Ali vs Norton 3

I agree on all points.

 

I've watched it two times in the last year or so, most recently some time this summer, and I have Ali winning as well, narrowly but still pretty clearly. At the very least it's close enough that it can't possibly be called a robbery. Frankly I'm not seeing many of these "gift decisions" Ali is supposed to have gotten later in his career.
(Oh, and I repeat at every opportunity that Holmes trounced Norton in an almost entirely one-sided fight.)

I don't doubt that Norton sincerely believed he beat Ali, but I can't agree that the tears of anguish were warranted, at least not by any miscarriage of justice.

 

That's an interesting perspective on Holmes-Norton, and I'm first to agree that the first four or five rounds (and a few after) Holmes looked sensational. In fact, I thought through most most of that fight Larry himself looked like the Champion.

However, I think Norton was given credit not just for making the fight at all times, but for (at the time) being a heavier puncher. Some of the single overhands and hooks Kenny landed were like two or three-punch combinations by Holmes. Larry hadn't completely integrated the step-in right at this stage (which is the main reason he couldn't stop Shavers in the first battle). Many of his punches were of a flashier (Ali-esque) nature at the time, including his jab, which (along with the right) just seemed to get stronger in the next few years.

I always said that if Holmes had fought Kenny around the time he'd (Larry) beat Ali, Kenny wouldn't have made it past round 12. Holmes became a more serious puncher after the Norton fight...imo he really hadn't started peaking yet (that happened early on in his titular defenses).

 

It's subtle but Norton has a way of parrying/blocking his opponents jab. At the same time he was leaning away from the right.
He may catch some contact but mostly of the glancing variety. People called him awkward but what they should have said is that he was a good defensive fighter.
At the same time he was picking 0ff the he could counter with his own jab and then his body attack was very strong.

 

My problem here is, he likely already did enough to win. You even admit Norton looked far better of the two. If you think you're looking far better and likely are doing better, it's not outrageous to avoid big exchanges the final round or so to seal the work you've already put in. Plenty of have so before, and were correctly awarded the fight. I see nothing different here. Could Norton have won ever more convincingly than he already "did", sure, but he still won pretty convincingly enough, which is usually enough. I've never liked the whole notion of... you need to take the belt from the champion... If you win, you win.

 

I've never believed that old adage either, totally agree. No one should be disadvantaged on the scorecards by virtue of being the challenger.

I did say Norton looked better, indeed. But, I also scored it a draw. As such his clowning and giveaway rounds really hurt him, at least on my card.

 

One matter many in boxing forget is that a week or two after Norton-Ali3 Wide World of Sports replayed the 15 rounds with a number of recognized boxing scribes and experts judging each round and Kenny was there. After the 15 round viewing they gave the bout a collective draw much to Kenny's astonishment. It was that close and for many it came down to Norton giveing Ali the 15th round.

 

At minimum , Ali lost this fight 10-5. there is no counter argument.

 

Yes, actually there is.

 

Ali didn't do anything in the 15th but stay away. Just trying to last the distance. He got caught on the ropes and banged around the last minute.
The mindset with Ali is that he won the round before it even starts and his opponent had to take it back.
Ali seems to be the only boxer that wins rounds off of his movement without connecting punches.

 

Holmes didn't suddenly gain more power post Norton. He never would have stopped Norton, he didn't have the power. It took a big puncher to get Norton out of there.

Holmes was perhaps a teeny bit pre peak but Norton was about to turn 35. He was 5 years removed from his first two fights with Ali and a couple from their last. Sure he fought superbly but i really don't think he was quite as good as he'd been at that stage. He'd struggled heavily (controversially even) to get past Jimmy Young and sure Young is canny but Norton at his best would have got past him a bit more convincingly imo. He also made a tactical error in sitting back thinking Holmes would tire. This may not have mattered of course.

Peak for peak Holmes and Norton would always be destined to fight a close grueling battle that would come down to the cards imo.

 

The uppercut Holmes gifted Weaver with would have knocked Norton silly (as much as I love both fighters). As of their actual 1978 fight, that shot did not have anywhere near the impact it did a year after. You'll see it if you review the fights immediately preceeding and proceeding from the Norton fight: Holmes didn't really step in with his right hand up to the Norton win the way he did after. The videos back me up.

The right hand that floored Marvis Frazier didn't exist against Norton, and neither did the uppercut that ruined Weaver. However, you are right that the Norton fight was pre-peak Holmes...I venture to say Larry started peaking in the fight after. Just look how he knocked out Alfred E. or Ocasio. Holmes never once hit Norton that hard, and I've seen that fight dozens of times.

There was no magical power faerie whom bestowed his flittery deeds upon Sir Holmes. You can hear Giachetti screaming at Larry in his championship fights to step in with the right. He didn't master that until after Norton, thus becoming more powerful.

 

That's not a bad estimation, though I gave Ali 6 rounds. Please forgive me if you've already mentioned this, but how did you score Holmes-Norton?

 

I don't think that uppercut would have knocked Norton silly. It was an excellent punch that came late in a grueling fight. It's speculation. Holmes was more of a clubbing puncher who stopped people via attrition, workrate and being much better than most of his opponents. Frazier was a pro vs an amateur. Holmes hit Frazier with a couple of full right hands after stunning him and he stayed upright. Evangelista and Ocasio were pretty ordinary. Holmes had a superb right hand, absolutely, but it was never a huge shot. Good respectable power which allied to his speed and class made it rather handy.

Personally i don't think he hit as hard as Ali when Ali wanted to sit down on his right hand. Holmes probably threw it consistently harder as Ali threw quite a few arm punches later on but when he sat down it was a pretty heavy shot.

 

Ali did have an excellent right hand (it ultimately ruined big George and knocked down plenty of fighters besides). I agree that Holmes had more consistent power in the right.

I just can't agree with you re: the uppercut, and I mean that respectfully. Holmes would have thrown that uppercut against Norton had it existed....and Norton was really bad with big uppercuts. Check out the thrilling four rights that Holmes came out with against Norton in round...I think it was the beginning of five. Then watch the rights Larry threw against guys in the early 80s (including against Cobb, who might have made the distance against even Foreman that night).