How did you score the Ali-Norton fights?

No, & thats the reason I see this as a definite Ali win because its completely ridiculous to give one man every close rd, especially when each rd is different from the last. If you score without favouritism, its highly unlikely that one fighter will be given ALL the close rds.

 

yes fight 2 when ali was in shape (not like fight 1) and up on his toes for the first 5 rounds he was in another league. i reckon the cleveland williams ali woulda had a good margin win at the end 9-6. ali was finished as the great fighter after manila so fight 3 he probably did lose - i've never scored it. any fight after manila is not the great ali but still good/brave enough to beat guys like shavers.

 

From memory:

115-113 Kenneth
115-114 Clay
144-142 Kenneth

 

Norton quite obviously won the first one. Ali,by virtue of the final round won the return. In the third fight,as I've mentioned on another thread,Ali was extremely lucky in being given the win. Some of the rounds were scrappy and close though,and I can't recall who Norton's trainer was at this time (He'd parted with Eddie Futch) but what the hell was he thinking of when he told Ken to box defensively in the fifteenth ? His corner must shoulder some of the blame.

 

Norton won all three fights and was robbed in two, enough said.

 

Having watched only highlights of Ali-Norton III, which always gave me the impression that Norton had romped all over a willing but aged Ali, I was greatly surprised in watching the complete fight for the first time (it's now on Youtube!)

The judges, and particularly Mercante, had it right. Ali by a point, perhaps two.

The only times Norton was "dominant" were when Ali covered up in the Rope-a-Dope, and, even then, many of his blows were blocked. His initiatives were the overhand right and hard left hook, much too infrequent to justify lifting the crown from a champion who was there right in front of him for 15 rounds, leading while moving with jabs, hooks, straight rights and combinations which, in typical Ali fashion, were subtle but genuine scorers.

Ali was a champion determined to keep his crown, and backed off not one inch on a too- tepid challenger. The older Ali administered himself as an expert of the ring; Norton, in an effort not to punch himself out, was too much Zen, not enough Championship material that night at Yankee Stadium.

If anything, the Ali mystique had an influence on Norton himself. But with good reason. Norton knew he couldn't just walk into Ali throwing bombs, or he'd be countered on that shaky chin, perhaps fatally, certainly with more immediate danger to himself than to the iron-chinned champ. So he sought his spots. And, as the challenger, he never found enough of them.

As far as I'm concerned, the ****** is off Ali's back regarding Norton. The fights were close (the other two were, rightfully, Norton, then Ali) but, in the final analysis, an always older Ali proved himself at least a notch above anything Norton ever displayed.

 

Nah man. Norton was robbed in the third fight, period. There's not enough rounds to justify giving Ali this decision, and it wasn't close. Norton landed a lot more cleaner, harder punches in the first half of the fight, and Ali didn't do enough in the second half that would put the score in his favour. Norton was still landing clean, hard punches and hurt Ali more than Ali did to him. What's also forgotten is the body shots that Norton landed as well and the fact that Ali had very little breathing room throughout the entire fight.

I don't believe Norton should have coasted through the last round because that mistake can cost any fighter. DelaHoya did the same thing against Trinidad thinking he had the fight in the bag only to be robbed by the judges.

 

This fight was very close. One of those which draws diametric views. And I think it boils down to how one scores a round.

If you place stock in the heaviest punches thrown in a round, as opposed
to simply punches landed, Norton won by a mile. He scored the most telling blows, perhaps 6 or 7 throughout the fight, but IMHO and apparently the judges', Ali never stopped throwing and landing, in the final tally in greater volume. Moreover, he scored with perhaps 2 or 3 powerful shots of his own over the distance.

The Youtube version's audio is excellent and Ali's jabs and other apparent taps sound more solid upon impact than meets the eye.

I will score a round for Fighter A if he has a, say, 30-15 edge in punches landed over 2.5 minutes, even if Fighter B manages to land one powerful shot near the end of the round. Especially if Fighter A is the defending champ.

And, yes, Norton was told to be wary in the final round, but, let's not forget that Ali deployed his dancing style for this stanza, sheer poison for Norton, who only caught up in the final 30 seconds. There is no way I can accept the intelligent Norton would simply fully coast with everything on the line for the last 3 minutes. He did about the best he could against the old stinging butterfly.

Bottom line: justice was served. Norton was, by his own admission, by and large simply a wee tepid, just a little lacking in fire in the belly, to win against the greats. Save catching an unsuspecting Ali, he lost all his fights to all of them. He was a strong competitor, and the younger man at The House That Ruth Built. But the gray great he challenged that night far surpassed him in desire, and retained enough ability to hold him off, albeit by a hair.

As I see it for the good Kenny, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

 

My thoughts exactly.

 

just watched Ali Norton 2 last night

Had Ali winning 7-5. Close but very clear. Im going to watch the third fight very soon.

 

Ali - Norton II

1 10-9
2 10-9
3 10-9
4 9-10
5 9-10
6 9-10
7 9-10
8 9-10
9 9-10
10 9-10
11 9-10
12 10-9

112-116 Norton

Ali - Norton III

1 10-9
2 9-10
3 9-10
4 9-10
5 9-10
6 9-10
7 9-10
8 9-10
9 10-9
10 10-9
11 10-9
12 10-9
13 10-9
14 9-10
15 10-9

142 - 143 Norton

 

This is the exact reason why Frazier believes he won the second fight against Ali. Both Norton and Frazier said Ali's punches barely had any sting on them in the rematches and basically his flurries were to impress the judges. What's more important? The punch that clearly rocks the opponent, moving him back significantly on his heels defensively, or, the combination punches of the other fighter by volume, some of them blocked?

I know that Red Smith didn't have Ali on his list of favourite fighters, but along with his colleague that night, Dave Anderson, they both believed Frazier won the second fight, landing the cleaner, harder, punches as opposed to Ali's flurries, which barely landed and couldn't keep Frazier away. The only way Ali keeps Frazier from attacking is by excessively holding and pushing down on Joe's neck every time Frazier tries to work on the inside. He was never penalized by Tony Perez, and the fact that the judges did take some serious time to get the scores to the ring, brings the controvery. The fight was closer than most people think, even though Ali was given the decision victory. Did he earn it? Probably yes, by punch volume alone. Did he truly beat Frazier that night? Probably not, because Joe said he wishes he had three more rounds in the FOTC II and might have hurt Ali, who was tiring after the end of 12 rounds.

 

Ali, as any boxer (in a style sense), knew the obvious but sometimes overlooked: boxing is a sport in which the fighter landing more punches scores more points. It's simple mathematics. Boxing is not a contest to the finish.

Now, some punches should have higher value than others: well-placed taps should not count as much as staggering blows, of course, but by the same token 20 accurate punches must score higher than one solid shot. I believe Ali simply understood this and thus scored quite a few unimpressive wins, but they must stand as legitimate, for he did it within the rules.

We can discuss other aspects as well: control, generalship. If Ali stands in front of you as a braced punching bag as he did with Lyle, you will get in your licks simply because Ali is there to be hit, but I as a judge can see this is a tactic, so if Lyle's blows are mostly blocked and he gets in, say, 5 punches and near the end of the round Ali flurries and legitimately lands, say, 8 punches, I'm probably giving the round to Ali. He controlled the action. And, he's the defending champ.

The same cannot be said of Ali at FOTC, when he took to the ropes and begin his pitter-patter. This was obviously a stalling tactic by the tiring Ali, and he was the challenger. So those moments were rightfully scored for the pressing Frazier.

Of course, Ali's holding was obnoxious. But, again, he played by the rules enforced in the ring and you can't blame a competitor for doing that. I think Ali simply stretched this tactic as far as it could go, just as he did with basically every other aspect of the sport in order to win a fight. Smart if you ask me. You can't just go into the ring always expecting to knock the other guy's head off as your Plan A, B and C.

 

I always score Ali-Norton II 7-5 or 6-5-1 Ali. It's an underrated action fight imo, the best Ali fight that didn't involve Joe Frazier.

Ali-Norton III ranges from 8-7 to 10-5 Norton for me. I think 8-7 Ali is entirely defensible however. Norton's energy conservation strategy and his clowning in the 11th cost him big.