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

Is wasnt just Conn who messed up Louis. Any boxer who could move troubled Louis. That's where he gets the rap. Norton had a style that troubled Ali. It was a unique situation. That's why it doesn't and shouldn't stick.

 

Say what you will about Louis' trouble with guys who moved, but he in the end he defeated them.

Ali actually lost to Norton, so the situation is a bit different.

But you are right that Norton's unique style may make it seem like a more isolated circumstance.

 

I've noticed that only with Muhammad Ali, is there so much emphasis on the man's past prime career. We subject only him to mythical match-ups for when he was past his best, and people bring up the Lyle, Shavers, and Norton III fights like that actually meant something stylistically. The man was past his best...by quite a margin.

So to answer the thread's question, Ali's struggle with Norton, Lyle, Shavers, and Young gets too much consideration.

 

Different fighters with different styles are going to peak at different ages (for instance, a boxer like Holmes was perhaps at his peak in his early 30s, while swarmers are sometimes finished at such an age).

Anyway, the general point is that if you limit a fighter's prime to 2-4 years, the vast majority of great fighters were undefeated during that period. When you look at a larger time span in which a great fighter is still a strong championship contender and reasonably close to his best abilities, that's when you see the occasional losses appear. Other fighters' losses that are often discussed here took place under such circumstances and so did Ali's.

In Ali's case, in 1973 he still had some of his best performances ahead of him and he was still a great fighter.

 

I would agree with you if we were talking about strictly the post-manilla Ali (Young, Shavers, Norton 3, etc. took place).

But 2 of the 3 fights being discussed here took place in 1973, before some of Ali's biggest performances.

 

Ali suffered a broken jaw in the first fight, and it's widely agreed that Norton would always pose problems for Ali. He was a good Heavyweight, good enough to give Holmes absolute hell, and would certainly hold a belt in today's Heavyweight climate. However, and this is purely speculation, would a 1967 Ali dance rings around Norton? Absolutely.

 

Not really, Ali is known by his big wins and abilty to do well in the rematch. His big wins may have been his easiest, Liston and Foreman. Ali saw the flaws and their slowness and lack of stamina. THe Frazier, Norton and Spinks fights Ali came back to improve. I know a lot of people felt he lost the Norton fights but he did come back much better from the 1st Norton fight. I think Ali's ability to adapt for the most part was his strength along with making the referees, judges and people believe he was in charge and control at all times. He ultimatly payed the price and fooled everone but himself.

 

He was still a great fighter, just not what he was. When you take away 3,5 years of a man's prime that's gonna be a pretty clear divide. There's just no way around that. It's the same allowance that's made for post-prison Tyson or Dempsey after his voluntary lay-off.

Here you can either see the glass as half empty or half full. Either you say that Ali shouldn't have struggled so much with Norton when he still had enough left to convincingly beat Foreman, Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena etc. Or you can say that even though robbed of his prime by the exile, he for the first half of the '70s only really struggled with Frazier (an ATG) and Norton, who at 34 would give a prime Holmes one of his toughest fights.

 

I immediately knew Ali was in trouble in Fight One when I saw it live on TV back in 1973.

Norton neutralized his jab, wasn't afraid of Ali, and had great people in his corner.

Joe Louis would have the same assets too.

 

Yup, but the same Norton gets outclassed by '67 Ali.

 

They never fought...but don't really see what a lesser experienced Ali would bring to the table.

Take away Ali's jab, and he has no body attack, and a limited left hook.

 

How about more speed? More movement? More stamina? He's a more elusive target altogether, and therefore a more formidable opponent. By saying he brings nothing else to table is to say that Ali post exile was the same fighter as he once was, and anyone with a brain clearly knows that isn't the case. You do have a brain don't you?

 

I think his pre-70's "aura" is overated.

Frazier would have pounded those challengers out too...except for the first Liston fight.

And Karl Mildenberger, Brian London, gut-shot Cleve Williams, bouncing ball Patterson, etc?

Ali was the Champion over a transition grade of 1950's to 1960's type challengers. Old, small, or really not very good.

 

Outside of the first Muhammad Ali fight, I don't see how beating up Buster Matthis, Jerry Quarry, and Jimmy Ellis is anymore impressive than outclassing the formidable Sonny Liston twice, and putting on absolute clinic against good contenders like Ernie Terrell and Floyd Patterson, who had only lost to Liston and Ali from 1960 to 1965. Ali was dealing with contenders like they sparring partners. You only have to watch the tapes to see how much better pre-exile Ali was in my judgment. Reality is, Ali could have stopped the clocks of Terrell and Patterson in whichever round he pleased, whereas the best fighter Frazier came up against was arguably Quarry, who gave Joe all he can handle, but was totally outclassed on both occasions with Ali.

You pick Norton to beat Clay?

 

Personally, I always thought a pre-exile Ali, with fresher legs, would have had far less trouble with Norton. This is obv just a personal estimation and not something for a historian to go on, but the few times Ali did dance against Norton, he made it look easy.