BoxRec

I know this is most likely the tenth thread on this fight
BUT here is my score after I got to rewatch it and score
it for myself.

I had it...
145-140 Norton.
10 Rounds Norton
5 Rounds Ali.

I know it may not jive with many here, but that is how I
personally felt it should have been scored. I felt sorry
for Norton, he should have won the fight. Sure Ali was
past his best, but that is no reason to deny a hard working
man the title...which Ali may have won in the rematch ..

Kym

I would also like to add that Ferdie Pachenco is far from being a
biased commentator and on nearly every fight I have with him
in the commentary team he relates everything back to the
absolute supremacy of Ali.

I guess you could look it at it six ways:

You can look at it objectively and say you had a legendary and experienced referee and a legendary and experienced referee/judge scoring the fight, Harold Lederman and Arthur Mercante, and they saw it for Ali, albeit closely

Or

You can look at it objectively and say that up until that point the heavyweight cahampionship had only only changed hands on a decision three times before in its history

Or

You can look at it subjectively, ignore the results, and say whatever they were Ali was past it...

Or

You can look at it subjectively and say Ali was past it so it didn't really matter

Or

You can look at it subjectively say its not the first controversial decision in boxing

Or

You can look at it subjectively and say to be the champ you need to beat the champ convincingly the way Ali beat Foreman and Foreman beat Frazier and Frazier beat Ellis and Clay (Ali) beat Liston, Liston beat Patterson, Patterson beat Johannson, Johannson beat Patterson, and so on and so on...Norton's victory if he scored one wasn't in that category...He left it in the hands of the judges and the judges rendered an adverse decision...


At the end of the day the record shows that on September 28, 1976 and Ali won 8-6 on Arthur Mercante's card, 8-7 on Harold Lederman's card , and an 8-7 on Barney Smith's card and retained his championship...

Like I said...this is how I scored it.

I scored it 8-6 -1 for Ali...

TOIH2008

How did you score it ?
Obviously for ALi, but what were you margins mate ?:)

Robinson wrote:TOIH2008

How did you score it ?
Obviously for ALi, but what were you margins mate ?:)

143 Ali 142 Norton

Like I said the heavyweight championship had only changed hands up until that time only three times in its history on a decision....

Maybe I'll watch it again, for the umpteenth time; after the Rumble In The Jungle...

Thanks for posting your score mate.
How did you score Hagler-Leonard >

I had the second norton-ali fight that close
or a draw...i went with the draw..

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

Robinson wrote:TOIH2008

How did you score it ?
Obviously for ALi, but what were you margins mate ?:)

143 Ali 142 Norton

Like I said the heavyweight championship had only changed hands up until that time only three times in its history on a decision....

...

What does that matter? You are giving excuses . . what, Norton had to knock Ali down 5 times to 'take the title' away from the champ?

Norton won the fight on any unbiased scorecard, plain and simple. He was the aggressor, landed more punches and the more telling punches by far, and dictated the pace.

Yes Ali was past his prime, but that doesn't give him points on the scorecard.

dempseyfire wrote:

TheOneIsHere2008 wrote:

Robinson wrote:TOIH2008

How did you score it ?
Obviously for ALi, but what were you margins mate ?:)

143 Ali 142 Norton

Like I said the heavyweight championship had only changed hands up until that time only three times in its history on a decision....

...

What does that matter? You are giving excuses . . what, Norton had to knock Ali down 5 times to 'take the title' away from the champ?

Norton won the fight on any unbiased scorecard, plain and simple. He was the aggressor, landed more punches and the more telling punches by far, and dictated the pace.

Yes Ali was past his prime, but that doesn't give him points on the scorecard.

Respectfully, I gave at least six ways to look at the decision...And yes, there is a built in bias in favor of the champion in a championship bout... Someone with your knowledge is familiar with the presumption in favor of the champ...But that's just one of many ways in which to see it...

I scored it the way I saw it...If the decision was as obvious as you suggest that means Harold Lederman and Arthur Mercante* were either corrupt or incompetent...Both gentlemen have discussed their rationale for scoring it like they did on multiple occasions and thirty two years later they both stand by their decision...

ABC had a panel of experts including Joe Frazier watch the fight within a few weeks of it occurring...Their consensus was it was a draw...In a draw the champ keeps his title...Even Frazier who hates Ali called it 8-7 for Norton...Thart's close...


*Arthur Mercante is a legendary referee...Harold Lederman is a legendary judge....Between them they have overseen and scored hundreds of fights...Both are in the Boxing Hall Of Fame...IMHO, their experience, personal rectitude, and judgement are impeccable...


If I get the time I will e-mail Arthur Mercante and Harold Lederman if I can find their addresses...My experience in getting responses is usually good...If I can find their addresses...And Arthur Mercante is getting up there in age...

Very close fight, and most people thought that at the time.
I guess I am in the middle of demspeyfire and The One is Here2008.

-I don't think Norton "dictated the pace". It was a very slow, boring fight. The only drama was that it was close and that it was for the title.
-I don't see how Norton "landed the most telling blows, by far". Neither fighter came close to having his opponent in serious trouble. Occasionally Norton would land a good body shot, occasionally Ali would catch Norton with a clean shot to the head. There wasn't much more to it than that.

On the other hand:
-I don't like the whole idea of you have to beat the champ convincingly. Makes no sense. In basketball, baeball, hockey, just about any sport, you can beat the defending champ by 1.
The champion should be the best fighter. Not someone who is almost as good as everyone else.
I do understand that is how it often used to be done, but that doesn't make it right. I hope that you aren't saying that is how it should be.

-Harold Lederman and Arthur Mercante's scoring. While both are experienced boxing people, they are human beings who make mistakes. It's also not exactly a secret from Lederman's scoring on HBO, that he likes flashy fighters and usually favors the big names.

Finally, there several close rounds in this fight where very little happened. If you gave all of those rounds to one guy, you would have that guy winning easily.
I suggest anyone watching a fight, put an asterik by any close round that could have gone the way. (You would have a lot in this fight)Then tally your score giving one guy all the close rounds, then do that for the other guy, giving him all of the close rounds. In some fights there aren't too many really close rounds and the score wouldn't vary wildly. They would in this fight.

Norton should have been able to beat Ali relatively easily at this stage in Ali's career. Ali really just fighting in 2 or 3 spurts in a round. If Norton would have gone all out as he was capable of, Ali wouldn't have been capable of matching him. If he would have fought like he did against say Holmes or Young, he would have. For whatever reason, it was below a typical perfomance for Norton. It was close enough where you can argue that either fighter won more rounds.

IMHO, the fact that you had a legendary referee and a legendary judge scoring the fight lends credibility to the decision...Their knowledge and expertise can not be challenged...If you want to question their judgement then we are back to square one...

I thought Ali squeezed out a decision...

I always go back to Joe Frazier's scoring it by one round for Norton. Joe may have had an agenda....maybe not. I suspect he would not cut Ali any slack.

The celebrity panel that scored it a few days after the fight scored it a draw.

I agreed with Arthur Mercante's assessment and scored the fight 8-6-1 to Ali. IMO Norton needed to have done more in order to take the title from the champ.

I think that you can certainly challenge anyone's judgement on one particular fight, including Mercante and Lederman. Again, I would like to say that norton just had to win more than one round than Ali to win the title. However, I do agree that their scoring was reasonable for this fight.

That Joe Frazier would have it this close speaks volumes. He was a friend of Norton's and of course hated Ali. If he was unable to put these biases aside, then it indicates that Ali deserved the decision since Frazier had it so close.

At the very least, if Frazier was able to be brutally honest, then it shows one more knowledgable person that thought it was a close fight.

I notice that the people that think Norton was "robbed" never seem to respond to this point.

Ambling Alp wrote:I think that you can certainly challenge anyone's judgement on one particular fight, including Mercante and Lederman. Again, I would like to say that norton just had to win more than one round than Ali to win the title. However, I do agree that their scoring was reasonable for this fight.

That Joe Frazier would have it this close speaks volumes. He was a friend of Norton's and of course hated Ali. If he was unable to put these biases aside, then it indicates that Ali deserved the decision since Frazier had it so close.

At the very least, if Frazier was able to be brutally honest, then it shows one more knowledgable person that thought it was a close fight.

I notice that the people that think Norton was "robbed" never seem to respond to this point.

Another dynamic of Joe's assessment...and maybe why he scored it so close, is that for as much as he would not cut Ali slack, Joe, more than anyone else would be able to understand what Kenny was going through when in the ring with Ali. He may have been trying to give Kenny a few breaks scoring wise knowing full well what Kenny was facing...and he may have wanted to keep his crediblity and not look "overly biased". And by claiming a one round victory for Kenny, he could still live with himself and not lose crediblity. Over all I think Joe is an honest guy. But he might be tempted in this case...but not overly so.

Does that make any sense? ....Anyway close fights are always hell to try to get the perfect handle on. I was one of the "shills" that saw this as "too close too crown a new champ". I'd feel the same way probably if it was Kenny walking into the ring as champion. I might not believe that Ali did what he needed to do, to change the status quo.

I'll go so far as to say that this fight would have gone to Ali by one round IMHO, if no championship was on the line.

ok say it....shill shilll shill...

granberry....I know your reading this even if you have to remain silent for the next few weeks. I'll give you equal time.....

Boxbuzz, the so called "moderator" here once again shows that he will buy anything Thomas Hauser says, and he will dance in lockstep with "Ali Industry" as they attempt to infiltrate the minds of the know nothing elitists"

now that's fair and balanced.....

Ambling Alp...I'm sure you're aware that the same controversies that plague boxing with respect to refereeing plague professional basketball and football as well...Kobe Bryant and Dwayne Wade, rightly or wrongly, are accused by some players and coaches as well as fans, of being beneficiaries of gift calls... They never called walking or travelling on Jordan even though he travelled on many a lay up....They never called Patrick Ewing's little bunny hop or the steps Kareem took on his sky hook...Entire playoff and championship series have been mired in controversey...In football, Michael Irvin was accused of "pushing off " the defensive back to buy space...

Complainining about the ref or judges is not confined to boxing...

Maybe I was inartful...The champ should be scored the same as the challenger but the burden is on the challenger to beat the champ because in any professional sport the tie goes to the champion...

I scored it 8-7 or 143-142...Mercante had it even going into the last round and Ali won 2:40 of that round...Ali was a shot fighter by then but not totally shot as he was against Spinks...

And I think a decent case can be made that Witherspoon, Williams, and Spinks beat Larry Holmes...I think you can also make a decent case that Larry Holmes beat Witherspoon, Williams, and Spinks... I also think Joe Louis, arguably, got a gift against Jersey Joe Walcott...Even though I'm not a "Larry" fan I can't see taking away the champ's title in a hotly contested decision or what is colloquially known as a push...Ditto for Joe Louis...

BoxBuzz wrote: granberry....I know your reading this even if you have to remain silent for the next few weeks. I'll give you equal time.....

Boxbuzz, the so called "moderator" here once again shows that he will buy anything Thomas Hauser says, and he will dance in lockstep with "Ali Industry" as they attempt to infiltrate the minds of the know nothing elitists"

now that's fair and balanced.....

Sounds like you are missing your old buddy already.

When you let him back in and he starts his old tricks perhaps this time you can sort your own mess out without having to call in others.

I picture you hiding under the table singing "When I was just a little girl, here's what my mother she said to be..." as Ric and co have to clean up the rubbish you have encouraged and are even now encouraging.

Collins2000 wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote: granberry....I know your reading this even if you have to remain silent for the next few weeks. I'll give you equal time.....

Boxbuzz, the so called "moderator" here once again shows that he will buy anything Thomas Hauser says, and he will dance in lockstep with "Ali Industry" as they attempt to infiltrate the minds of the know nothing elitists"

now that's fair and balanced.....

Sounds like you are missing your old buddy already.

When you let him back in and he starts his old tricks perhaps this time you can sort your own mess out without having to call in others.

I picture you hiding under the table singing "When I was just a little girl, here's what my mother she said to be..." as Ric and co have to clean up the rubbish you have encouraged and are even now encouraging.

I don't miss him...I almost wrote her but that would be puerile...It's nice to discuss things without invective and ad hominem...If he comes back and if he starts hurling his juvenile epithets I want my warning lifted so I can respond in kind...

Norton WON the last round!

I don;t think there were many close, "coulda gone either way" rounds. Maybe 2. I think it's a pretty easy fight to score actually.

I'll watch the whole fight tomorrow and list my scorecard in detail. I invite others to do the same.

Collins2000 wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote: granberry....I know your reading this even if you have to remain silent for the next few weeks. I'll give you equal time.....

Boxbuzz, the so called "moderator" here once again shows that he will buy anything Thomas Hauser says, and he will dance in lockstep with "Ali Industry" as they attempt to infiltrate the minds of the know nothing elitists"

now that's fair and balanced.....

Sounds like you are missing your old buddy already.

When you let him back in and he starts his old tricks perhaps this time you can sort your own mess out without having to call in others.

I picture you hiding under the table singing "When I was just a little girl, here's what my mother she said to be..." as Ric and co have to clean up the rubbish you have encouraged and are even now encouraging.

Your another sticky wicket that's about as stubborn as a pack of mules with as least as much forgiveness and or sense in you as there is a need for buggy whips in this day and age...but your right....I'll need to be sober as a judge from now on (or you are sure to hunt me down and drown me in verbage!) . Your love for a meaningless argument is as vast as the galaxy itself and only granny could truly fill your vacuum. Up to now I have cleverly exploited your nonsense to engage in my need for keyboard practice to keep my piano skills sharp. From now on I'll step over to the musical keys rather than further fuel your desire to blather at me.

Robinson wrote:
I had it...
145-140 Norton.
10 Rounds Norton
5 Rounds Ali.

I saw it basically the same way.

I thought Norton won no less than 9 rounds. Ali simply gave away too many of the early rounds, and didn't do enough to close the gap down the stretch IMO.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Collins2000 wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote: granberry....I know your reading this even if you have to remain silent for the next few weeks. I'll give you equal time.....

Boxbuzz, the so called "moderator" here once again shows that he will buy anything Thomas Hauser says, and he will dance in lockstep with "Ali Industry" as they attempt to infiltrate the minds of the know nothing elitists"

now that's fair and balanced.....

Sounds like you are missing your old buddy already.

When you let him back in and he starts his old tricks perhaps this time you can sort your own mess out without having to call in others.

I picture you hiding under the table singing "When I was just a little girl, here's what my mother she said to be..." as Ric and co have to clean up the rubbish you have encouraged and are even now encouraging.

Your another sticky wicket that's about as stubborn as a pack of mules with as least as much forgiveness and or sense in you as there is a need for buggy whips in this day and age...but your right....I'll need to be sober as a judge from now on (or you are sure to hunt me down and drown me in verbage!) . Your love for a meaningless argument is as vast as the galaxy itself and only granny could truly fill your vacuum. Up to now I have cleverly exploited your nonsense to engage in my need for keyboard practice to keep my piano skills sharp. From now on I'll step over to the musical keys rather than further fuel your desire to blather.

I like you and collins... I don't know what your beef is about...But if you guys let granberry come back and call people "shills" and "fags" and ply posters here with warnings when they respond in kind I will be profoundly disappointed...

If you notice the dialogue here has improved dramatically since our erstwhile friend was sent on his sabbatical...

So do you think Frazier "padded" his opinion because he wanted Ali to appear to be strong competition for him? And not raise Kenny's stock? I'm serious, I've always used Frazier's words as sort of a measuring stick on this fight that has been so controversial through the years. The opinion of people I truly respect in terms of judging fights has been pretty wide on this fight. Maybe the widest I've seen it. It's a case study in perceptions all by itself.

Collins is always sending me valentines in PM's.....we are great pals..seriously.... It's an old vaudevill schtick that we're trying to revive. It's a retro thing....