Ali norton 3 myth

With a draw he'd still have the title.

Why should a guy get a win when he didn't win but was a draw.
Everybody should be treated equally, champ or no champ.

If it's a draw, it's a draw.

 

I'll go to my grave believing Norton won that fight. In the last round Ali started out throwing ineffectual jabs that scored but did little else. Toward the middle/end of the round Norton beat him from pillar to post. Ali's expression as the scores were being read was not that of a winner, and when he was announced as the winner he looked ashamed of himself. He knew he lost that fight. Maybe not by a lot but he lost. It was boxing politics at work here. The game wasn't ready to give up it's cash cow...not yet. Ali had been good for the sport since his emergence over a decade ago. He was the money drawer in the heavyweight division not Norton. It was a fairly close fight though and the champion usually gets the nod in a close one, especially if he is popular which is why Norton lost his "title" to Holmes...in another close one I might add.

 

The New York Times said:"If Ali won the fight last night...then the Japanese won WWII".

 

Jim, Mercante's method of scoring a round in three parts gave the 15th to Ali. In the first minute Ken threw and landed one jab to Ali's landing four. In the second minute Ken landed two jabs and Ali landed six. In the last thirty seconds of the bout Ken landed four hard punches and several others while Ali landed several lighter ones of his own. Ali felt the punches but wasn't hurt and it wasn't enough to overturn the first two and a half minutes of the round that Ali won. The two judges saw it this same way from ringside.

e=gentleman jim;15062289]I'll go to my grave believing Norton won that fight. In the last round Ali started out throwing ineffectual jabs that scored but did little else. Toward the middle/end of the round Norton beat him from pillar to post. Ali's expression as the scores were being read was not that of a winner, and when he was announced as the winner he looked ashamed of himself. He knew he lost that fight. Maybe not by a lot but he lost. It was boxing politics at work here. The game wasn't ready to give up it's cash cow...not yet. Ali had been good for the sport since his emergence over a decade ago. He was the money drawer in the heavyweight division not Norton. It was a fairly close fight though and the champion usually gets the nod in a close one, especially if he is popular which is why Norton lost his "title" to Holmes...in another close one I might add.[/quote]

 

Jim, I just went over your post about Norton losing to Holmes because of Larry's popularity. I saw the bout live and didn't give it to Larry because I liked him, but because my scoring had him ahead at the end by 1 pt.

 

Ali got murdered. He shouldve quit at the end of 75

 

I have Norton winning it by 9 - 6 in rounds. Many of those rounds were close though. Overdramatising to refer to it as a robbery.

 

I had Norton winning all three bouts. The third was no robbery, though. They went with the cash cow in a close one. It is the norm. I don't even think there was anything insidious at work, necessarily. Ali just had a way about him that swayed judges.

 

lol advocating champion bias.

 

This fight was no robbery. It was close, but I had Ali winning that fight, 8-6-1 or 144-142 in points. It was scored by rounds, but either way, I had Ali winning. It is a myth that EVERYONE thought that Norton won. It was just the crowd at a stadium that booed. How the hell could most of them even see the action close enough to score it?!

Unofficial AP scorecard: 9-6 Ali
Unofficial UPI scorecard: 8-7 Norton

These are only two of the press row scores, but it was a mix. Some thought Ali won and some thought Norton won. The decision definitely didn't warrant the controversy that surrounds it today.

 

9 to 6 is a robbery. Clearly Norton won.

 

I find this is usually the way with famous "robberies". When you look into it, you realise that a lot of ringsiders agreed with the judges' decision, and those who didn't saw it as being very close.

Here's a little summary of the views of some of the ringside press:

This content is protected

 

I see and respect your point,Mendoza,as I usually do with your posts. A lot of those rounds were close enough for arguement,though.

 

I thought Norton won clearly (I'm sure there was a thread on this subject in the not too distant past?).

The saddest thing for me about this was that it denied Norton what I believe is his rightful place in the pantheon of the heavyweight division as the undisputed heavyweight champion of the world.

I believe Ali should have given Norton a rematch in the same way Louis gave Walcott a rematch after their controversial first HW championship fight.