I've said this a few times before but when i originally watched Holmes vs Norton, i had it fairly clearly for Holmes, the Larry Holmes boxset was my first careet set my dad bought me. And i was kind of fan boying over Holmes as a kid, when i watched it like a decade ago. When i rewatched it again recently and actually sat down properly and did a scorecard, as you can see from my scorecard in this thread, i had it alot close than i originally remembered it. Overall i think it comes down to how dominant you think Holmes was early on, because alot of the early rounds Holmes was brilliant with the jab.
I might have to do the same just because this quality is so good, i think as a boxing fan you have to treat yourself to it atleast once.
I think you're right. I know some people, who gave Larry a clean sweep of rounds 1-7. Personally, I have no problem with Larry being given rounds 1 to 5. I reckon Norton had a bit of a case for round 6 and a stronger case for 7, but both of those are swing rounds. IMO, Norton clearly won round 8, with round 9 being another swing round. Norton clearly gets rounds 10 and 11, with 12 being very close again (swing round). Holmes gets 13 Norton 14 And that final round... ...well, that seems to go in either direction as well. (swing round) So, the way I see it, there are: 4 clear rounds to Norton 6 clear rounds to Holmes and 5 swing rounds. Which allows for cards as wide as 146-139, but a more even split of the swing rounds looks something like 144-141 or 143-142.
Here’s my updated card: Holmes-Norton 1 10-9 2 10-9 3 10-9 4 10-9 5 10-9 6 10-9 (closer) 7 10-10 8 9-10 (close) 9 10-9 (close) 10 9-10 (not much in these rounds) 11 9-10 (Norton’s clearest round of the fight so far) 12 9-10 (close and great action) 13 10-9 (more great action and Holmes’ best round for several rounds) 14 9-10 (another top round and Norton gets the decisive edge this time) 15 9-10 (crazy final round. I had Norton winning it) Holmes 144-142 Norton Holmes by 8-6 in rounds with 1 even
It’s interesting how much our informal (read: not pointedly trying to score) impression of a fight can change when you actually do score and take on the responsibility of observing/assessing every detail and nuance of the action. It’s no easy thing to score some fights and judges only get the one and only viewing. Imagine if they stalled decisions for fights for about 2 weeks to allow judges as many repeat viewings as necessary to satisfy themselves that they’ve got it right? Nah, true, it wouldn’t go down too well. Fans need to know the decision forthwith so that they can either agree wholeheartedly or immediately commence their complaining that it was a bad decision. Lol.
My updated scorecard after watching the high quality version. 1 Holmes 2 Holmes 3 Holmes 4 Holmes 5 Holmes 6 Holmes 7 Holmes 8 Norton 9 Norton 10 Norton 11 Norton 12 Norton 13 Holmes 10-8 14 Norton 15 Norton 143-141 Holmes A few differences i scored the 7th and 9th round differently, and i also scored the 13th round a 10-8 for Holmes. I thought the 13th round was a very dominant round for Holmes, and worthy of a 10-8 round watching it again.
I have the exact same final scoring but scored several rounds differently 1 H 2 H 3 H 4 H 5 N 6 E (even) 7 H 8 N 9 N 10 N 11 N 12 H 13 H 14 N 15 H 6-8-1 for the challenger. I should look into rounds 5 through 7 again, my scoring differs from the rest ive seen here.
In simple words: marketing. Ali was the cash cow and the promotion machine was doing everything and anything to keep him at the top.
I think The Ring is still in a period here where they defined Fight of the Year as most significant, not so much best actual action.
I had it 9-6 Holmes about a year ago, never have felt it’s quite as close as they say. Norton took too long to get going.
You’re not alone in seeing not such a close fight - there’s a few who hold that opinion. I personally saw a very close fight. Larry dominating most of the early rounds of course but Ken coming on strong in the later rounds to peg back Larry’s early rounds lead for the most part. Norton actually said that it was his plan to hold back and let Holmes tire himself out - but Ken also said that he probably left the start of his run a bit too late. By age 35 (vs Holmes at 28) Norton likely also had to defer to his own deteriorated stamina and pace himself accordingly. If he shot too early he might’ve gassed badly in the later stages. Both guys were absolutely exhausted at the end and left nothing in the ring.
Let me re-phrase - I had it clear enough for Holmes & always have, but it’s probably misleading to say it wasn’t close, insofar as it turned into a life & death battle with many see-sawing moments & rounds. Just - it’s as simple as I said it for my money - Norton didn’t get a roll on for way too long. Once he got going, I gave him most rounds, but he gave away twenty metres in a 100-metre sprint.
Holmes - Norton peak vs peak would make beautiful music together. I can see a trilogy going 2-1 one way or the other.
Norton believed Holmes would struggle going 15 rounds and conserved energy letting Holmes make the pace in the early rounds. He admitted later that Holmes surprised him and he got it wrong.