Did Ali truly win any of the fights from that series? Many think Norton won all of them. Since many call Ali "The Greatest", was wondering why this is not held against him? Willie Pep gets the Saddler fights held against him and often gets demoted because of it.
I would say more people think think Ali won the 2nd Norton fight than lost it. But on the flipside I would say more people think Ali lost the 3rd Norton fight than won it. The 1st fight being the only real decisive win in the trilogy IMO but I think quite alot of people would think Norton won the trilogy 2-1.
Ali "won" lots of his fights in the 1970's...not because of what he did in the ring...but because of who he was! He could lay on the ropes...let his opponent do all the work...and then afterwards you'd see that he "won" that round on 2 of the 3 judges scorecards...pretty lame.
Ali clearly won the second one, in my opinion. There was never really a question as to who was greater between Ali and Norton, their records against elite opposition speak for themselves. Norton was just a bad style match up against a less elusive and aging Ali, which suited Norton more. This wasn't a Charles-Moore or Mayweather-Pacquiao case where the 2 rivals were about as great as the other, with their rivalry deciding it for good. Ali was far and away a greater fighter than Norton. And I don't see many people holding the Saddler losses against Pep, most of them know the circumstances at play. Pep was way more handicapped against Saddler than Ali was against Norton, to say the least. If one holds the Saddler losses against Pep, but not the Norton losses to Ali, then that's just hypocrisy at play here.
First fight - Norton won Second fight - won by Ali Third fight - draw, or Norton won In any case, Ali did not win this trilogy. And now I come to the point that makes Ali a H2H monster, and he didn't beat Norton H2H
You don't have to beat everyone convincingly at any point in your career to be a head to head to head monster. Sugar Ray Robinson had nineteen losses and few would deny he was the head to head pound for pound monster. IMO to be a head to head monster you have to have the ability to beat any boxer on your's and their's best day
Armstrong lost a series to Zivic Barrera lost twice to Junior Jones Hearns lost twice to Barkley Styles make fights and no matter how good you are if you're consistently fighting against world class opposition you will come up against a troubling style. I mean would anyone think Mercer would out jab Lennox Lewis ? But it happened styles make fights. That's why I always shake my head when people said Fury was a H2H monster when hes missed out on alot of top contenders that expose his flaws.
The head to head monster would have been the Ali we would have seen in 68, 69, and 70 if his career wasn't interrupted. He was getting bigger and stronger.
Pep is still, rightfully imo, typically regarded as the GOAT FW of all time. Pep was past his peak by the Saddler fights and his career is way more than just that series, just as Ali was past his peak by the Noton fights and his career has a lot going for it aside from the Norton fights.
Ali won the second fight if any and even that is very questionable but the first and third fights were won by Norton whether he got the nod or not. Ali just didnt have a great punch, if he did Norton as we know would be for lunch.
That raises an interesting comparison and follow up questions - at least for those who thought Norton won the rubber and assuming they agree with the official decision in Norton’s favour in the first fight. Do they think Norton’s apparent winning margin in fight 3 was greater than in fight 1? If Ali somehow copped the decision in the first fight, would it have been deemed a robbery - or at least as much a robbery as many deemed the decision to be in the Rubber Match? I’d at least feel confident in saying that fight 2 was easily the closest of all three matches - extremely close in fact, it could’ve gone either way or even been a draw. As far as I’ve read, Norton never quibbled about the decision in fight 2, saying himself that it could’ve gone either way. Otherwise, he naturally agreed with the decision in the first fight (though some might argue that two of the judges had it too close) and thought he was robbed in the 3rd fight.
