Prime for Prime Ken Norton v Larry Holmes

Keep in mind that Larry's left biceps was so badly torn in training that a doctor who examined it wanted to postpone Holmes-Norton for another four months, a proposal Larry immediately rejected. Neither man was properly primed for that classic showdown.

Assuming both are healthy for a peak for peak showdown, Holmes takes a comfortable decision here. Look at the first several rounds of Ali-Norton II, and then the first several rounds of Holmes-Norton. Even at his very best, Ken was never going to compete on the scorecards with a healthy and peaking version of either Larry or Muhammad. (At the time, I also agreed with Arthur Mercante that Holmes had an insurmountable lead over Norton after just ten rounds. The judges for that one seemed desperate to validate Ken's getting awarded the WBC belt in a "smoke filled" room, and artificially created closer scoring than his actual performance merited. There's simply no way that one was legitimately even after 14 rounds.)

 

I've always heard it was the right arm that bothered him. I think it's pretty clear that his left worked very well. Sounds like a Holmes excuse.

Norton was still good at 34, but he had slowed down a bit and his stamina wasn't as oustanding as it one was. If it was a 28-29 year old Norton in there that night he wins.

 

No, the news about his ailing left was public knowledge before that match took place, but Larry made it seem like he was selling a book of goods through the first several rounds, a very gutty ruse to make the injury seem less consequential than reports were making it out to be. Later in the match, he was forced to use his right more than usual, tiring it out by the end. Against Cobb, he had no such issues, and was able to maintain steady fire through all 15 rounds in a situation where many thought he might slow down late.

Again, I don't buy it, Bokaj. A lack of stamina does not explain Ken's losing the first several rounds in Ali II and Holmes, and Norton was never going to overcome an insurmountable early lead against either Muhammad or Larry with a fight saving late knockout.

I should mention that I was rooting for Kenny to achieve the big win he openly acknowledged he needed to establish his validity as a worthy champion for the WBC, but it was apparent to me that he needed a knockout to win entering the championship rounds. While a respectable puncher, it quickly became obvious that Holmes could slug it out with him on fairly even terms.

 

Why is everyone else talking about the right, then?

I've only watched the fight once, but his left seemed fine to me.

As for losing the early rounds, he probably wouldn't have lost as many with the superior speed and reflexes he had at his peak. Better stamina would also enable him to keep a higher pace throughout the fight which would have had an impact even during the first half of the fight. Also, with better stamina he would have performed even stronger in the last round, and had he won that on the judges' cards he would have won the fight.

 

Holmes was simply a much better boxer than Norton.........

MR.BILL

 

Larry was closer to his prime in a physical sense. Norton had the experience. Prime vs prime, close decision again. Norton had the style to trouble boxers that were not the best punchers. Holmes and Ali had power ( all Heavys have it) but did not have PUNCHERS POWER. Norton could pressure them and keep them from fighting at a comfortable pace. Prime Norton had the style to keep it close with prime versions of Holmes and Ali but ordinary fighters that could punch would expose Kenny's flaw, that he could not back up and fight. Holmes and Ali had pinpoint punching ability but not the one-punch power of a Jersey Joe Walcott or even Ezzard Charles. Most of Ali and Holmes stoppages were RSC and fighters getting stopped on there feet and it was not enough to push Norton's button.

 

I agree that neither threw a punch quite like the one Walcott KO'd Charles with (but wasn't it a bit one of a kind for him too?), but what do you base the belief of Charles' superior on punch power on? I'd be hard very, very pressed to believe that he ever threw anything more powerful than the left hook Ali tagged Bonavena with or the right he KO'd Foreman with. Which iron chinned HWs were he alone in stopping?

I call BS.

 

It's possible that had Norton been younger and more energetic he would have slugged it out with Holmes earlier when Holmes was fresher with potentially disasterous consequences. Part of the reason Norton did well - and I agree that he did not do as well as many have supposed he did - is because Holmes pretty much had his way through the first two-thirds of the fight. When Larry got tired, Norton came on. Holmes isn't the biggest puncher among the elite of the division and Norton's chin isn't nearly as bad as people have supposed, but Holmes punched well enough and Norton was susceptable enough to a well-time right hand that pushing the issue when Holmes was fresh might not have been the best situation for Norton. And Larry wasn't yet prime himself, still working on stamina issues.

 

The reason Larry got tired was having to absorb that body attack from Norton. What really surprised me in the fight was that Larry didn't turn him all night long. And he got hit with those wide looping rights to the body and showed the effects. I thought the fight was pretty much going to be a mis-match and on par with the Shavers 1 bout. Jab and move and the other guy just follows type fight. If Holmes had a left hook, he'd have a much easier time with Norton.

If anything, the fight showed that even an old Norton could hang in with the guy anyway. If the roles were reversed, the version of Holmes that fought Carl Williams is not beating a 76 Norton.

most likely a decision bout bout whenever these guys meet unless there's a cut or more body punishment from Norton takes on a bigger effect.

 

So being 3-4 years past his absolute peak helped him? Being slower and with lesser stamina was a plus? And if Holmes wasn't prime at 28, coming off a great perfomance against Shavers (perhaps his best), when was his prime?

If a 34-year old gives a 28 year-old a very tough close fight, the odds are that he would have won if they both were 28. The only thing in this particular case that would make me think otherwise is if Holmes indeed carried an injury that clearly hampered him. I'm yet to be truly convinced here, though, especially since there are differing reports about which arm was injured.

 

I've always heard it was the left arm, and Holmes was told early on his left would still be good, but as the fight wore on it would become worse.

 

Watch Charles/Coley Wallace Watch Charles Bob Satterfield....Walcott/Marciano and Walcott/Louis 2 fights....JJW was a counter puncher but had serious pinpoint power. Foreman was an impressive KO but George was running on empty (Jimmy featherfist Young almost repeated the act) Bonevena was also tired and lunging but Ali timed the punch (pinpoint)like Ellis did before him and down went Oscar...but they were many fights Ali had were his power was void and against Norton the crackable, Ali could not crack em

 

Coley Wallace and Satterfield aren't hardly Bonavena and Foreman, are they? They are by no means a serious reason to say that Charles' power was superior. Satterfield was 180 lbs, a natural LHW and was KO'd numerous times before and after. Charles landed som good shots against Colley Wallace, but it was not a one punch KO. I didn't see any punch there I would call as powerful as Ali's right against Foreman. Or they ones he put Williams, Mildenberger, Folley, Al Lewis or Wepner down with.

You can harp on about Foreman and Bonavena being tired, but they were NEVER ever stopped before or since. And it's not like they weren't tired against any other opponent. Young had Foreman down, but he didn't come closer to stopping him than Charles or Moore did Marciano.

Charles fought in an era with smaller HWs. Is there any reason to believe he hit harder than Bob Foster? Yet Foster's devastating punch at LHW didn't translate at all into true HW power in Ali's era. Why would Charles power have had any greater impact?

In summation; Charles was much smaller and fought smaller men without registering more imressive KO's, but he still outdoes Ali for power, you mean? Because Ali couldn't stop Norton? It doesn't hold water.