Ali's legacy if he lost the Young and 3rd Norton fight on points?

I think it would have been taken in much the same context as Evander Holyfield losing 2 out of 3 to Riddick Bowe. His legacy may have been tainted a bit, but he still would have been rated higher than Norton, and the die hard fans would have written it off as Ali being past his prime. Not to mention, most fans and experts viewed his third fight with Norton as a loss anyway, yet he's still revered as the greatest of all time. As for the Young loss ( if it happened ), It probably would have been viewed like the Holmes loss only earlier. In either case, it may have drove Ali into retirement sooner, eliminating the losses to Spinks, Holmes and Berbick, so really he wouldn't be losing much.

My $0.02

 

Good question.....I'm not sure how my view of Ali's place in history would change with the additional two losses. I think Ali definitely lost the third Norton fight. Ken Norton deserved to win the heavyweight championship of the world that night. Norton's ranking would be higher if he had officially gotten the nod. He wouldn't be viewed as a "paper champion" like he is to many. And beating Ali in 1976 would still be a good win; Ali was still a good fighter at that point. He wasn't prime Ali anymore, but he was still a good heavyweight fighter, and his fight the following year against Shavers proved that.

 

Not really cuz most fans agree that Ali was finished as the great fighter after Manila. His legacy was assured. He had 2 losses up to that point and 3 losses after Manila and 2 close calls in the fights you mentioned. Nuff said.

 

Agreed,'

If Ali had called it quits after his rubber match with smoke, he likely would have been viewed as good, or possibly even better than he actually is. Recapturing the heavyweight title for the third time wasn't worth losing to Leon Spinks, and his later fights with Norton, Young, Holmes, and Berbick did him no service.

 

yeah it cud be Archie - i thought it was Folley as Ali was pretty invincible in 1967. Good question bravecubs - Not sure actually LOL. Anyone?

 

Ali should have quit after Manilla. Ken Norton was robbed in their third fight and I think Ali knew that he got a gift in that fight. Jimmy Young said his fight against Ali was his easiest yet he was robbed of the decision as well.
Could this be the defining factor in determining ali's greatness? He used everything in his arsenal to get any kind of edge before and after the fight.
His mouth, his marketability, and his personality all helped him get the attention of the judges.

 

Well it can't be Archie Moore, because it says "Ali the invincible". When Ali fought Moore, he was still known as Clay. So it's from at least 1966 (he took the name in 64, but only fought Liston during that period and it doesn't look like that's Sonny on the canvas).

 

Sometimes it depends on how you lose. Young was ducking through the ropes and flopping around in a very unorthodox manner. I don't think he deserved to take the most prestigious title in sports away from a legendary champion using this strategy. Norton, on the other hand, did seem to outwork Ali and put a lot of rounds in the bank. His mistake was letting Ali steal the 15th round - which turned out to be the round that swung it in Ali's favor. Even if they had been loses I don't think it hurts Ali legacy too much. It would be similar to an over the hill Hloyfield losing to Byrd and Donald. If Ali had been dominated and knocked out (like Holyfield was against Toney) it would be more harmful to his historical standing. But Ali was not in trouble against Norton or Young. They were close fights that went his way.

 

In my opinion it would not significantly atract from Ali's legacy or body of work but it would significantly reduce the size of the hole he knocked in the heavyweight lineage. This might have reduced his standing relative to Joe Louis but nobody much else.

Norton would in my opinion not have benefited that much. He would still be Ali's kryptonite and the guy who always got starched by punchers.

Jimmy Young would be the big winner!!!!!!!!!!!

He would be the all time spoiler and likley start to creep into top 20 lists.

There are paralel historical questions with other champions!!!!!!!

 

As far as I am concerned Ali added very little to his legacy post FrazierIII. He kept the Ali magic going all the way though to Holmes; sure I was six, but I knew Muhammad Ali always wins and the Big Black Cloud unbeaten or not, was not going to beat the Lip.

The reality is all Ali did post Foreman was have an amazing finale to the Frazier trilogy, scrape the Norton series, and damage his health no end for fighting arguably with hindsight as much as seven years too long.

 

About the same, a lot of people feel he lost the Norton and Young fight but he did not get the loss, thats part of the Ali mistique, a lot of his fights were stopped when he signaled the REF to stop it, Ali commanded, he was such a big figure that the officials listened and when he was hurt he shook his head and wobbled even more, but remember he was the 1st to do this and a lot of Ali fans were not fight fans, or boxing experts just Ali fans

 

I have zero idea why the win needs to be "offical" and "on paper".

He lost the third fight.

Leonard lost against Hearn's the second time out.

Ali ADMITTED at a press conference immediately after the third Norton fight that he felt he lost it.

It's quite obvious why Norton wasn't awarded the decision, the politics that dictated it.

I don't understand why you'd take away what Norton accomplished because three biased judges and behind the scenes manipulators saw fit to screw Norton.

 

It's funny how he could do things like that. He transcended the sport so completely. He was a man who was paid to punch other men in the face and yet he's on of the centuries biggest peace figures.