Closer fight in your eyes: Norton-Holmes, or Holmes-Witherspoon?

Great question ... I will say Tim Witherspoon gave Holmes the physically toughest fight and beating he took in any fight other than Tyson ... he pounded Holmes so badly to the body w right hands it took everything Holmes had to squeeze it out ..

 

I had Larry Holmes taking the first 8 rounds with his left jab and lateral movement in his June 9 1978 WBC Title bout against Champion Ken Norton. But in the later part of that 15 rounder, I saw Norton coming back with some vicious body blows to Holmes torso, much the same that Norton landed on Jimmy Young on Nov 5 1977. The last round of the Holmes vs Norton was a doozy, both fighters exhausted, continued to land on each other. A very close bout and win for Larry Holmes.

 

The Norton fight seemed closer.

Witherspoon made it very competitive, but should've stepped on the gas more and been busier. He could've won clearly if he was closing out rounds in a more convincing fashion.

 

Exactly. The earlier fight could have gone to Norton, while Witherspoon took too much time off in the last three rounds to win.

In fact, Tim's showboating in the final rounds was the most obvious indicator of his boxing immaturity.

 

I had them both as either-way fights although I admit that I have not watched them in long time.

 

The showboating was crazy - the fight was there for Spoon to take...meanwhile Larry was still working, scoring points.

I remember the commentary buying into the showboating - giving a false read on the final rounds - failing to duly note that Tim’s work rate had notably dropped in deference to style rather than substance.

 

If Ken was afforded just 10% of the biased lean afforded to Ali when Ali faced Ken in their rubber, Ken would’ve copped a UD over Larry.

Just imo, they did Ken no favours in the scoring against Holmes. If they had even shown a smidge of bias, it would likely have been enough to tip the fight over in Norton’s favour.

For mine, though the early rounds were clearly compartmentalised in Holmes’s favour, the second half turned it into a fight that could’ve gone either way by a p-hair or be called a draw.

 

I thought Holmes clearly outpointed each of them but the Witherspoon fight seemed more competitive until the final stretch. I didn’t think the Norton fight was that close tbh. Holmes put too many close but clear rounds in the bank.

 

If any fighter was afforded 10% of the bias towards Ali then boxing history would look a lot different.

I think Larry's rounds are clearer. It's never really gone down as a controversial decision because they got it right. Of course, some good scribes had Kenny shading it but a few good pundits had Leonard beating Duran at ringside too- but since then, this goes down as a close but clear win, just like Larry's generally has.

I've scored it twice and both times had Larry a winner by about three rounds, and that's with giving Kenny the last, which maybe could have been called even, as while Kenny has more of the round, Larry's moments stand out more and Norton is the one who looks more in trouble.

 

The NY times actually did describe the decision as controversial - but I understand you allowed for some scribes disagreeing with the decision.

https://www.nytimes.com/1978/06/10/...ton-on-a-split-decision-challengers-jabs.html

Close rounds, depending on which side you fall, can give rise to somewhat different scorecards.

Agree that there were rounds that Holmes won more clearly - imo, the most obvious rounds were from 1 to about 5 or 6.

During those rounds, Norton expressly held back - looking to Holmes to tire himself out.

After the fight, Norton admitted that he erred in that strategy and regretted not coming on earlier in the fight.

Personally, I think it was partly due to Norton wanting to conserve his own tank a bit - Ken was near 36? (his true YOB perhaps not known at the time).

Though looking the part and likely being as fit as he could possibly be at his age, fair to assume Ken’s stamina wasn’t quite what it once was.

Even so, Ken came back extremely strong IMO, utilising superior power shots, pulling back Holmes’ early lead to make it an even and true nail biter down the championship stretch.

 

Yes, some had Norton winning at the time, like they did Leonard. But as the year's went by they didn't seem as vocal. My guess is, like Montreal, they rewatched it and felt the decision was just. I think the NY Times had Leonard ahead too, as did a few others.

Some scribes had Frazier beating Ali too in their 2nd fight (Jerry Fitch, Sandy Allen of Boxing International- that mag even stated how diverse the scores were at ringside with some having Frazier a clear winner- their cover stated "Did Ali really win Superfight 2"). But as the years have gone by there's no real controversy there, other than about Ali's holding/leaning.

I grew up not aware all 3 mentioned (HvsN, DvL & AvF) were controversial fights at all, just very close ones (as opposed to say, Ali-Norton 3, Zarate-Pintor, Cooper-Bugner, etc, in which you hear about the stink as soon as you hear/read about the fight). *

Maybe but Larry's inexperience going 15 also meant he struggled for a while in the 2nd half of the fight and he probably didn't pace himself well enough- hence why Norton got back into it (notwithstanding his own great efforts of course).

He did and many regard it as a nail biter, fair enough, but nearly as many had Holmes by around 3 rounds. Certainly on here in the past they did, there seems to be a mix of 'Holmes by 1 or Holmes by 3".


* This reminds me, a few weeks ago i found out (or remembered) that Jeff Ryan of World Boxing/KO actually had Lewis-Holy 1 a draw, so it got me wondering, is there any really bad verdicts where no one scored for the obvious beneficiary? It always seem someone, somewhere agrees.

 

I thought Dundee went way overboard in his praise of 'Spoon. It got particularly annoying when Tim's work rate dipped so much during the last rounds.

That decision was far from a robbery (which some silly members of the press asserted); to this day I'm peeved that one judge scored it for Witherspoon (not sure how he made that call).

 

Razor close fights where the decision could reasonably go either way or even be called a draw aren’t necessarily deemed to be controversial per strict definition of that term.

My view is simply that the fight was extremely close and could’ve been awarded either way or dead even.

In fact, I’ve often read people state that they don’t really have a problem with a decision due to the very fact that it was super close and could’ve been awarded either way by a point or two, one way or another - a sentiment that does actually make complete sense.

Even if deemed controversial at the time - the real time perception can be washed away somewhat over ensuing years - for one thing, in terms of their careers - Larry’s was on the upswing - Ken’s very much on the down curve -

Holmes’ numerous successful defences of the title thereafter might’ve been seen to have vindicated the prior passing of the torch or at least overshadowed any prior doubts that might’ve existed re the specific decision awarded in the Norton fight.

As to Larry’s pacing - if he fought more conservatively then he doesn’t necessarily win the early rounds as he did - and Norton’s strategy was to allow Holmes to tire himself - so, if Larry waned because of that (I don’t think he really did), then that could be viewed as Norton’s strategy coming to fruition in some measure in the later rounds.

I think it was just a fast, highly active, top shelf HW fight which yielded natural fatiguing, and ebbs and flows in the second half of the fight.

Certainly, Norton himself was exhausted toward the end which lent to his diminished resilience on occasion in the later rounds. Just to firm up - Ken was actually very near 35 - not 36 as I guessed in my previous posts.

Interesting that, when googling top 10 most controversial HW decisions, I scanned multiple lists that didn’t even include the Ali-Norton rubber - so some real time controversies can dim over time due to a number of obvious reasons.

Just me personally, I think the decision in Ali-Norton III pokes its head into the realms of deemed robberies.

Part of the problem was, I think, Ali hypnotising announcers and judges alike that he wasn’t actually being scored against and damaged whilst playing the rope a rope or variances of that strategy.

If Norton had been awarded the decision vs Ali, and then fought Holmes in 78, he would’ve be considered a bonafide Champ defending his title , not a glorified, paper Champ, and that might’ve garnered some bias from the judges against Holmes - as it was, the actual scores didn’t reflect any bias in Norton’s favour.

Bypassing the title awarded to Ken outside of the ring (which many did, I think) the match could just as easily have been viewed as an eliminator or decider for the vacant title, no concessions afforded to either fighter.

As to noted scribes/commentators going against the majority - a young Larry Merchant scored the FOTC in favour of Ali - I don’t if Merchant ever actually retracted that opinion.

As for me, I’ve scored the FOTC in favour of Frazier but have it lot closer than most.

Listening to the commentary for the FOTC, you’d almost think that Joe was also being awarded extra points for taking numerous shots to the head with ridiculous impunity - but they were heavy, scoring punches that were taking their toll nonetheless.

Similarly, I have Leonard vs Duran closer than most - Roberto winning but taking the pedal off the metal for the last 2-3 rounds, perhaps to catch a breather and/or to avert unnecessary risk - thus allowing Ray to pull it up that much closer after an already reasonably close fight.

 

Exactly Rules.

Among the announcers, Dundee was the chief culprit in talking up the show boating - as if it had some substantive weight in the scoring - which, of course, it didn’t.

Dundee was clearly emotionally invested in his OTT pumping for an upset in Tim’s favour.

Close, exciting fight but still should’ve been a solid UD in favour of Holmes imo.

 

Yes, this fits under that category. But I can't see Norton a winner at all personally.

Good point this.

I agree there. But it's the same with Norton if he'd have started quicker, he'd have had less in the tank towards the end.

Really? This surprises me if the list is 'heavyweight' and 'decisions'. .

I do, as a 'whole'. But saying that, the individual scoring of certain 'rounds' is nowhere near as bad as some of those in Ali's fights with Young, Lyle and Shavers, which, for want of a better term look 'pre-determined'; to say the least

The only thing that hypnotises me about Ali post-jungle is generally how boring his style is and most of the fights are dull too (obviously not counting Manila, which is still easily the most exciting fight involving Ali for me. The Shavers fight goes through me too much- not nice to see).

Yes, it could have been worse for Larry I guess, which would have been a shame, considering he deserved it.

I can see people having it by just one on a rounds system myself, using 10-point must, it's a greater margin.

Same here. Close but with a definite winner, like FOTC...and Larry vs Ken