¿Which of them do you think would give Prime Ali a more worthy fight?

@Greg Price99 @JohnThomas1 @Pugguy you guys are acting this smug because someone has multiple score cards for famously close fights? Is that what I’m reading? “Agenda” “Agenda” “Agenda” aren’t any of you going to ya know go after his boxing opinion discussed here? - Norton is H2H unproven with multiple styles that’s the bottom line why can’t you just address that on a boxing forum? why are you attacking him specifically?

 

Notice how they think this is a 'gotcha'? In reality, it's just a tu quoque fallacy, and they're so ignorant they actually believe it disproves my argument. I've literally said multiple times my point isn't based on scoring, so how I scored specific fights in the past has zero relevance here. It's kinda sad, it's like they're all passing around the same brain cell, incapable of independent reasoning. They just circlejerk each other's flawed 'gotchas,' completely oblivious that all they're doing is collectively broadcasting their own profound ignorance of basic debate.

 

Yep because Norton may or may not have beaten Ali that automatically means he could beat other fighters....... Because that's totally how boxing works lol

 

I can only speak for myself, young man.

I consider the poster you're referring to, to be a troll. I won't waste my time engaging with him and tbf to him, he's made no attempt to engage me.

Of all the subjects being discussed on this board, Norton's ability against a variety of styles, isn't toward the most interesting to me. I know that at, and even a little past, his best, Norton was absolute hell for a variety of styles of boxers with anything less than elite power. I'm genuinely unsure if that's relevant to the discussion, as I've not followed the debate from it's origins.

Unless I've misremembered, my sole contribution to this thread prior to this post, was to express amusement at JT's post.

If someone attempts to diminish a fighter's standing and/or ability, citing a lost trilogy as material to their reasoning, and then have posts they have made, where they scored all 3 fights for the fighter they're diminishing, including one they describe as a "robbery", quoted in response, it's not going to be a good look for them and I'm going to find it amusing. No amount of "reasoning" to the contrary, which I admittedly haven't and won't read, will change that.

 

As expected Jack Dempsey won the poll.

 

Beaten to a pulp yet you still go on and on and on…….in all delusion and denial

No, it’s called self contradiction, pure and simple. You implied that Ali and Holmes were of similar style in a false attempt to narrow Norton’s application of himself.

I called you out on that - saying they fought differently. You tried on a smart reply, basically saying “duh”, thanks for telling us what we already know. No mention of so called nuance.

Later, another poster here more or less packaged Ali and Holmes into the one style/fighter type - then, surprise, surprise, you reinstated your previous commitment to same - a commitment I called out and one you pathetically denied as described above.

No way out.

Well, you’ve worn out the obviously misapplied “textbook projection”. You’re the common denominator for numerous debates with many posters in which you have sought the most and last words on the given subject. You simply cannot handle the truth of your own, obvious defeats.

 

My actual point here is about Norton's resume: did he get enough defining wins against a wide variety of other top-tier styles beyond just Ali and Holmes (who are both, foundationally, out-boxers)? The question is about his H2H viability against a broader range of elite styles based on his actual record.

So, when past posts about my scoring of those specific close fights are brought up, it's a tu quoque fallacy, a distraction from the current debate about resume depth. My subjective scoring of those specific fights doesn't change the question of whether his wins show he could handle, say, elite swarmers or pure punchers.

 

This is just another desperate pivot. Your obsession with my nuanced take on Ali and Holmes, that they're foundationally similar out-boxers who preferred to operate from distance with their jabs, even if their execution differed, is a smokescreen. That's not a 'contradiction'; it's an analysis you can't grasp.

The actual point, which you consistently evade, is Norton's resume depth beyond them. The burden isn't on me to re-litigate boxing history minutiae with you. The burden is on you to show what other diverse elite styles Norton demonstrably beat to support your claims. You haven't done that.

Your claims of 'routing' me are as hollow as your arguments. You're just shouting 'victory' while dodging the actual substance, and yes, ironically, always trying to get the last word in.

 

@JohnThomas1 is no lackey, he brought concise hard evidence to the table which has you squirming like there’s no tomorrow. I already outlined why you refused to answer the relevant questions re the Ali - Norton series and JT brought the historical proof.

We haven’t been having sideline, tete a tetes throughout the discussion as you and your newest, bestest sidekick have been doing. Absolute cringeworthy.

This is ALL about opinion - lol - you need to read yourself back. You withheld crucial details of your an honest opinion re the Ali-Norton series - you’re now calling it your “past” opinion - let’s fix that - they are opinions you expressed in the “past” and they are opinions you still hold but still won’t admit to.

Evolved? Please don’t make me laugh. It’s all about the ulterior motive and agenda.

Ali, Young and Holmes are more than sufficiently varied top tier fighters - certainly enough to be getting on with alongside Norton’s resume otherwise.

If you couldn’t bang Ken out, you were catching bell - and, aside from an earlier career KO loss to hard punching Garcia, a loss Ken later reversed by KO himself, he was only KO’d by the most elite hitters - including two later career KO losses.

BOOM! Yet again.

 

So Pugguy let’s keep in simple right? How were the varied key elite opponents that Norton beat? Just a list of names please no word salad.

Lorenzo Zanon (Who?) Do you count this as a key win?
Duane Bobick (Who?) Do you count this as a key win?
Scott LeDoux (Draw) Really?
Tex Cobb (SD)
Shot Quarry (Stoppage)
Muhammad Ali (UD) 221lbs
Jimmy Young (UD) (hotly contested)

 

Brother it’s funny because the closest possible fighter to Muhammad Ali is Larry Holmes who tf else is a better example? Young, Holmes and Ali would all be designated to a similar archetype of descending quality by everybody else they’re “out boxers” no one else would disagree with that so we have a 10lbs overweight Ali, Young in a contested decision and … shot Jerry Quarry that’s his official results? Unofficially he probably beat a shot Ali in the 3rd fight (I think so) which adds no strength to the argument he can beat fighters of good quality across multiple styles… even if he got the 3 official wins over Ali it means 0 to the argument. This is also the same fighter who has an Achilles heel so famous he gets dunked on in every fantasy discussion involving anyone who can punch a bit LOL.

 

You keep dodging the main point. Ali, Holmes, and Young were all out-boxers, different in execution, but similar in foundation. That’s not enough stylistic variety to prove Norton’s H2H case against all types.

Listing his losses and calling them proof of his greatness doesn’t cut it. The burden is on you to show which top-tier swarmers, pressure fighters, or big punchers Norton actually beat. Until you actually respond to that instead of dodging or bringing up irrelevant things, you’ve basically conceded the argument.

 

Ah ah ah… Bobick (Puncher) Cobb (swarmer) and LeDoux (pressure) consider yourself OWNED - the last word is all yours, move the pieces as much as you like on the chess board you are vanquished no one else is at the table so squirm, wither, wiggle all you want pathetic worm boy but the eagle man has departed from his boat or something.

 

Keeping it simple, why would I exchange with someone who seriously proffered Norton as a club fighter and Jimmy Young wearing the cuffs ONLY to hit reverse gear when he was called out on it. Or a guy who falsely claims I write word salads?

No feelings involved, it’s just logical to conclude that you’re not well informed and shouldn’t be taken seriously.

 

Behold gentleman! The native pretend weirdo. Don’t be fooled by the dialect I’ll translate for you.

Translation: “I didn’t disagree with your argument at all, I disagreed with you the person, I bit the bait like a fishy and now I can’t get out of this corner, this is the best excuse I have to run away.”

You’re getting “dunked on” Ol Pug “vanquished” especially with this weak *** cop out you’ve got here lol.