Razor Ruddock vs Ken Norton ( both prime)

Yeah, there's something to that. If you're an actual ATG level fighter in your prime, you should be able to beat a past-prime ATG whom you also hold a stylistic advantage over. Frazier did. Norton didn't; at least not consistently.

Broke Ali's jaw the first time, and squeaked to a decision win. Didn't break the jaw the next two times, and lost both. Arguably should have won the third, but then, that was '76 Ali. Then narrowly lost a decision to a prime Holmes who was fighting with one arm.

McCall and Rahman achieved better results against Lewis. Mercer arguably did as well. Moorer did better against Holyfield on a Holyfield off night (heart attack from steroids rather than a broken jaw.) Sanders and Brewster could say the same against Wlad. Michael Spinks caught Holmes closer to his prime than Norton did with Ali in fight #3, and actually won two close fights. At least arguably.

 

Surprised on how my man, Kenny is getting sold cheaply here...

People makes too much of Norton's defeats.

Sure Norton struggled against big hitters, but Ruddock is nothing like that; his punching power while respectable is not in the A league. Norton got badly rocked by Foreman and Shavers, but both cats were among the hardest hitters ever, thus I don't hold those loses too much against Norton.

Furthermore, Kenny's loses to Shavers and Conney were past his prime, and also let's remember Foreman, Shavers and Conney were Rottweilers; once they caught you they wouldn't give you a second to react. Ruddock was too hesitant by comparison.

Prime vs Prime my money is on Kenny.

Sure Ruddock has a chance here, but if he fails to stop Kenny early, then he is gonna get outboxed and outpunched.

 

Gotta agree with you Kid.

It could be argued that Norton actually beat Ali 3 out of 3.

There’s a few problems trying to negate Norton’s performance in the Rubber Match suggesting that Ali had aged by the time of fight 3.

Norton was just 19 months younger than Ali, ageing right along with him. By the time of the rubber match Norton was already 33 yo himself.

And those who do believe Norton won the 3rd fight (myself included), many don’t think that Norton “just” won, rather we think Norton won “big”, about 2/3rds of the rounds at least.

What ever degree of decline Ali had experienced up to that point, how much more superior was Norton “supposed” to be to eclipse Ali’s perceived “handicap” - IMO, it was still an impressive domination despite Ali’s perceived deteriorations.

By the time of the Holmes fight, Norton was just 2 months shy of 35 himself vs a 28 1/2 yo Holmes so fair to allow for deterioration in Ken himself while Larry was at peak fighting age.

Holmes controlled the first 6 rounds of the fight with his jab while Ken strategically held back. I can see no manifest negative impact on Holmes’ left in relation to the reported injury - and despite Norton’s age, that fight was razor thin close - at least a draw if not a win for Ken could be argued for.

In answer to the over simplified claim that Norton merely presented a stylistic challenge to boxers like Ali and Holmes (both of whom happen to reasonably fall within the top 1-5 of all time with superiority proven over a broad range of styles) - Norton proved himself via other impressive and dominating performances against styles different to that of Ali and Holmes - two ATGs who were not identical to each other anyway.

Re Ken’s KO losses. Foreman, Shavers and Cooney - Arguably the top 3 ATG punchers as at that time - and Norton was KO’d by the latter two when he was well beyond prime at any rate.

 

Ruddock was a big puncher imo.
I think Norton bending forward would walk right into that smash and go down and out.

 

Its not just age P Ali had the wars with Frazier on his clock he had been in some tough fights .Norton really didnt have that hard mileage imo.

 

Valid point and I was going to include that in my post - reasonable factoring of some of Ali’s relatively tougher fights - to which Norton himself made no mean contribution. Norton himself had experienced two devastating KOs prior to ‘76 but protracted wars can be much more damaging.

I was also trying to make the point that, at least IMO, even if one affords Ali greater deterioration than Norton by ‘76, Norton still beat Ali very handily - exactly as you might expect at best of a fighter who was previously at least on par with the best version of Ali in his second career - as proven before the 2nd Frazier fight, the Foreman fight, the Manila Rubber etc.

 

Pug, I agree with you on nearly everything. But I'm gonna have to sing a different tune regarding Ali-Norton. I don't think Norton was on par with the best version of 70s Ali, and Futch himself didn't even think so.

"Would Norton beat the Ali of say three years ago?"

"definitely not Futch said"

Source: https://www.newspapers.com/clip/72689280/albuquerque-journal/

 

Also in their first bout Ali was VERY out of shape (didn't train and was at one of his highest weights in his career) and perhaps the worst version of himself in the 70s. Despite this, it was still a very close fight that went to a decision. Had one round that was a draw went to Ali, he'd have won the SD.

Foreman and Frazier would've destroyed this version of Ali imo, and they certainly wouldn't have needed a decision, let alone a split decision to do so especially with Ali having a broken jaw.

 

Well Frazier never beat Ali consistently either, and Norton won more rounds against Ali in their trilogy than Frazier did in his trilogy with Ali. I've often heard about Holmes having a "torn bicep" vs Norton. But be honest does it actually appear that way in the actual fight ? Holmes fought with both arms just fine, and that was arguably a top 5 performance from Larry Holmes.

I don't really see how McCall or Rahman achieved better results vs Lewis, most people consider them fluke wins. And McCall cried like a baby and quit in the rematch, and Rahman was brutally knocked out in the rematch. Norton was competitive in all 3 bouts with Muhammad Ali and also Muhammad Ali ---> Lennox Lewis in all time rankings.

Moorer did better against Holyfield than Norton did against Ali really ? Moorer was passive for most of the fight against a guy struggling with his health. It took literally Teddy Atlas pleading for Moorer to actually do something for Moorer to eek out a decision. I don't see how that's more impressive than Norton's efforts against Ali.

As for your other arguments why is it when Norton does well against Ali or Holmes, it's only because of "stylistic advantage" but the other fighters you mention get a pass ? i've never really understood that argument about stylistic advantage to try and discredit Norton. The fact he was basically even with Muhammad Ali/Larry Holmes in there fighst who are top 5 Heavyweights of all time. And he deserves alot of credit for it.

 

Frazier was past his best in his two losses against Ali, unlike Norton. Additionally, when he was in his prime, he emphatically beat a better version of Ali than Norton ever faced.

As to the stylistic advantage issue, I'm not sure what you mean about other fighters I mentioned getting a pass. Which ones? Are you saying McCall or Rahman had stylistic advantages over Lewis?

As far as Moorer goes: You're kind of proving my point, I think. Moorer putting in a lackadaisical performance and pulling it out anyway is better than Norton fighting his heart out, cracking Ali's jaw, and still only managing an SD win. Or against Holmes, a close loss.

Finally, on the Holmes arm issue: I've often been suspicious of excuses as well. However, when it's come up before, people on this forum have claimed there are reliable sources on it. It's not an issue I've looked into deeply myself.

 

Holmes injury is documented.

 

Watch the fight and tell me there is any indication of Holmes having any trouble throwing the right hand.

 

If we agreed on everything I might become suspicious.

Seriously though, I really appreciate your opinion and the available evidence you often bring in tow. I remember you linked that article previously - great stuff.

Which Ali is Futch talking about though? 3 years prior a rusty and already deteriorated version of Ali was launching into his comeback.

Even as at the FOTC, it seemed Ali could’ve still done with some more fights under his belt to be at least as good as he could be in his second career - fully back into fighting trim and form.

I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you at all. Totally respect your opinion and Futch’s and if your opinions differ from my own it would always give me cause to seriously re-examine the facts and my opinion.

Futch seemed to be suggesting that Ali had experienced further, substantive deterioration since his come back. Is that how you read it?

I’m just wondering which fight(s) Ali was less deteriorated in prior to facing Norton. I wonder if Futch felt that Ali, like Joe, was never quite the same after the FOTC.

Of course Ali was out of shape and complacent for the first Norton fight but he was in far better shape for the rematch - the article I believe being written just after the first fight and prior to the rematch.

At least on appearances, at about 212 for both the Norton and Frazier rematches Ali looked as physically good as ever did post exile.

I think you also disagree that Ali “lost” the 3rd fight - which again, I totally respect your view on that.

So while I might see Norton winning at least 2 out of 3, you see it as at least 2 out of 3 for Ali and perhaps an arguable 3 out of 3 for Muhammad? So you might see Ali as proving himself superior to Norton at any rate.

 

It was his left bicep.lol

 

Well i had Norton 8-4 against Ali in their 1st meeting it was a pretty convincing loss IMO, even if one of the judges ridiculously had it for Ali. I don't think there's any impartial viewer that could reasonably make a case for Ali.

I've never actually scored Ali vs Frazier 1 so i can't actually say anything on that, but i don't think there's much difference in the scoring. Although Frazier vs Ali 1 was certainly a better fight and Frazier had the dramatic 15th round, but i argue that Norton may of stopped Ali late on if it was 15 rounds, as Norton was really starting to hurt Ali in the 12th round.

And also people make excuses that Ali had just come off a 3 or 4 year lay off when he fought Frazier, i don't personally make that excuse. But there is people that argue that, so you could also use that to detract from Frazier's performance if you wanted.

You could also say Ali in the 2nd Norton fight was arguably at his fittest ever in the 70s, and it was one of his best performances and still Ali only just edged out Norton.

No i'm not saying that about McCall or Rahman, but what i'm saying is why is Norton's good performances only down to "stylistic advantage" and yet the other fighters get credited ? i don't really understand why that's a knock against Norton. Most fighters who fought Ali and Holmes didn't have the style to hang, Norton's style isn't exactly text book and you couldn't teach some to fight like Norton. It's his own unique style and because he troubled Ali and Holmes due to that, that's a knock against Norton ? i'm not trying to be argumentative but i don't understand why that's a knock against him. He also destroyed Jerry Quarry and 38-0 Duane Bobick who beat Larry Holmes in the Amateurs, did he have stylistic advantage against them aswell ?

I also don't agree that Moorer fighting a passive fight against a guy with heart troubles, and then gets destroyed in the rematch getting floored like 5 times was it ? is better than Norton basically fighting on level terms with arguably the great heavyweight of all time for 42 rounds. That logic to me doesn't make sense no offence to you, i know your good poster and know your stuff but that makes no sense to me.

As for the Holmes injury again as i said earlier to another poster, he may or may not of had the injury i honestly couldn't tell you either way. But what i can tell you by watching the Norton/Holmes fight with my own two eyes, is that Holmes didn't show that he had any trouble throwing the right hand. Could a guy with a torn bicep throw as many right uppercuts as Larry Holmes did ? i've never had torn bicep so i don't know 100 percent. But all i'm saying is when you watch the fight there's no indication of it. Like for example when Gatti broke his hand vs Ward in the 3rd fight, you could see immediately Gatti stopped throwing the right hand and was in distress.

PS @Liston73 just informed by it was his left bicep, so pretty much ignore everything i said in the last comment and look at my reply to him thanks.