Why does everyone think Norton was robbed against Ali?

It was a close nip and tuck battle. A live rebroadcast of the fight a few weeks later had a panel of boxing experts...writers, pep, Louis, Graziano...etc scoring the bout live and at the end all the scores were tabulated. Result was a draw. I've seen the fight many times since that night and always find it difficult to score. However I typically give it to Ali on the strength of the last round which was clearly his.

 

Very close fight. You would say Norton probably deserved the victory but there are certainly 8 rounds you can justify scoring for Ali so no robbery.

 

Exactly. The fight should not have been close, but it was!

A robbery is when it's not even close. This was close.

If it is close and the loser loses the last round you can't complain on his behalf. He still blew the last round of a close fight.

 

It's been a while, but last time I checked on youtube, most viewers of the entire footage gave it to Ali 8-7 or 9-6. Ali went to his toes in the final round, flicked out a few jabs, but Norton merely followed around while hardly attempting a punch.

Ali banked the first five rounds of Norton II the same way, then took the final round. The only way that one's a draw is if Ken swept rounds six to 11, and live commentary from ringside had Ali winning that one at the final bell.

Many also think Shavers did enough to earn the decision over Ali, an opinion even Earnie has disagreed with on camera for years. (In the ring afterwards, Shavers has said he believed he won it, but changed his opinion when he viewed the footage himself, and agrees the judges got it right.)

 

It was a tough fight that could have gone either way. To say it was a robbery goes way too far. Mercante stated after the bout he had trouble scoring the fight the rounds were so close.

 

Because Ken landed more punches, the harder punches, dominated more rounds , hurt Ali to the body badly in the fifth and clearly won the fight .. All Ali did was throw pitter pat jabs and clown .. it was a disgrace ..

 

Re-framing it, I think a Norton win to take the title from such a distinguished champion in an affair that close would be far more controversial today. (Ditto Holmes-Witherspoon.)

 

Obviously Norton thought Norton won.
Ali thought Norton won.
I am going to go with them.

 

Norton would have been champion if he would have fought the 15th and several mid rounds just like he did all the rest. I am sure this plagued Norton for a long time afterwards. He should have realized a fight such as this was is difficult to score.

 

Absolutely.

The challenger can never afford to take the last round off.

Old champions know all they have to do is keep rounds close, it's for the challenger to win them, and then control the championship rounds, especially the last one.

 

Ali got a gift, plain and simple .. the overwhelming number of newspaper reporters who covered it gave it to Norton. Ali knew he lost as well .. look at him and his corner after the fight

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxZ4RshQYE8

(1:04.5)

The announcers said Norton won .. Ali and his corner look like they know they lost .. revise it all you want .. not only did Ali get a gift but he did everything possible to make sure he never fought Norton again and had his title stripped because he kept ducking him ..

 

Norton was robbed, and it was not necessarily because he lost the last decision against Ali.

He was Leon Spink’s mandatory, after he won the title.

Between the ageing Ali, and the one hit wonder Spinks, Norton probably should have held the lineal title!

It wasn’t the best era, but he was briefly the best around!

 

People can point to the 15th round as if that somehow cost Norton the title, but I thought he had it in the bag after 14 anyway.

Norton's corner were guilty of naivete given that at that point you had to really beat Ali well just to win a close decision against him. As Pacheco put it, "the Ali legend has a history of impressing the judges and the referee".

 

Thanks!

Why do people continuing to say that ringside reporters had it overwhelmingly for Norton when this article it clearly wasn't so?

Norton could have been given the decision, but no robbery.