Larry Holmes '82 vs. Ken Norton '73

Norton in 1973 was in his prime despite turning 30 that year. He was a late comer to the boxing game. Despite Larry Holmes greatness i think Norton wins a close UD.

 

The bicep thing gets quite a bit overdone i think.

The official prognosis was -

On Wednesday, Garrick examined Holmes, confirmed the injury and said Kleven's treatment was perfect.
"Can he fight?" Giachetti asked.
"If he wants to," Garrick said. "When the fight starts, his arm should be 100%. It's later the trouble will come. In the late rounds he will lose 6% to 8% effectiveness. And if he gets hit on the tear he could lose as much as 40%."

We are hardly talking a one armed fighter. An estimated 6-8% and not until the late rounds is pretty negligible. We can look at the later rounds like 12 or 13 i think it was when Holmes was still jabbing brilliantly. I've never seen even Holmes himself claim the injury hampered him during the fight and his superb left hand display throughout the fight would indicate it went rather well.

It's noteworthy that Holmes had the stones to go into a title fight with any injury no matter how big or small hanging over him.

 

He had an amazing heart. But look at Ken, too. Norton for all intents and purposes was getting shown up for nearly half a dozen rounds, but he came back for such a strong showing for the next five or so. Even in the fifteenth...how about that Holmes left uppercut? Norton walked through it and kept coming. Unbelievable courage and perseverance.

I think, in the 15th round, champion and challenger were undistinguishable.

 

the only thing that hurt him was that he wasn't too good,

 

Norton's gameplan was to actually conserve energy early thinking Holmes would tire later due to inexperience and not being proven over 15 rounds. It was a reasonable idea as no-one knew Holmes had plenty of 15 round heart and stamina until after this bout. Both of course showed great heart and stamina to give us one of the great heavyweight battles.

 

One of those fights where you hate see either man lose.

 

If they never had that fight I would say Holmes, but I thought Norton won the actual fight, although it could've gone either way, it's the fact Norton had a fight with Holmes that could've gone either way and he was past it by that point, so I just think what he could've done in his prime
I went with Norton on points

 

Holmes was always more consistent than Ken Norton and I see a UD..A very tough fight, but more using his jab in this fight and not trying to get into a slugfest.

 

Absolutely, they both left it all out there in the ring that's for sure.

 

While it depends on how much the bicep tear hampered Larry and how much Larry might’ve improved since their actual fight, a fully fit Holmes v a prime Norton might present as a net break even, with as much (or as little) to choose between them as was the case in their actual fight. Not to underrate Norton’s successful application of himself against other fighters but as clichéd as it sounds, Norton was literally stylistic poison for the likes of both Ali and Holmes. Prime v prime, over 2 fights you might see similar razor edge outcomes like Ali-Norton 1 and 2. I can't see Norton putting Holmes out in any scenario but if the later round opportunity arose for Larry, unlike Ali, I think Holmes might have a better chance of stopping Norton.

 

A younger Norton versus a more experienced Holmes without a torn bicep. I'll take Holmes in another classic slugfest!!

 

Norton had a sharper offense in '73, than he did in '78, and it showed against Ali.
Holmes was on the tail-end of his prime in '82 and past his peak by then.
Norton can edge this for a decision.

 

Ken Norton in 1973 had some momentum on his side, 1982 Larry Holmes had beaten the likes of Gerry Cooney and Randall Tex Cobb. But let us not forget that Ken lost a split verdict against Muhammad Ali on Sept 10 1973 because he was not aggressive like he was in the first fight against Ali on March 31 1973. That version of Ken would get blasted out by then champion George Foreman six months later (March 26 1974) in Caracas, Venezuels, KO 2. I think that Larry would have employed the same strategy from their actual June 9 1978 encounter which consisted of sticking and moving, Norton would concentrate on body work, attempting to force Hplmes to fight off the ropes. Larry does not possess the power in his dukes that George Foreman had but Larry had good stamina in 1982, he went the 15 round distance with Cobb. In the closing rounds of his 1973 and 1976 rematch encounters against Ali, his lack of aggressiveness cost him the judges verdicts, he relaxed. Even though Norton won his most important bout of 1973, Larry would take the last round and split decision as in the 1978 bout, leaving Norton shrugging his shoulders and the look of puzzlement.

 

Trilogy material.

Norton stated that after the third Ali fight he lost a lot of heart and dedication. By all accounts Holmes' biceps injury wasn't nearly as serious as it might sound and even if it did affect his performance to an extend, Norton was also faded or outright washed up at that point. Then again, Holmes arguably wasn't fully in his prime either.

82 Holmes vs 73 Norton is an entirely different story. Holmes is definitely more mature, perhaps fading a tad already, while Kenny is still hungry, determined, and has Eddie Futch in his team at the time. I'd toss a coin, because the outcome will definitely be influenced by factors like corner performance and more miscellaneous factors.

 

Especially considering they think it's 1982 Norton rather than 1973 Norton, as the thread says! lol