In some rounds he was and thats what being ignored here, Ken took some rounds clearly but in many other he lost by not throwing many at all, this also is what Mercante said of the fight and why the number of punches didn't mean more rounds won. In the end the judges and many others had it a draw going into the 15th and Ken fought as he did in a number of rounds, way below what he could have done and he gave the round and the fight to Ali. This also was how the WWS panel saw it when they viewed the bout live a week after the bout, a collective draw with Ken present and very surprised at their findings.
Punch stats do NOT provide the data necessary to determine the winner of a professional boxing match. Period. If you watch the fight Norton had a nice lead after eight rounds. Nine to 15 it was a different story as Ali won a majority of these rounds making it a close bout. Norton’s corner told him not to take any chances before the 15th round which ranks as the worst advise ever provided to any fighter in boxing history. Norton did nothing for 90% of the round and in doing so gave the bout to Ali. Remember this was 1976 and the prevailing idea was that you needed to TAKE the title from the champion with no ambiguity. Norton and his corner knew this going in.
Strongly disagree. If Ali hit Norton with the blows he kod Foreman and Bonavena with, Norton would've dropped like a sack of potatoes.
But that was before Ali's decline and Foreman was knocked out by exhaustion more than anything else. Ali never came close to knocking down Norton in any of their fights and never floored another opponent after the glass-jawed Richard Dunn which was the fight immediately before the third Norton bout.
But, again, that's a matter of opinion, isn't it? I would never say to someone that scoring boxing might not be their thing if they score a fight in favour of someone I thought won 6 rounds.
Yes, I was referring to the 15th round of their third fight. If Ali couldn't stop Alfredo Evangelista and never had Leon Spinks in serious trouble despite training his arse off for the rematch then Ali was never going to stop a fighter of Norton's calibre.
Ali had bad hands for the majority of his career post 1970. Prior to his bout with Foreman the issues he had eased and he punched with authority. You can see this from Foreman to Frazier 3. After Manila his hand problems returned and never left him for the rest of his career.
I'm a bit surprised by Ali's comments, but I don't think he would have made them if he didn't feel he lost. Personally, it's a close fight for me, going to Norton by 1 point the times I've scored it. I don't see a robbery at all, but opinions are often highly divided when it comes to scoring.
The one clip which shows Ali stating he lost is to be completely discounted. It’s been edited to make it appear as one thing when it is instead another. Let’s see the entire interview.
Known, well known, boxing history. If you are not aware of this start questioning your knowledge of the sport. Everyone else is already.
Sorry I forgot you are the all knowledgeable Houdini/Perry capable of no wrong and we're all "know nothings" as you like to put it. I'm sorry I questioned you your highness.