How can Holmes-Norton be considered very close?

That injury was public knowledge prior to their match, but minimized somewhat because training injuries are typical in boxing. From what you indicated, you read Pat Putnam's story in Sports Illustrated detailing it. For anybody who hasn't read it and wants to know the main story as it was presented immediately after their bout, here it is:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1093781/1/index.htm

Norton's hard right on the left biceps of Holmes midway through round seven would indeed coincide with Ken's eighth round breakthrough and turning of the tide. The injury would also account for Larry's fast start, knowing that left might start to fail as the fight progressed.

The initial diagnosis recommended a postponement of four months before competing. Holmes-Evangelista took place five months after Holmes-Norton, Larry's longest hiatus after any of his first eight title bouts. He finally took a comparable amount of time off between Ali and Berbick, but inactivity of longer than the five months between Norton and Evangelista was unusual during his reign. (The other exceptions were between Snipes and Cooney, Cooney and Cobb, then later he took a year off between Marvis and Smith. But he took on Bey four months after Smith, Williams two months after Bey, then Michael Spinks came along four months after Williams.) It seems to me that the five month interval between Norton and Evangelista could indeed be suggestive of the severity of the torn left biceps.

 

I think the arm thing is only an excuse as to why he didn't beat this aging Norton (who'd be crushed by Shavers soon after) more easily. I mean, it was supposed to be his left that was busted, but that was the one he won the fight with. It worked more than well.

 

Yeah, but that is always a bit hard to score. How many jabs equalises a cleanly landing power punch? It can be scored in a number of ways, but I think it's fair to call it a quite evenly contested fight, with Holmes edging it.

 

Holmes won it on the jab alone. Odd thing is, rumors were going around that Holmes had a torn left bicep from training, but he pumped his jab anyway, so to hell with the rumor.

If the judges scored the fight close it was cuz Norton was the chump and he was also more popular with the fans in 1978 then Holmes was. Plus, Norton did display a real gritty ring performance that night in Vegas as well.

Holmes won, but the fight was still epic all the way around...:deal

MR.BILL:hat

I reviewed Holmes TKOing David Bey inside 10 rds yesterday. I have it on tape from 1985 and It seemed like yesterday I recorded it... Holmes really put the wallop on Bey after the 7th round...
:bbb

 

Im with you. Ive never understood why people think this fight is close. the closing rounds were somewhat dramatic but Holmes was well in control IMO.

 

Holmes was throwing with both hands all night, yes he tore or pulled his bicep muscle during preparation.

apparently he just never threw a right hand or jab for weeks on end, and just hoped that it would be recovered by fight night.

 

Holmes was 6 years younger than Norton , just think about the Norton of Ali #1 against the Holmes of Spinks #1 , same age difference , and Holmes was the one whom aged slower !

 

I've always had the fight close but clear, 8-7 for Holmes. I give him the first 7 rounds and round 13, and the rest to Norton.

I've always thought the judges were wrong on two counts - first for having the fight even going into the 15th (I had Holmes ahead), and then for giving the last round to Holmes (I thought Norton clearly won it).

 

144 to 143 for holmes

 

no way rd 13 was a 10 to 8 rd dude

 

Exactly how I saw it when I watched the fight.

 

That's open for debate about the age....... A lot of sources state Norton was hatched in 1945 rather then 1943...... I wish Kenny could clarify this mess, but he prolly doesn't recollect....

MR.BILLhat

 

interesting , but still just a speculation .
So make it Norton of Ali #1 vs. Holmes of Witherspoon