Do Ali's Loss and Trouble With Norton Get Enough Consideration When Judging Ali?

I know Muhammad Ali has very passionate fans, so let me make it clear hear that I am not intending for this thread to be a hit job. I just want to open up discussion on a topic that I think doesn't recieve much consideration.


Sometimes I think that Ali's loss to Norton and his two disputed victories over Norton do not get enough attention when assessing Ali's legacy.

This is especially striking here where people are always quick to downgrade fighters by picking out struggles with a few opponents. For instance, Foreman lost to Ali and Young so he's substantially downgraded for being unable to handle slick boxer types. Frazier lost to Foreman so he would always have lost to any slugger. Joe Louis struggled a bit with Billy Conn, so he's downgraded for not being dominant against opponents who were quick on their feet.

Many people say that Ali's loss to Frazier in the FOTC doesn't mean much because Ali had just come back from his exile. So Frazier didn't beat the "real" Ali. But what is the excuse for Ali-Norton I? It was 1973, and any supposed rust was no longer a factor.

Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that Ali never decisively beat Norton, even though they locked up two more times after their initial meeting. It was always life and death. One would expect more from a fighter widely hailed as the greatest of all time. (For instance, Joe Louis annhilated Max Schmeling in their rematch.)


As I said before, Joe Frazier's inability to defeat George Foreman is often identified as a fatal flaw. Many people generalize and conclude that Frazier would always have trouble with a first-rate slugger and, at least on ESB, it greatly diminishes Frazier's standing in all-time rankings and discussions. Similar critiques are made of other great boxers.

(Let's be clear that I'm not saying Ali's struggles with Norton were EXACTLY the same as Frazier's with Foreman, since Ali was competitive in the fights and they were close and went to the scorecards.)

So why isn't the same standard applied to Ali and his trouble with Norton? Is it because their first two fights weren't title fights? Was it because Ali had been in so many other big fights that no one cared?

Moreover, SHOULD Ali's trouble with Norton be held against him more than it is?

why is it that when Ali comes in terms of a resume people don't say "he lost to a very good, but not quite great fighter while in his prime"?

Why is it that when Ali comes up in terms of head-to-head discussions people don't say "Ali struggled mightily with unorthodox boxers like Kenny Norton"?


I'd appreciate any thoughts.

 

Besides bias I think there are mainly three reasons as to why Ali's struggles with Norton haven't had as large effect on the assesment on him as could be expected:

1. Ali was past his prime. Even for the two first fights he was some six years past the best versions we got to see of him. For the third fight he was so past it he struggled with every worthy contender he met.

2. Ali did beat just every type of boxer. Foreman never really truly conquered a really good slick, defensively skilled boxer and the heaviest puncher Frazier beat was Bonavena, whom he struggled with. If he had beaten say Lyle and Shavers convincingly, it would be easier to claim that Foreman was a one-off. Ali did beat good awkward/unorthodox fighters in Moore, Mildenberger and Bonavena. Terrell could perhaps also be mentioned here, since he at least was a known spoiler.

3. And this might be the most important one. By beating (albeit controversially) Young and taking a prime Holmes to the wire (when past his prime himself) Norton showed that he was very difficult for boxers who lacked a devastating punch. If Ali was the only good boxer that had trouble with Norton I think things would look different. As it is you can always say "well, a past-prime Ali struggled with a prime Norton, who - when past his own prime - gave a prime Holmes a really tough time".

 

I think the Ali-Norton fights shouldn't really downgrade Ali much, but yes, they are overlooked in comparison to how some of the other great heavyweights get scrutinized.

For example, I've read a lot of people diminish Holyfield for being "inconsistent" for going 1-1 with Moorer and 1-2 with Bowe. And I think Holyfield was the same degree past his best for four of those five fights, as Ali was in the Norton fights. And the judges who scored for Ali in the 3rd Norton fight esp. would have definitely made Holyfield a winner over Moorer in the first fight had they been as kind in their scoring towards "The Real Deal" as they were to "The Greatest".

That's not to say Holyfield ranks with Ali overall, but just gets a raw deal on that particular issue.

Joe Louis was past his best against Jersey Joe Walcott like Ali was in the 3rd Norton fight, for the championship. Both Louis and Ali escaped with controversial win decisions after 15 rounds. Joe Louis gave Walcott a rematch in his next defense six months later, KO'd him, then a few months later retired and gave up the title. Whereas Ali returned eight months later to fight Alfredo Evangelista, then later Earnie Shavers, told the world he wasn't interested in fighting Norton again unless they pay him some massive number and he felt he had nothing to prove, then lost the title to Leon Spinks.

But then again, Joe Louis probably was the greatest.

 

I see your point, but don't really agree. A more fair comparison would be any version of Ali during 1975. He was 33, just like Louis was for Walcott, and he hadn't been ravaged by Manilla yet. He was never the same after that fight. Louis didn't have anything like that. If he had had an epic battle like Manilla before he met Walcott it would have been one thing, but he didn't.

Ali at 34 wasn't just aging. He had lost some of his physical gifts during the lay-off and then left most of the remains in the ring in Manilla. You could make a similar case for Holyfield after Bowe III, but not really for Louis. Louis was past his best by almost six years when he squared off with Walcott, but he hadn't had the battles that Ali and Holy had. It should also be remembered that Walcott was just as old as Louis and had been totally inactive between 26-30 years of age.

 

Good posts. Another thing to take into consideration is that when Ken Norton stepped into the ring on 31 March 1973 to fight Ali the first time,he was probably the biggest kept secret in heavyweight boxing. He was a quality fighter,and make no mistake. Stylewise,imo,he was tougher for Ali than Frazier,even. In their second fight during the same year,Ali was in the best shape he'd been in since 1967,and although passed his very best,he was still an awesome fighter who had Zaire and Manila in front of him. So,no I do n't think Ali's legacy should be downgraded because of his close calls with Norton. More fairly,Ken's standing should be enhanced.

 

Ok, what you say about Manila is true. But by 1947 Joe Louis had had a fair number of fights, some tough ones too, and at one point was fighting once a month a championship fight. He'd had a fairly punishing career, was fighting exhibitions during the war years and depleting himself through his lifestyle, and was coming off another 15-month layoff when he fought Walcott the first time.
Yeah, you can say he didn't have a Manila, but we dont actually know excatly how much his body had been subjected to. He was certainly past his best, that much we do know.

Regardless of that debate, the fact remains that Joe Louis gave Walcott another chance and knocked him out, then relinquished the title.
Ali did not give Norton another chance, nor did he retire or relinquish the title.

He seems to have been in the best shape and form of his career though.

And, again, regardless of that debate, he was KO'd in the immediate rematch that he rightfully deserved.

 

True. But I hold firm that Ali was more past it in 1976 than Louis was in 1947. Just look at Ali in 1975 and 1976. Manilla made the difference. And that was what I was answering to.

Same as above.

 

I can also add that Louis' difficulties with Walcott doesn't seem to be that much held against him. They aren't for me.

Perhaps it can be used as another of example of how boxers with good movement and defense seemed to give Louis some trouble. But other than that...

 

No but they should. I have said many times that Ali had trouble with good jabbers at many states of his career.

 

Oh and let me guess, that's why the man in your avatar, who had trouble with Chris Byrd's, would beat The Greatest? Get out of here. Liston had one of the better jabs in Heavyweight history, and I don't recall Ali getting hit by more than handful of them in their first fight. Prime Ali didn't have any problems with a jab, but as he would later slow down...considerably, of course good fighters in Norton and Young are going to give him all he can handle. Norton would easily hold a title today, and Young probably would too.

 

I agree with Unforgiven about the comparison between Ali-Norton 3 and the Louis-Walcott fights. Louis gave Walcott an immediate rematch and scored a convincing victory (when someone gets KO'd, you can't say they were robbed by judges).

It is debatable that Ali was more damaged in 1976 than Louis in 1947-48, but here's the thing:


We're not just talking about Ali in 1976, but also in 1973.


Perhaps the biggest knock against Ali in his three fights with Norton comes from the second fight. He was in great shape, looked as good as he ever did post-exile according to many people, and had his reputation on the line after losing the first fight. We can't say he was rusty from the exile, or damaged from Manila. Ali still had several great performances ahead of him.

And what happened? Ali barely escaped with a disputed split-decision.

 

1. I agree that Ali wasn't at the absolute peak of his powers, but I generally consider 1964-1975 to be the prime of his career. That's when he was a champion-level fighter. Yes, it would be more accurate to limit his prime to 1964-67 (or maybe even 1966-67), and yes it is unfortunate that the exile leaves many questions unanswered. But few Top 10 fighters ever lost during their absolute peak (even if they lost during their general prime). For instance, we could say Louis's absolute peak was 1938-41, or Tyson's absolute peak was 1986-88, or Frazier's absolute peak was 1968-71, etc.

I think that if we are going to compare great heavyweights, we obviously should not look too closely at periods when they were clearly past their prime or shot, but we should take into account periods when they were perhaps not at their absolute best, but still reasonably close and fighting at a champion-level.

2. You make some valid points. Frazier didn't have as many fights as Ali, so more is left to the imagination. I personally believe he would have beaten Lyle or Shavers, but for whatever reason those fights didn't happen. Ali did face some other unorthodox fighters, but I'm not sure I'd say they were quite like Norton in style. I guess "slugger" is a much broader category than "awkward fighter" anyway, so maybe that's why Ali's struggles don't seem as important as Frazier's.

3. Something similar could be said of Foreman beating other guys who were good but not adept at fighting while backing up.

About Holmes-Norton: I think Holmes' injury may have caused the fight to be closer than it otherwise would have been.

Anyway, I'm not saying Norton wasn't a very good fighter. I'm just saying, Foreman was also a heck of a fighter, but that doesn't make people in here give Frazier a pass.

 

i have a post about this very thing elsewhere!!!...

 

My fault. I must have overlooked it.


In any case, I still don't think this is discussed enough.

 

Ali had had a 3,5 year lay-off and was 31 when he lost to Norton. Tyson was 24 when he lost to Douglas and Frazier was 29 when he lost to Foreman - neither had had a long lay-off.

Even before Ali lost to Frazier many considered him not being the same as before the lay-off. On Youtube you can see Cus D'Amato tell Ali that he can't possible be the same fighter after that lay-off. No one had such inclings about Frazier or Tyson. If you want to compare with Tyson, the Holyfield fights are better comparisons.

When Louis was KO'd by Schmeling he was arguably closer to his prime (at least physical prime) than Ali was in '73. At least not further from it.

I don't put much stock in such excuses, they are too common. By the way do you know which arm was suppossedely hurt; I've heard both left and right. Ali made several excuses for his perfomances against Norton too, by the way. He twisted his ankle before the first and busted his hand in the second etc.

Most seem to have Joe in the top 10 (I have), so in which way doesn't he get a pass? He is among the very few in the top 10 to have been so thoroughly dominated when reasonably close to his prime - perhaps the only one.