The third Ali Norton fight raises controversy everytime it is mentioned. Most are in one camp or the other as to the result ( I feel it was so close I dont mind one way or the other, it is an average fight quality wise in my opinion). Holmes Norton is held up as a defining fight for Holmes, winning the title, name opponent etc. My question is, Holmes gets a razor thin decision over a 34-35 year Norton while he himself is 28-29 and should be hitting his straps, while a faded Ali post Manilla squeezes a controversial decision over the same Norton a couple of years prior, which is the more meritorious result?
I feel that Larry Holmes beat Ken Norton more convincingly than Muhammad Ali ever did. I thought that Larry won enough of the early rounds of his fight with Norton to take the decision by at least a few points. I also think Larry won the 15th round, as he staggered Norton pretty good right at the end. A young, prime Ali would have outboxed Norton like he did for the first 5 rounds of their second fight.
Holmes won clearly and thats how the story should be told. Norton on paper was old then lost quite a bit but in that fight nothing looked old about him.
