How many people think Ali actually beat Norton 2/3 time ?

I disagree with some scores, BUT I also respect their opinions on how they scored the bout as well. After all, they have the best seat in the house. I have a lot of close friends that have Judged many big time bouts, and some would even call me up after a Big bout just to see how I had it. I speak honestly to all of them, BUT I also watch the bout again and try to see how they got the score they did, and most of the time, I could see how they scored it the way they did. Sometimes we let the commentators sway the way we judge a bout.

Don't get me wrong, there are good judges and not so good judges, BUT usually the good ones get the Big assignments.

Not too long ago, I was ring announcing a Pro show in North Bergen, New Jersey and one judge scored a round for a boxer that was knocked down. It wasn't that he was losing badly and then scored a knockdown, BUT if he didn't score the knockdown he would have lost that round. I never ran into that before. The other 2 judges scored it 10-9 and 10-8, for the boxer who scored the knockdown.

 

No, I really haven't scored it. I watched it with only half an eye and not all rounds.

But that many people here that comes out strongly in Norton's favour is pretty convincing.

I did have the Young fight a draw, though, but can of course see why one would have it for Young or vice versa.

 

Ali said immediately after the 3rd fight, during the press conference, that HE felt he had lost the fight.

Take that however you will, of course.

 

you're wrong, buddy. Ali was past his prime. He was not the same fighter he was before the lay-off, particularly in the legs. He didn't move as fast and even though he was still elusive he began to get hit more. I read someplace where eddie futch was training norton a few years before he first fought ali. Norton wanted to fight ali then but futch told him that he wasn't ready to fight him yet because ali was still a bit too fast and that he needed to wait until he slowed down a bit.

Futch's plan was to wait until ali slowed enough so that norton could effectively jab with him. He also counted on ali underestimating norton and coming into the fight less than prepared because norton was largely unknown.

 

I agree with you on this. They should actually use the 10 point must system a little better. If a boxer wins a round by a wide margin, he should get more credit. In amateur boxing, which I just came from where I ring announced Puerto Rico vs. New Jersey, they use to have a 20 point must system. That way the winner of the close round would get 20 points and the loser would get 19. In a round that 1 boxer won outright, he would get 20 points and the other boxer would get 18. Where there was a knockdown the loser of the round would get 17 or less. Now they score Amateur bouts by counting the punches that are landed, which I hate. You can score 2 knockdowns in a round, by landing 2 punches and you can actually lose if the other boxer lands 3 or more punches in that round.

 

I shed no tears for the good Norton.

He is the portrayal of how, at the highest levels, when you are, as he has confessed, "not serious enough about boxing", when the sport is not "this or nothing" to you, you will eventually end up short.

I recently scored Ali-Norton III and saw it securely for Ali by one round. You're right. Ali never stopped punching, looking for victory, meeting his challenger head-on, and he had that marvelous, befuddling dance to fall back on in a couple of key rounds.

Norton fought well, with trance-like, tunnel-vision efficiency, but lacked the champion's trump card so many times: pure desire. The champ lacked his challenger's power, but made up for it with volume; he lacked his opponent's youth, but made up for it with guts and, in the end, at the very least held him to a standoff. And here a champion keeps his crown.

It is interesting that referee Mercante scored 8-6 Ali. He, more than anyone, was closest to the fighters and the soul in the ring that night. And, 33 years later, I agree with him.

Perhaps it was fear of tiring out against the wily Ali, but, as you say, save spurts, he never went for broke. I believe he showed greater desire in a losing effort: in giving up his crown to Larry Holmes. In those last few rounds, all of a sudden, it was a face-to-face encounter with a last chance, a desperation felt in the gut, it was "this or nothing", and he gave us magic for the ages. Who cares that he lost. That night he made the acquaintance of the greats of the ring.

 

Yeah, I have seen the 3rd fight. Several times. My point is Norton had an opponent who was at the *** end of his career. He had already fought him twice (when the opponent was better) and knew all about him. Particularly to be noted is that he was aware that his opponent didn't have the punch to knock him out. Ken was at his peak. What was expected of him was a determined and aggresive perforamnce. Not the limp attempt to snatch away Ali's crown. What I have said surely cannot be disputed.

But there is another way of looking at it. In all probability, Norton had done his best to dominate and overwhelm Ali. But he simply couldn't. Why? Because it had nothing to do with Ken and everything to do with Ali. Ali, in spite of his vastly eroded skill, probably still knew and could do enough not to allow Norton to turn it into a one man show. As others have noted, he was jabbing and making moves most of the time. This throws a considerable amount of doubt as to who actually deserved to win. As the old belief goes, "if a title is to change hands, there must not be any element of doubt".

I hope I have clarified what I meant when I said that Norton didn't deserve to win.

 

Let me get this straight; Norton did not give his all but Ali did with his holding, laying on the ropes and pitter - pat arm punching ? What a crock of sh-t ... Ali got his ass beat and received a gift decision. Ali apologists are starting to use Rocky logic here ...

 

This, from Mark Kram, no apologist for Ali, in Sports Illustrated a few days after Yankee Stadium:

“...Once more, as in his second fight with Ali, Norton's head got in the way. Here he is with a six-round lead going into the ninth, and he seems to unravel ever so slightly; he drops the ninth, and then four of the next six rounds to Ali, who has begun to dance and dictate the course of the fight with vast ring wisdom. Norton pursues ineffectively while Ali hand-fights, keeping Norton off balance, forever lodged in his turtle defense. It is the 11th round, though, when Norton makes his most serious mistake. He elects to parody Ali, to hang on the ropes, to put his hands down, to exchange repartee. How foolish, how insufferably wrongheaded. It is at this point when he should have been his most physical, when abandon and fury were called for, when he should have pushed Ali over the edge with the considerable strength left in his superb body. 'Nobody is going to give us a gift against Ali,' said Bob Biron, Norton's manager, before the fight.

So they all knew this, Norton and his corner, led by Bill Slayton. Now comes the 15th round, the pivotal round, the one that can shove Norton over the top without argument. "We've got to close the show," shouts Angelo Dundee, sending Ali out. "Turn tiger, champ!" Thinking the fight was wrapped up for Norton, Slayton moves him out with instructions not to get careless. The result is that Ali fights for two minutes and 40 seconds, and Norton wakes up the rest of the way. As the round ends, Norton stalks Ali back to his corner, shouting, "I beat you! I beat you!" Led back to his own corner, he leaps for the sky along with Slayton, both of them certain that the title has been won. Shortly, the verdict comes, and Norton, his head wrapped in a towel, is crying uncontrollably; sympathy pours down on him.

Norton got hold of himself later. 'I wasn't even tired,' he said. 'If I thought it was close, I'd have fought back harder and more. When you fight Ali, you're behind at the start. It's obvious you have to knock him out to win. When it's that obvious, you have to think the judges stole it. They made asses out of themselves. The fight speaks for itself.'…

What is one to make of the decision? Do you take a title away from an Ali on a one-round difference in 15 muddled rounds? Can a solid case be made for Norton? Those who saw him as the winner believe that no evidence has to be gathered for Norton, pointing out that scoring in the end is the ultimate delineator, scoring based on number and content of blows, aggression, ring generalship and defense. The trouble is this: How can you score such a bad fight, how can one be so clear in such murky going? Scoring is always imprecise, and in this case it was almost impossible. In a close contest any judgment must be highly subjective. It hinges on tradition (the heavyweight title has changed hands only three times by decision since 1932). It involves sentiment and preference for style and the man—and with Ali, the mystique of the man.

Technically, on hard scoring, I gave the fight to Norton by one round, but it was a troubled 8-7—without real conviction. He was ahead 7-6 at the end of 13 rounds, won the 14th big and ignored the 15th. The 14th and 15th meant the fight for Norton. Two of the judges, Barney Smith and Harold Lederman, gave the 14th to Ali. 'They were playing catch-up,' says Biron. 'They had given too many rounds early on to Norton, and now they were leaning hard into the wind for Ali. In heaven's name, how can you give him the 14th?' Even so, Norton was still alive on both cards going into the 15th; it seemed the officials wanted a dramatic statement from him. 'If Norton had started in the first minute of that round,' says Lederman, 'and started with that right hand, he would have been champion.' Arthur Mercante, the referee, says, 'Aggression is one thing, but effective aggression is another. A lot of the time Norton was not effective.'"

 

Please read the post next to yours by Prime, containing the description of the fight by Mike Kram in Sports Illustrated, for a whole bunch of more sh-t.

 

Kram still had Norton winning when all is said and done and I think Kenny was a victim of the pathetic "you have to take a title away" antiquated philosophy which should have died 100 years ago. I think this fight was a classic example of giving some early Norton rounds to Ali because they were close, I remember doing the same for Clinton Woods' win over Glen Johnson. Johnson was piling up the rounds and anything close I seemed to give to Woods (although it was with hindsight I realised this). When Woods did finish strong I had him level, in a fight that I thought Johnson definitely won (by a couple of rounds). I think something similar happened with the judges there and the Ali-Norton fight and also contests like Lockridge-Gomez.