You can pick how you want to do it. It can be things like a fighter winning and losing out near the end via a come behind shot, just missing weight, being in an era of killers etc
Larry Holmes. Just before Tyson lowered the boom and KO’d Larry, Holmes launched his own uppercut that got caught in the rope strand. Had that landed, it would’ve been good night Mikey. Not even a 1000 Meyran’s counting end to end nor 10,000 parrots in attendance would’ve saved him. Seriously though, I totally agree with @Fergy on Ken Norton. Not sure if it’s for the same reasons - I feel Ken was robbed vs Ali 3 (others might feel different and I respect that). If awarded that decision, Ken goes 2-1 against Ali no less and of course becomes Champ, good and proper, winning the title in the ring against the man when it counted most. As it was, Ken was later awarded the paper title, first cab off the rank to challenge Ken - Larry freaking Holmes. Even then (again, some might disagree) it could be argued that Ken didn’t lose that fight - deserving a draw at the least. So for Ken, to either win and/or keep the title, he had to beat and/or defend against, at any given time, 1 of 3 ATGs at or near the top of the all time rankings tree. In the case of Ali, Ken was also fighting not just against the man but also Muhammad’s legend and popularity - at least in fight 3. Some suggest Ken blew that fight by not going out to take round 15 - again, I respect that opinion. However, in my mind, that was like expecting Ken to put the result, which was already beyond doubt (in Ken’s favour) , even further beyond a doubt to duly account for Ali’s legend, aura and ultimate sway with the judges. So, all in all, Ken goes down in history as a paper Champ, never having won the title officially in the ring and never having successfully defended the so called paper title. To compound his bad “luck”, pundits in assessment of his career, putting his competitiveness with the likes of Ali and Holmes down to mere stylistic dynamics and related advantages. Just reading it as framed in the paragraph above tells nowhere near the whole and true story. Norton was in fact an excellent fighter all round, poison for many opponents and was unlucky at the most acutely important points in his career. Just imo of course.
Yes pal. For those exact reasons precisely! I do look at Ken s career at times and feel sorry for him. But then I think, he got at least one win over Muhammad Ali...! So, he didn't do bad.
Kens "skill" was more about what Ali and Holmes lacked. He is the most overrated heavy ever right next to Foreman. Also fight 3? Against Ali's shadow? That's when it counted most because of a title?
He didn’t too badly at all, did he? : ) Also, Ken rightfully gave his own opinions on those fights but he didn’t disproportionately moan about them or define himself as being unlucky - he was no whiner. He was actually one of the classiest in the game.
I'll throw Tyrone Everett in there. First You get robbed in title fight in your home-town - how often does that happen? - and then before the rematch You get murdered by your girlfriend, at age 24.
Sam Langford, possibly the greatest P4P fighter ever who never became a world champion in any of the major divisions.
Absolutely. He came across, in the interview s, as a decent fella. He made a joke about his ko to George, saying he backed up and stumbled! Lol, got to laugh along with the man there. But us classic fan s recognise a true champion in Ken, even if the judges didn't always..
Disagree. Though there were some similarities, Ali and Holmes weren’t carbon copies of one another and Norton was very successful against an acceptable range of styles otherwise. It usually does count most when the title is at stake, many have streaked to a title shot only to blow the big one - also, Norton had previously faced Ali (the pre Frazier II and pre Zaire Ali) twice in ‘73, the ledger at 1-1, the 2nd fight could’ve gone either way imo. If Ali was a mere shadow by ‘76 then the prior clashes with Norton made no mean contribution to that. Do you think the “shadow” of Ali actually beat Norton in ‘76? Seems illogical for such a faded version of Ali to have beaten a still viable Norton (with the Holmes fight still in Ken’s future) by UD in ‘76 when the fittest version of comeback Ali, 3 years prior, went life and death with Ken. I don’t think Ken is overrated, just imo.
Agree and also the rest of the black dynamite crew of that era - but by reason, if we consider Sam the best of the bunch, we could say he was the unluckiest but they were all unlucky to be born into that era, including during Johnson’s reign with the accent on a Great White Hope to tip Jack over.
