BoxRec

I'd always heard this was a good fight but I missed it at it's original airing (if it aired at all in the UK) and after it came available on Youtube I always seemed to be too busy to watch it as it was a 15 rounder. Funny how 15 rounds was normal for a title fight back then and now it seems like too long. So I finally decided to make the time, 41 years after the event, and wondered what others make of this fight with hindsight.

Did Holmes really deserve to win it? I was amazed to see Holmes using Ali's tactics to win some rounds, but fair play to Holmes he was prepared to stand and fight too. How different would history have been if Norton had got the nod?

I saw it when it happened and just recently watched it. When I first saw it, I thought Norton won, but I was a Norton fan. I'm pretty neutral now and was surprised by how clear it was to me that Holmes won. Don't get me wrong, it was close, but not as close as I had expected the second time around. BTW: THe 15th round was the most exciting round ever without a knockdown that I've ever seen.

oogiebe wrote: ↑17 Aug 2019, 17:44 I saw it when it happened and just recently watched it. When I first saw it, I thought Norton won, but I was a Norton fan. I'm pretty neutral now and was surprised by how clear it was to me that Holmes won. Don't get me wrong, it was close, but not as close as I had expected the second time around. BTW: THe 15th round was the most exciting round ever without a knockdown that I've ever seen.

Yes I agree about that 15th round, awesome stuff, both on the brink of exhaustion standing there trading, makes you wonder about Norton's chin and why he folded so easily against slightly harder punchers but stood up to Holme's best shots like that.

Neil Gee wrote: ↑17 Aug 2019, 17:52

oogiebe wrote: ↑17 Aug 2019, 17:44 I saw it when it happened and just recently watched it. When I first saw it, I thought Norton won, but I was a Norton fan. I'm pretty neutral now and was surprised by how clear it was to me that Holmes won. Don't get me wrong, it was close, but not as close as I had expected the second time around. BTW: THe 15th round was the most exciting round ever without a knockdown that I've ever seen.

Yes I agree about that 15th round, awesome stuff, both on the brink of exhaustion standing there trading, makes you wonder about Norton's chin and why he folded so easily against slightly harder punchers but stood up to Holme's best shots like that.

Nah, Holmes didn't hit hard enough to put Kenny down. It took Foreman/Shavers/Cooney type power. Holmes had him hurt a few times there. Kenny was also not prime anymore. Would've loved to see that fight with both prime time. Holmes wasn't quite yet prime either, but both on opposite sides of the hill.

oogiebe wrote: ↑17 Aug 2019, 17:54

Neil Gee wrote: ↑17 Aug 2019, 17:52

Yes I agree about that 15th round, awesome stuff, both on the brink of exhaustion standing there trading, makes you wonder about Norton's chin and why he folded so easily against slightly harder punchers but stood up to Holme's best shots like that.

Nah, Holmes didn't hit hard enough to put Kenny down. It took Foreman/Shavers/Cooney type power. Holmes had him hurt a few times there. Kenny was also not prime anymore. Would've loved to see that fight with both prime time. Holmes wasn't quite yet prime either, but both on opposite sides of the hill.

I've read about Norton that if he knew he was up against a proper power puncher he was beat before the fight started, psychologically. Haven't watched the fights where he was knocked out (apart from Foreman) to really judge if that's true.

As to relative primes I think the result would have been about the same, Norton wasn't that far passed his best and Holmes not far off his

Neil Gee wrote: ↑17 Aug 2019, 18:03

oogiebe wrote: ↑17 Aug 2019, 17:54
Nah, Holmes didn't hit hard enough to put Kenny down. It took Foreman/Shavers/Cooney type power. Holmes had him hurt a few times there. Kenny was also not prime anymore. Would've loved to see that fight with both prime time. Holmes wasn't quite yet prime either, but both on opposite sides of the hill.

I've read about Norton that if he knew he was up against a proper power puncher he was beat before the fight started, psychologically. Haven't watched the fights where he was knocked out (apart from Foreman) to really judge if that's true.

As to relative primes I think the result would have been about the same, Norton wasn't that far passed his best and Holmes not far off his

Holmes was 29 and two or three years from his peak. Norton was 35 about three four years off his peak. I'd say Norton's fight vs Quarry was his peak and HOlmes second fight with Shavers was his. I don't doubt the same result just even more action and excitement.

I had Norton by 1 then and still have the same score today.

Holmes by 2 rounds.
Great fight

Last time I watched, I remember, I had Holmes by a round.

From what I remember, Holmes easily won the first half of the fight and the second half was quite close. Norton was a bit passed his prime and Holmes was just coming into his prime. Do you have to remind me it was 41 years ago?

I had Holmes winning 143-142. He won most of the early rounds and built up a good lead. Norton won most of the later rounds but came up just short.
Interesting enough, all three judges had it dead even going into the final round. (I had Holmes up 134-132 at this point)
Norton had a great round in about the first two thirds. Than Holmes came on strong in the last minute or so. It should have been Norton's round, but often judges put too much emphasis on what happens at the end of the round.

This was a truly great fight. You can make a good argument that there has not been a better heavyweight fight since.

As for Norton's supposed weak chin: This is a myth that has taken a life of it's own. People remember the big knockouts against Foreman, Shavers and Cooney.

The Cooney fight should just thrown out. He was way past it by then.
He was a little past it when fighting Shavers, who just happens to be the hardest hitting heavyweight of all time.
Foreman did the same thing to Joe Frazier and almost everyone else that he fought near his prime.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑19 Aug 2019, 11:07As for Norton's supposed weak chin: This is a myth that has taken a life of it's own. People remember the big knockouts against Foreman, Shavers and Cooney.

The Cooney fight should just thrown out. He was way past it by then.
He was a little past it when fighting Shavers, who just happens to be the hardest hitting heavyweight of all time.
Foreman did the same thing to Joe Frazier and almost everyone else that he fought near his prime.

considering who KO'd Norton were the biggest hitters of their time, it's a tough label. (Even Garcia could hit hard).

Alp, you historically give Norton a bit of a pass with Cooney........but don't have the same vibe for Quarry when he faced Norton.

Upon reflection, I suppose I have to take from that, you see Norton as "further past it" during the Cooney fight than Quarry was during the Norton fight.

Is that true?

Not sure many would agree. But you know me....I love a diverse opinion pool.

If Larry had lost this fight, how long would it have been before he got another title shot?

A year or 2 at most, assuming he had not looked bad.

BoxBuzz wrote: ↑19 Aug 2019, 15:27 Alp, you historically give Norton a bit of a pass with Cooney........but don't have the same vibe for Quarry when he faced Norton.

Upon reflection, I suppose I have to take from that, you see Norton as "further past it" during the Cooney fight than Quarry was during the Norton fight.

Is that true?

Not sure many would agree. But you know me....I love a diverse opinion pool.

Yes Norton was further past... light years further past it.
Norton was 37 years old when he fought Cooney. Quarry was 29 when when he fought Norton. That is a dramatic difference.

Going from previous fights, it was obvious that Norton was past it. (first round KO loss to Shavers, looked terrible against LeDoux and not much better against Cobb) Everyone knew Norton was way past it.

Nobody was saying that Quarry was past it going into the fight with Norton.
This became the narrative many years after the fight as an excuse for Quarry.

There is little evidence that Quarry was past his prime at all when he fought Norton. Certainly not very far past it.

144 to 142 holmes

- Always better late than never , but true fans not only had to live with the dubious results, but robbed of the immediate rematch that would've been the biggest fight that year.

Now as to how it would go for the new WBC champ Ken, boxrec is your friend.

https://boxrec.com/en/proboxer/150

Just insert Lars mediocre 1st 3 defense vs Evangelista, baby Ocasio, and journeyman Weaver, and Ken makes shorter work of them than Lar.

Now Ken has basked in the title, made some silly $, but 36 yr old and may well have retired when we come to Shavers. No matter, Ken in a better mindset for a better fight. Win, lose, or draw, he was a notorious womanizer and often slacked on training , so he wasn't long for boxing after this.

Lar gets thrown into Kings rotating cast of tubby WBA champs, Ken more favorably remembered, and Ali would never had come out of retirement for Holmes and most certainly not Ken. Both he and Lar knew they couldn't actually beat Ken and were lucky boxing kept em propped up as long as it did as they were some real stinkers by their end.