did lose big. That fight was not close.

Ali would never beat Ken Norton. Norton's style just negates all of Ali's strengths.

All I can say Dave is that you have fight 1 and fight 2 mixed up.

edit

DaveV17 wrote:Nope, I watched the right fight. Ali danced a lot in the fight, but he was ineffective. The more Ali danced, the easier the fight for Norton. When Ali was on his toes, he couldn't punch hard enough to stop Norton's advance. When Ali stood his ground, set his feet and punched he did his best work against Norton. He just didn't do that enough.

Unless one is overly impressed by Ali's movement, or unless one is giving Ali rounds because he didn't get knocked down or out, it is hard for me to understand how the fight could be considered close. Norton landed at will with his hook, his jab was effective too, and when he got Ali to the ropes, Norton's uppercut dominated. Defensively, Norton slipped punches and parried punches effectively. Watch the fight for yourself. Don't give Ali rounds for being Ali, judge it like he was any other fighter and you might be surprised at how dominant Norton was in the fight.

OK, Dave. Im in Brisbane for a few days but when I get back to Sydney I will re-watch and score the 2nd Ali - Norton fight. I can't watch a scratchy matchbox size youtube video; I have the full fight in excellent condition taken from the original broadcast. I agree with your point that fights should be scored without sound. That's my preferred method.

I'll try not to give Ali rounds just for being Ali but if, after re-watching it, I come to the conclusion that you have been taking rounds away from Ali because of who he was rather than what he did that night I'll be mighty disappointed in you Dave, mighty disappointed.

edit

The Hypnotist must not have been truly working for Kenny, because according to most of you he must have "HIP-MO-TIZED" the judges into thinking that Ali won two out of three.

Fight One: referee: Frank Rustich | 5-4 | 5-6 | 7-5 ~ SD NORTON for the NABF Title Fight

Fight Two: referee: Dick Young 5-7 | judge: John Thomas 5-6 | judge: George Latka 6-5 ~ SD Ali For the NABF Title

Fight Three:~ referee: Arthur Mercante 6-8 | judge: Harold Lederman 7-8 | judge: Barney Smith 7-8 ~for the WBC heavyweight title ~and WBA heavyweight title ~ UD Ali

Grand Total for trilogy based on 9 separate up close official assessments

57 Ali 53 Norton.

It was very close and maybe the whole trilogy can be characterized as a "near draw" I would say it makes for more interesting conversation to say Norton won. When you come that close to beating a legend and along the way breaking his jaw, you end up with the "sentamentalists" making it out to be a win. Kenny hung in there so he gets the "moral victory". But the hard data/empircal evidence does not support the "emotional" claim. IMHO.