This is about as 50/50 as any fight gets, imo. Two great fighters, imo. Holmes gets his just due, Norton doesn't in a lot of cases.
Very true,FastHands. Norton may not have been a GREAT,but only one or two notches down from being one.
I've always looked at Norton kind of like Jack Sharkey. Not stylisticly, but in terms of "could have beens." Both Fighters seemed to have moments of greatness, but inexplicable lapses against what should have been lesser opponents (ex...Shavers/Norton, Carnera/Sharkey). Both won titles , but were unable to hold them (although Norton lost to an ATG), both had controversial losses in title fights, and both were very good fighters who had the misfortune of being active at the same time as ATG champions. 1973 Norton could well have beaten 1978 Holmes, but it's doubtful any version of Norton would have beaten Larry at his peak.
Hi Stevie. I think he was great...a case can be made that he deserved to go 4-0 against Ali & Holmes...locks for most in a top 5 ATG list...OK he lost badly to Foreman, Shavers & Cooney...but imo only the Foreman fight was in Ken's prime, against absolute peak Foreman who felt invincible after Kingston and before George's confidence was shattered by Ali...yes, Norton was a great fighter in my eyes... It would have been awesome if Holmes and Norton had been at their peak at the same time, I would love to have seen a series of title fights between the 2, a trilogy at least, with wins for both and the title changing hands between the 2, and I think every fight would have been a war, fights that would be talked about for years...great stuff!
Wellllllll given that Norton wasn't washed, he was only just past it and that the fight was a very clear win for Holmes. Also, Holmes of 1980, was more experienced and better conditioned than the one Norton faced.
His jab flowed pretty much as freely as ever truth be told. His specialist 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%." The Holmes jab was working well quite late as evidenced by the 12th round.
Yeah, I've had it the more or less the same, I think the closest I had it was 12-3. Either way, the SD flattered Norton and Cossell's card is ridiculous
The fight they actually had saw Norton obviously past his best but still quite decent. Holmes probably improved a touch post Norton. It was a very close fight and most had it for Holmes by a round whilst the AP had it for Norton by 1. The official cards all had a one point fight with 2 out of the 3 for Holmes. Norton fought conservatively over the first 5 thinking Holmes, inexperienced at the 15 round level, would tire later. He was wrong. Holmes took the vast majority of the first 5 and Norton the vast majority of the next 5. Holmes finished slightly the better and in winning the final round deserved the verdict. With both at their best there would be nothing in it. If they had three fights there wouldn't be more than two points, if that, in any of them.
First fight 10-5 Holmes Any other hypothetical matchup Holmes wins. Holmes had a much harder punishing jab than Ali's which alone makes it harder to deal with along with that KO power uppercut. The Ali Holmes comparison's vs Norton have gotten blown out of proportion. Holmes is a much harder fight for Norton. Regardless of Nortons age or prime I thought he fought the best fight of his life vs Holmes and still lost convincingly.
This matchup would be closer with a younger Norton ,Norton landed some heavy shots on Holmes in a fight where he was obviously past it. I still make Larry the favorite but taking 5 years off Kenny could make all the difference from the 10 to the 15th round. Holmes was obviously the better fighter ,but styles make it at least a toss up in my opinion.
Holmes' left bicep tear negatively impacted his performance against Norton and imo kept him from stopping him. In fact, I'm not sure the fight would have been anywhere near as close had Larry his signature, vicious jab (which was reduced to a still very fast measuring tool through most of their championship fight). Watch the Shavers I fight and then the Norton...the left isn't the same. Keeping the above in mind, Larry would still have had problems with Kenny in his Ali-beating prime. The problem for Ken is that Larry was overall a stronger puncher than Ali (check out the knockout ratios of each, for one), and Norton was susceptible to what was Holmes' superior right uppercut (watch the Foreman and Shavers demolitions of Kenny). The Ali-beating Holmes, having the heavier jab than Ali, would have had an easier time keeping Ken away and would eventually make him reverse his forward movement. That would be the kiss of death for Ken, who would be staggered repeatedly by the right cross, dropped by the uppercut, and ultimately stopped in 11.
Fast, but maybe not so hard. Larry's left hook (never a great punch) wasn't very effective in the fight, and his jab didn't have the weight it did against Shavers I. I believe 1980 Holmes would have beat any of those fighters in 1975.
I had Norton winning their 1978 fight close. Granted that was an older slower version of Norton. Holmes was the better all around fighter but head to head Kenny Norton is their kryptonite. Norton would do a better job of nullifying Larry's jab.
