Ali had some good fights against the big slow punches, the Foreman fight was impressive and he KO'd Foreman but Foreman at that point fought no real punchers and was open to be hit cleanly at that point of the fight, he could not lift his arms. The Bonavena fight was a battle of attrition and Ali landed a well timed pinpoint hook and a rubber legged Bonavena kept falling. The fights Ali had with Ruddi Lubbers( KO'd by a few), Henry Cooper( who was flat KO'd by Patterson in 4)Floyd Patterson( who was clean KO'd, Chuck Wepner, Joe Bugner,Doug Jones,Ken Norton in 3 fights. The point I am bringing out is how many clean KO's did Ali have.Norton had a crackable chin and could not fight backing up Yet he Beat Ali in 1 and the other 2 fights are open to opinion as to who won. I dont think anyone could argue that Joe Walcott had more pop in either hand...As far as Ezzard in comparison to Bob Foster...Ezzard was a text book boxer/puncher and was a much better heavyweight. Bob Foster had no luck at that weight but fighter like Doug Jones moved up well and had quite few victorys at that weight(one of them was a KO over Foster) I think if a fighter throw a correct punch and puts his weight behind it it moves up with him as he moves up in weight. Jimmy Ellis was one, Ezzard was another, Spinks KO'd Cooney. ..But lets get to the point I was was trying to bring out in a previous post. Ali when he Ko'd an opponent was mostly an acumulative TKO, he had form and could hurt a fighter but was not a heavy handed fighter, my point was that a prime Ali vs Norton would still be a close fight because of styles...Ali did not have the style that Norton hated...a fighter that targeted him for the KO and made him back up to get away...Norton was a well conditioned man and had decent speed, so you would not beat him by tireing him. Ali was a pin point puncher but I think there were many that had better pinpoint power but not necessarily better fighters. Walcott was one Schmeling was another IMO...I think Charles was a good form puncher but I wont argue that because he did not KO a Foreman but IMO a lot of smart fighters could have beaten that version of Foreman.but the point I was trying to make is that Ali/Norton would always be close at any stage because of styles... Ali did not have Nortons Kryptontite
It would probably turn out the same cuz norton was a little past his best, but holmes although already very good was not quite in his prime either,about a year or 2 from his best.
Quite a lot gets made of Holmes' left shoulder injury. This could have been a factor,though not a major one. Larry's jab seemed to be working quite well throughout the fight. What is interesting though,during Ali-Norton 2 which was a similar fight,stylistically it is generally forgotten that Muhammad had a problem with bursitis,in his right hand particularly. If his right hand was pain free,would there have been a little more daylight between him and Ken on the scorecards ?
Well, I agree with most of what you're saying (except for Charles being a bigger puncher than Ali), so let's leave it at that. Don't want to derail the discussion.
It really isn't punching power, per se when you look at Ali. It's finishing ability. When he has a guy ready to go, they go.
Ali's power wasn't elite by any means. But when he let loose he had good power. The Williams fight is the best example, but he used powerful punching when finishing off Mildenberger, Folley, Quarry (rematch), Bonavena, Blin, Foreman, Wepner and Lyle as well. Some of these guys had average chins, some had very good chins and some and truly great chins. Yes, Bonavena and Foreman was tired, but if Ali had taken them out when fresh it would be an unique achievment. Even if you look at Tyson - who had great power, speed, timing, accuracy and deadly finnishing - he only really had one clean KO over a great chinned fighter who was still fresh: an old Holmes. However impressive his KO over Thomas was (and it was impressive), Pinklon was clearly tiring when getting taken out. Now, I'm not in any way comparing Alis power to Tyson's, just showing how truly difficult it is to stop a fresh, prime fighter with a great chin. To be the only one to stop two fighter with iron chin is good enough. (Since Wepner was never stopped on anything but cuts before it could be said to be three actually)
That's why I don't put too much stock in these excuses/explanations. They are so often made- Ali sprained his ankle before the first Norton fight, he hurt his hand in the other, Louis was weight drained for Conn I, Thomas had an injured arm when facing Tyson, and as for Tyson and Duran everytime they lost or looked mediocre... Well, that's stuff for folklorists. You get the point.
If you put the Norton of the first Ali fight in with Holmes of the Cooney fight then I think Norton either loses bgibg or is stopped.
I think he loses big. Larry never had trouble pulling the trigger, especially with his jab, while Norton sometimes was seriously and fatally reserved about letting his hands go. Ali II was thought by many to be Ken's best distance performance, and he just blew the first several rounds idly following Muhammad around. If Ali had not foolishly neglected his impacted wisdom tooth prior to Norton I, and Ken had not fractured his jaw as a result, we might not even be talking about Norton today. He's gotten tremendous mileage out of the freak occurrences of Ali I and Bobick. [Then again, Ali I & II got him into Caracas with Foreman, which certainly evened things out a bit. Norton did well to reach another title shot three and a half years after that choke.] Holmes wasn't the kind of guy to stop an opponent like Norton though, and peak for peak, while I think Larry might press hard late, I believe his aim would be to punctuate the decision, not opt to attempt a stoppage conclusion.
jesus you are a dumb dumb poster... he could not stop a past prime norton but he would stop a peak norton 74? you are dumb like hell