¿Which of them do you think would give Prime Ali a more worthy fight?

Ah yes, deliberate accent on only the “official” record only when it suits you.

Yet again, DUE deeper dive, - Norton clearly beat Ali in fight 1, fight 2 could’ve gone either way and Norton absolutely beat Ali in fight 3. Over 3 fights, Norton wasn’t just fighting Ali the man, but the legendary name and crowd puller also.

Norton also clearly beat Young. If you don’t think so, you’re surely not going to claim anything but a razor thin decision in Young’s favour - same guy who clearly beat Foreman and Lyle (x2) and the same guy you believe beat Ali, right?

I haven’t dodged any questions that pertain to my position.

You won’t answer the simple question re who you thought won the Ali-Norton rubber because you know Norton won that fight going away.

Rather, you’re disingenuously falling back on the “official” outcomes to frame the statement - “He lost all but one officially” - to falsely impugn Norton’s resume and performances therein - and that’s EXACTLY why you won’t answer (aka: running away from…)the obviously relevant questions put to you.

You’ve also COMPLETELY ignored Norton’s advanced age and deteriorations as at the time of his fight vs a 28 yo Holmes.

Fury - Tyson 1, yes really. Per the scorecards, razor thin close fight. Per the cards, how about we try on: not really a clear victory for Usyk, could’ve been a draw or even a win for an obviously shot Fury. Not the earth shattering resume highlight many claim for Olek.

Yes, I write well with perfect substance - I wouldn’t need to say same if I didn’t have someone like your self to trying to falsely suggest otherwise.

Your attempted rhetoric is poor and your lack of any substance is even worse…..them just the facts ma’am……

Why would I be blushing? There’s no irony at my end. Lol.

I’m not the one trying to call out every man and his dog to pull me out of the holes that you’re always finding yourself in nor am I indulging in numerous public “tete a tetes” (read: echo chambers) with your newest, bestest friend.

Nor am I trying to extricate myself from genuinely proffered positions - those claims being that Norton was a club fighter and that Jimmy Young wore the cuffs.

Your attempts to put yourself into reverse gear and distance yourself from those claims is downright embarrassing.

You’ve been smashed in many recent debates - even turning on one of your very own exclusive “sources” - lol man, it does not get any funnier or more pathetic than that.

Why are you calling in the LeDoux fight (in another one of your sad posts) without qualifying Norton’s age and the fact that he was thumbed which began a later round trend in LeDoux’ s favour?

Until the thumb, Norton was dominating through 7 rounds, including hurting LeDoux. Keep advertising how little you know on the subject - brilliant stuff.

Ah, tried to be smart by falsifying your clearly implied position in an earlier post. Though it is correct, Ali and Holmes were two different styles, - you were being patently false, and in a later post, you back, writing this: -

Sooo….clear self contradictions. You were trying to sell Ali and Holmes as a similar/one style package - then you lied and backed out of that commitment - now, you’re back on that horse - simply making it up as you go along.

Again, face it, you’re not too bright.

No, the deflections are ALL your own. And the disingenuous framing is laughable - you ask questions but I make demands - lol. My questions are perfectly relevant as per my clearly stated position - you’re simply shamelessly and blatantly avoiding those questions lest they impugn your position.

Honest answer? Norton actually won and “officially” won fight 1. Norton actually won but was “officially” robbed of a clear decision AND the title in fight 3…..so much for your dishonest reliance on “official” decisions ONLY when they SUIT you.

Lol. Every single debate you have with anyone degenerates into “this” - you trying to last word freak it and when anyone eventually tires of your troll like behaviour and ignores you, in all delusion, you uniformly claim that they have “run away”.

Truth is, whenever you have been routed, you can never accept same and go on and on and on……you want the first word, so many more words in between (including numerous, sideline echo chambers) and the last words.

No contradictions on my part whatsoever - the damning history is ALL yours and you’re posting exactly to profile……..

Lol, you essentially did NOT say that. Wow.

See if you can’t help yourself from being the last word freak…..


…..exactly as you have ALWAYS been….

…..in yet another debate where you’ve found yourself very much on the short end but, in all delusion and denial, you still can’t accept same.

 

I'll just park these here.

"Both beat Norton, but I never felt Ali convincingly did. The third fight was a robbery, and I thought Norton edged the second. "

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...ion-excluding-the-big-3.735714/#post-23365551

MaccaveliMacc ↑
Ali clearly won the second fight.

Disaster -
Def not clear was a close fight i had it for Norton

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...ights-of-all-time.734929/page-7#post-23340090

Hell, here's his scorecard where he has Norton winning by 2 points.

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threa...orce-in-the-1970s.733126/page-2#post-23273183

He just makes it up as he goes, in whatever fashion denigrates the likes of Ali, Norton and co. Norton whooped Ali three times if Ali is being praised, if Norton's being praised then he only had one official win in 4 fights with Ali and Holmes despite disaster thinking Norton beat Ali all three times, well, if Ali's being praised that is.

Don't waste too much time on someone that plays both sides of the fence when it suits. The agenda is rather clear above, no?

 

That's another sprawling tirade designed to bury the actual debate under a mountain of misdirection, personal attacks, and demands for irrelevant opinions. Your entire verbose performance is a masterclass in avoiding the one simple question about Norton's resume depth beyond a couple of key matchups.

Your selective outrage over "official" records is a worn-out record itself. You champion your opinion that Norton 'absolutely beat Ali in fight 3' or 'clearly beat Young' as fact, while official records and many observers say otherwise. Then you demand my opinion on these, or on Usyk-Fury, as if that validates your dismissals or answers anything about Norton's broader career. It's a transparent dodge. My personal scorecard for Ali-Norton 3 is irrelevant to the central point about the variety of styles Norton demonstrably defeated at an elite level.

Let's address your claim about Ali and Holmes's styles, where you accuse me of 'self-contradiction.' No, it's called nuance, something your black-and-white assertions lack. Yes, their execution and specific attributes differed, Holmes's jab was a punishing weapon, Ali's more of a blindingly fast setup. But their foundational style shared critical common ground, both were primarily out-boxers who preferred to operate from distance, heavily reliant on their jabs to control the fight and set up their offense, and neither was truly a dominant, comfortable front-foot aggressor by nature. Norton, with his unique forward-pressing, cross-armed style, found a way to trouble this particular archetype of skilled out-boxer. My consistent point, which you avoid like the plague, is Norton's lack of similar defining wins against a wider array of other elite stylistic challenges. Where are his victories over top-tier swarmers, dominant pure power punchers, or other distinct archetypes that would solidify a broad H2H claim? Troubling two (foundationally similar) out-boxers doesn't answer that.

Your accusations of 'last word freaking,' 'disingenuous framing,' and 'not being too bright' are textbook projection. Every lengthy post from you is a desperate attempt to have the last, loudest, most insulting word, filled with demands, self-congratulation, and repeated claims of having 'routed' me with... what exactly? Your contested opinions?

So, let's cut through your fog of rhetoric. Answer the fundamental question you've been ducking:

Beyond your personal interpretations of the Ali/Holmes/Young fights, what significant, undisputed wins does Norton have against a variety of other top-tier styles from his era that make a compelling case for his dominance in head-to-head matchups against all types of fighters?

Your continued evasion, personal attacks, and demands for my opinions on unrelated fights only underscore your inability to substantively answer that specific question.

 

Ah, the cavalry arrives, armed with meticulously curated old posts. It's quite telling that while your friend is spectacularly failing to address Norton's lack of wins against a variety of elite styles, you've been tasked with this historical deep dive into my subjective scoring of famously close and debatable fights. A truly dedicated, if rather dim, lackey.

My personal opinion on who deserved to win a razor-thin, close bout like Ali-Norton 2 or 3, or how I might score it on a given day, is just that: an opinion, shared and debated by countless boxing fans. That's hardly 'making it up as I go' or indicative of some grand 'agenda' to denigrate anyone. It's called engaging with the nuances of boxing history. This is entirely distinct from analyzing Norton's official resume for its breadth and depth against different stylistic challenges, which is the core of the current debate your friend is so determinedly evading.

Your attempt to derail the discussion by presenting my past engagement with these well-known controversies as a 'gotcha' is a transparent, if somewhat dedicated, misdirection. This is a classic bad-faith tu quoque fallacy: attacking supposed past inconsistencies to discredit a current, unrelated argument, rather than engaging with the argument itself. You're not actually following the thread of this conversation, are you? You're just rummaging through archives, hoping to find something, anything, to distract from the fact that your friend has no substantive answer to the actual point.

The only 'agenda' apparent here is your effort to shield your friend from his inability to answer a straightforward question: beyond the (foundationally similar) out-boxer archetypes of Ali and Holmes, where are Norton's defining wins against a variety of other top-tier styles?

Instead of this archaeological dig, perhaps you could assist him by actually addressing that point. Because these old posts? They don't change a thing about the current argument he's comprehensively losing.

 

Against Wlad he didn't do badly at all he landed some good shots but he wasn't able to get inside enough and was pushed onto the backfoot or get the leverage being like 6'2.

Ali is closer to his size so he might have a better time imposing himself. But someone like Ike or Povetkin have the work rate and volume Haye doesn't really throw that many punches.

 

This is brilliant and brought a wry smile. Well played, JT.

Checkmate is still checkmate, even if the vanquished continues to move his pieces around the board after it.

 

Scoring is a funny thing. Ed Schuyler who wrote for AP and covered all three Ali-Norton fights scored the second for Norton and the third for Ali.

 

Alexander Povetkin, he can close the distance quick and take you by surprise, Ibeabuchi is stronger, but more predictable and he’d just constantly walk onto Ali’s combinations.

 

@Greg Price99 @JohnThomas1 @Pugguy you guys are acting this smug because someone has multiple score cards for famously close fights? Is that what I’m reading? “Agenda” “Agenda” “Agenda” aren’t any of you going to ya know go after his boxing opinion discussed here? - Norton is H2H unproven with multiple styles that’s the bottom line why can’t you just address that on a boxing forum? why are you attacking him specifically?

 

Notice how they think this is a 'gotcha'? In reality, it's just a tu quoque fallacy, and they're so ignorant they actually believe it disproves my argument. I've literally said multiple times my point isn't based on scoring, so how I scored specific fights in the past has zero relevance here. It's kinda sad, it's like they're all passing around the same brain cell, incapable of independent reasoning. They just circlejerk each other's flawed 'gotchas,' completely oblivious that all they're doing is collectively broadcasting their own profound ignorance of basic debate.

 

Yep because Norton may or may not have beaten Ali that automatically means he could beat other fighters....... Because that's totally how boxing works lol

 

I can only speak for myself, young man.

I consider the poster you're referring to, to be a troll. I won't waste my time engaging with him and tbf to him, he's made no attempt to engage me.

Of all the subjects being discussed on this board, Norton's ability against a variety of styles, isn't toward the most interesting to me. I know that at, and even a little past, his best, Norton was absolute hell for a variety of styles of boxers with anything less than elite power. I'm genuinely unsure if that's relevant to the discussion, as I've not followed the debate from it's origins.

Unless I've misremembered, my sole contribution to this thread prior to this post, was to express amusement at JT's post.

If someone attempts to diminish a fighter's standing and/or ability, citing a lost trilogy as material to their reasoning, and then have posts they have made, where they scored all 3 fights for the fighter they're diminishing, including one they describe as a "robbery", quoted in response, it's not going to be a good look for them and I'm going to find it amusing. No amount of "reasoning" to the contrary, which I admittedly haven't and won't read, will change that.

 

As expected Jack Dempsey won the poll.

 

Beaten to a pulp yet you still go on and on and on…….in all delusion and denial

No, it’s called self contradiction, pure and simple. You implied that Ali and Holmes were of similar style in a false attempt to narrow Norton’s application of himself.

I called you out on that - saying they fought differently. You tried on a smart reply, basically saying “duh”, thanks for telling us what we already know. No mention of so called nuance.

Later, another poster here more or less packaged Ali and Holmes into the one style/fighter type - then, surprise, surprise, you reinstated your previous commitment to same - a commitment I called out and one you pathetically denied as described above.

No way out.

Well, you’ve worn out the obviously misapplied “textbook projection”. You’re the common denominator for numerous debates with many posters in which you have sought the most and last words on the given subject. You simply cannot handle the truth of your own, obvious defeats.

 

My actual point here is about Norton's resume: did he get enough defining wins against a wide variety of other top-tier styles beyond just Ali and Holmes (who are both, foundationally, out-boxers)? The question is about his H2H viability against a broader range of elite styles based on his actual record.

So, when past posts about my scoring of those specific close fights are brought up, it's a tu quoque fallacy, a distraction from the current debate about resume depth. My subjective scoring of those specific fights doesn't change the question of whether his wins show he could handle, say, elite swarmers or pure punchers.