Do Ali's Loss and Trouble With Norton Get Enough Consideration When Judging Ali?

[CF Gauss]

I know Muhammad Ali has very passionate fans, so let me make it clear hear that I am not intending for this thread to be a hit job. I just want to open up discussion on a topic that I think doesn't recieve much consideration.


Sometimes I think that Ali's loss to Norton and his two disputed victories over Norton do not get enough attention when assessing Ali's legacy.

This is especially striking here where people are always quick to downgrade fighters by picking out struggles with a few opponents. For instance, Foreman lost to Ali and Young so he's substantially downgraded for being unable to handle slick boxer types. Frazier lost to Foreman so he would always have lost to any slugger. Joe Louis struggled a bit with Billy Conn, so he's downgraded for not being dominant against opponents who were quick on their feet.

Many people say that Ali's loss to Frazier in the FOTC doesn't mean much because Ali had just come back from his exile. So Frazier didn't beat the "real" Ali. But what is the excuse for Ali-Norton I? It was 1973, and any supposed rust was no longer a factor.

Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that Ali never decisively beat Norton, even though they locked up two more times after their initial meeting. It was always life and death. One would expect more from a fighter widely hailed as the greatest of all time. (For instance, Joe Louis annhilated Max Schmeling in their rematch.)


As I said before, Joe Frazier's inability to defeat George Foreman is often identified as a fatal flaw. Many people generalize and conclude that Frazier would always have trouble with a first-rate slugger and, at least on ESB, it greatly diminishes Frazier's standing in all-time rankings and discussions. Similar critiques are made of other great boxers.

(Let's be clear that I'm not saying Ali's struggles with Norton were EXACTLY the same as Frazier's with Foreman, since Ali was competitive in the fights and they were close and went to the scorecards.)

So why isn't the same standard applied to Ali and his trouble with Norton? Is it because their first two fights weren't title fights? Was it because Ali had been in so many other big fights that no one cared?

Moreover, SHOULD Ali's trouble with Norton be held against him more than it is?

why is it that when Ali comes in terms of a resume people don't say "he lost to a very good, but not quite great fighter while in his prime"?

Why is it that when Ali comes up in terms of head-to-head discussions people don't say "Ali struggled mightily with unorthodox boxers like Kenny Norton"?


I'd appreciate any thoughts.

[Bokaj]

Besides bias I think there are mainly three reasons as to why Ali's struggles with Norton haven't had as large effect on the assesment on him as could be expected:

1. Ali was past his prime. Even for the two first fights he was some six years past the best versions we got to see of him. For the third fight he was so past it he struggled with every worthy contender he met.

2. Ali did beat just every type of boxer. Foreman never really truly conquered a really good slick, defensively skilled boxer and the heaviest puncher Frazier beat was Bonavena, whom he struggled with. If he had beaten say Lyle and Shavers convincingly, it would be easier to claim that Foreman was a one-off. Ali did beat good awkward/unorthodox fighters in Moore, Mildenberger and Bonavena. Terrell could perhaps also be mentioned here, since he at least was a known spoiler.

3. And this might be the most important one. By beating (albeit controversially) Young and taking a prime Holmes to the wire (when past his prime himself) Norton showed that he was very difficult for boxers who lacked a devastating punch. If Ali was the only good boxer that had trouble with Norton I think things would look different. As it is you can always say "well, a past-prime Ali struggled with a prime Norton, who - when past his own prime - gave a prime Holmes a really tough time".

[Unforgiven]

I think the Ali-Norton fights shouldn't really downgrade Ali much, but yes, they are overlooked in comparison to how some of the other great heavyweights get scrutinized.

For example, I've read a lot of people diminish Holyfield for being "inconsistent" for going 1-1 with Moorer and 1-2 with Bowe. And I think Holyfield was the same degree past his best for four of those five fights, as Ali was in the Norton fights. And the judges who scored for Ali in the 3rd Norton fight esp. would have definitely made Holyfield a winner over Moorer in the first fight had they been as kind in their scoring towards "The Real Deal" as they were to "The Greatest".

That's not to say Holyfield ranks with Ali overall, but just gets a raw deal on that particular issue.

Joe Louis was past his best against Jersey Joe Walcott like Ali was in the 3rd Norton fight, for the championship. Both Louis and Ali escaped with controversial win decisions after 15 rounds. Joe Louis gave Walcott a rematch in his next defense six months later, KO'd him, then a few months later retired and gave up the title. Whereas Ali returned eight months later to fight Alfredo Evangelista, then later Earnie Shavers, told the world he wasn't interested in fighting Norton again unless they pay him some massive number and he felt he had nothing to prove, then lost the title to Leon Spinks.

But then again, Joe Louis probably was the greatest.

[Bokaj]

Joe Louis was past his best against Jersey Joe Walcott like Ali was in the 3rd Norton fight, for the championship

I see your point, but don't really agree. A more fair comparison would be any version of Ali during 1975. He was 33, just like Louis was for Walcott, and he hadn't been ravaged by Manilla yet. He was never the same after that fight. Louis didn't have anything like that. If he had had an epic battle like Manilla before he met Walcott it would have been one thing, but he didn't.

Ali at 34 wasn't just aging. He had lost some of his physical gifts during the lay-off and then left most of the remains in the ring in Manilla. You could make a similar case for Holyfield after Bowe III, but not really for Louis. Louis was past his best by almost six years when he squared off with Walcott, but he hadn't had the battles that Ali and Holy had. It should also be remembered that Walcott was just as old as Louis and had been totally inactive between 26-30 years of age.

[Stevie G]

Good posts. Another thing to take into consideration is that when Ken Norton stepped into the ring on 31 March 1973 to fight Ali the first time,he was probably the biggest kept secret in heavyweight boxing. He was a quality fighter,and make no mistake. Stylewise,imo,he was tougher for Ali than Frazier,even. In their second fight during the same year,Ali was in the best shape he'd been in since 1967,and although passed his very best,he was still an awesome fighter who had Zaire and Manila in front of him. So,no I do n't think Ali's legacy should be downgraded because of his close calls with Norton. More fairly,Ken's standing should be enhanced.

[Unforgiven]

I see your point, but don't really agree. A more fair comparison would be any version of Ali during 1975. He was 33, just like Louis was for Walcott, and he hadn't been ravaged by Manilla yet. He was never the same after that fight. Louis didn't have anything like that. If he had had an epic battle like Manilla before he met Walcott it would have been one thing, but he didn't.

Ali at 34 wasn't just aging. He had lost some of his physical gifts during the lay-off and then left most of the remains in the ring in Manilla. You could make a similar case for Holyfield after Bowe III, but not really for Louis. Louis was past his best by almost six years when he squared off with Walcott, but he hadn't had the battles that Ali and Holy had.

Ok, what you say about Manila is true. But by 1947 Joe Louis had had a fair number of fights, some tough ones too, and at one point was fighting once a month a championship fight. He'd had a fairly punishing career, was fighting exhibitions during the war years and depleting himself through his lifestyle, and was coming off another 15-month layoff when he fought Walcott the first time.
Yeah, you can say he didn't have a Manila, but we dont actually know excatly how much his body had been subjected to. He was certainly past his best, that much we do know.

Regardless of that debate, the fact remains that Joe Louis gave Walcott another chance and knocked him out, then relinquished the title.
Ali did not give Norton another chance, nor did he retire or relinquish the title.


It should also be remembered that Walcott was just as old as Louis and had been totally inactive between 26-30 years of age.


He seems to have been in the best shape and form of his career though.

And, again, regardless of that debate, he was KO'd in the immediate rematch that he rightfully deserved.

[Bokaj]

Ok, what you say about Manila is true. But by 1947 Joe Louis had had a fair number of fights, some tough ones too, and at one point was fighting once a month a championship fight. He'd had a fairly punishing career, was fighting exhibitions during the war years and depleting himself through his lifestyle, and was coming off another 15-month layoff when he fought Walcott the first time.
Yeah, you can say he didn't have a Manila, but we dont actually know excatly how much his body had been subjected to. He was certainly past his best, that much we do know.

Regardless of that debate, the fact remains that Joe Louis gave Walcott another chance and knocked him out, then relinquished the title.
Ali did not give Norton another chance, nor did he retire or relinquish the title.

True. But I hold firm that Ali was more past it in 1976 than Louis was in 1947. Just look at Ali in 1975 and 1976. Manilla made the difference. And that was what I was answering to.



He seems to have been in the best shape and form of his career though.

And, again, regardless of that debate, he was KO'd in the immediate rematch that he rightfully deserved.

Same as above.

[Bokaj]

I can also add that Louis' difficulties with Walcott doesn't seem to be that much held against him. They aren't for me.

Perhaps it can be used as another of example of how boxers with good movement and defense seemed to give Louis some trouble. But other than that...

[Mendoza]

Do Ali's Loss and Trouble With Norton Get Enough Consideration When Judging Ali?


No but they should. I have said many times that Ali had trouble with good jabbers at many states of his career.

[Addie]

No but they should. I have said many times that Ali had trouble with good jabbers at many states of his career.


Oh and let me guess, that's why the man in your avatar, who had trouble with Chris Byrd's, would beat The Greatest? Get out of here. Liston had one of the better jabs in Heavyweight history, and I don't recall Ali getting hit by more than handful of them in their first fight. Prime Ali didn't have any problems with a jab, but as he would later slow down...considerably, of course good fighters in Norton and Young are going to give him all he can handle. Norton would easily hold a title today, and Young probably would too.

[CF Gauss]

I agree with Unforgiven about the comparison between Ali-Norton 3 and the Louis-Walcott fights. Louis gave Walcott an immediate rematch and scored a convincing victory (when someone gets KO'd, you can't say they were robbed by judges).

It is debatable that Ali was more damaged in 1976 than Louis in 1947-48, but here's the thing:


We're not just talking about Ali in 1976, but also in 1973.


Perhaps the biggest knock against Ali in his three fights with Norton comes from the second fight. He was in great shape, looked as good as he ever did post-exile according to many people, and had his reputation on the line after losing the first fight. We can't say he was rusty from the exile, or damaged from Manila. Ali still had several great performances ahead of him.

And what happened? Ali barely escaped with a disputed split-decision.

[CF Gauss]

Besides bias I think there are mainly three reasons as to why Ali's struggles with Norton haven't had as large effect on the assesment on him as could be expected:

1. Ali was past his prime. Even for the two first fights he was some six years past the best versions we got to see of him. For the third fight he was so past it he struggled with every worthy contender he met.

2. Ali did beat just every type of boxer. Foreman never really truly conquered a really good slick, defensively skilled boxer and the heaviest puncher Frazier beat was Bonavena, whom he struggled with. If he had beaten say Lyle and Shavers convincingly, it would be easier to claim that Foreman was a one-off. Ali did beat good awkward/unorthodox fighters in Moore, Mildenberger and Bonavena. Terrell could perhaps also be mentioned here, since he at least was a known spoiler.

3. And this might be the most important one. By beating (albeit controversially) Young and taking a prime Holmes to the wire (when past his prime himself) Norton showed that he was very difficult for boxers who lacked a devastating punch. If Ali was the only good boxer that had trouble with Norton I think things would look different. As it is you can always say "well, a past-prime Ali struggled with a prime Norton, who - when past his own prime - gave a prime Holmes a really tough time".


1. I agree that Ali wasn't at the absolute peak of his powers, but I generally consider 1964-1975 to be the prime of his career. That's when he was a champion-level fighter. Yes, it would be more accurate to limit his prime to 1964-67 (or maybe even 1966-67), and yes it is unfortunate that the exile leaves many questions unanswered. But few Top 10 fighters ever lost during their absolute peak (even if they lost during their general prime). For instance, we could say Louis's absolute peak was 1938-41, or Tyson's absolute peak was 1986-88, or Frazier's absolute peak was 1968-71, etc.

I think that if we are going to compare great heavyweights, we obviously should not look too closely at periods when they were clearly past their prime or shot, but we should take into account periods when they were perhaps not at their absolute best, but still reasonably close and fighting at a champion-level.

2. You make some valid points. Frazier didn't have as many fights as Ali, so more is left to the imagination. I personally believe he would have beaten Lyle or Shavers, but for whatever reason those fights didn't happen. Ali did face some other unorthodox fighters, but I'm not sure I'd say they were quite like Norton in style. I guess "slugger" is a much broader category than "awkward fighter" anyway, so maybe that's why Ali's struggles don't seem as important as Frazier's.

3. Something similar could be said of Foreman beating other guys who were good but not adept at fighting while backing up.

About Holmes-Norton: I think Holmes' injury may have caused the fight to be closer than it otherwise would have been.

Anyway, I'm not saying Norton wasn't a very good fighter. I'm just saying, Foreman was also a heck of a fighter, but that doesn't make people in here give Frazier a pass.

[bigG]

i have a post about this very thing elsewhere!!!...

[CF Gauss]

i have a post about this very thing elsewhere!!!...


My fault. I must have overlooked it.


In any case, I still don't think this is discussed enough.

[Bokaj]

1. I agree that Ali wasn't at the absolute peak of his powers, but I generally consider 1964-1975 to be the prime of his career. That's when he was a champion-level fighter. Yes, it would be more accurate to limit his prime to 1964-67 (or maybe even 1966-67), and yes it is unfortunate that the exile leaves many questions unanswered. But few Top 10 fighters ever lost during their absolute peak (even if they lost during their general prime). For instance, we could say Louis's absolute peak was 1938-41, or Tyson's absolute peak was 1986-88, or Frazier's absolute peak was 1968-71, etc.

Ali had had a 3,5 year lay-off and was 31 when he lost to Norton. Tyson was 24 when he lost to Douglas and Frazier was 29 when he lost to Foreman - neither had had a long lay-off.

Even before Ali lost to Frazier many considered him not being the same as before the lay-off. On Youtube you can see Cus D'Amato tell Ali that he can't possible be the same fighter after that lay-off. No one had such inclings about Frazier or Tyson. If you want to compare with Tyson, the Holyfield fights are better comparisons.

When Louis was KO'd by Schmeling he was arguably closer to his prime (at least physical prime) than Ali was in '73. At least not further from it.

About Holmes-Norton: I think Holmes' injury may have caused the fight to be closer than it otherwise would have been.

I don't put much stock in such excuses, they are too common. By the way do you know which arm was suppossedely hurt; I've heard both left and right. Ali made several excuses for his perfomances against Norton too, by the way. He twisted his ankle before the first and busted his hand in the second etc.

Anyway, I'm not saying Norton wasn't a very good fighter. I'm just saying, Foreman was also a heck of a fighter, but that doesn't make people in here give Frazier a pass.

Most seem to have Joe in the top 10 (I have), so in which way doesn't he get a pass? He is among the very few in the top 10 to have been so thoroughly dominated when reasonably close to his prime - perhaps the only one.

[MrMarvel]

Is wasnt just Conn who messed up Louis. Any boxer who could move troubled Louis. That's where he gets the rap. Norton had a style that troubled Ali. It was a unique situation. That's why it doesn't and shouldn't stick.

[CF Gauss]

Is wasnt just Conn who messed up Louis. Any boxer who could move troubled Louis. That's where he gets the rap. Norton had a style that troubled Ali. It was a unique situation. That's why it doesn't and shouldn't stick.


Say what you will about Louis' trouble with guys who moved, but he in the end he defeated them.

Ali actually lost to Norton, so the situation is a bit different.

But you are right that Norton's unique style may make it seem like a more isolated circumstance.

[Addie]

Say what you will about Louis' trouble with guys who moved, but he in the end he defeated them.

Ali actually lost to Norton, so the situation is a bit different.

But you are right that Norton's unique style may make it seem like a more isolated circumstance.

I've noticed that only with Muhammad Ali, is there so much emphasis on the man's past prime career. We subject only him to mythical match-ups for when he was past his best, and people bring up the Lyle, Shavers, and Norton III fights like that actually meant something stylistically. The man was past his best...by quite a margin.

So to answer the thread's question, Ali's struggle with Norton, Lyle, Shavers, and Young gets too much consideration.

[CF Gauss]

Ali had had a 3,5 year lay-off and was 31 when he lost to Norton. Tyson was 24 when he lost to Douglas and Frazier was 29 when he lost to Foreman - neither had had a long lay-off.

Even before Ali lost to Frazier many considered him not being the same as before the lay-off. On Youtube you can see Cus D'Amato tell Ali that he can't possible be the same fighter after that lay-off. No one had such inclings about Frazier or Tyson. If you want to compare with Tyson, the Holyfield fights are better comparisons.




Different fighters with different styles are going to peak at different ages (for instance, a boxer like Holmes was perhaps at his peak in his early 30s, while swarmers are sometimes finished at such an age).

Anyway, the general point is that if you limit a fighter's prime to 2-4 years, the vast majority of great fighters were undefeated during that period. When you look at a larger time span in which a great fighter is still a strong championship contender and reasonably close to his best abilities, that's when you see the occasional losses appear. Other fighters' losses that are often discussed here took place under such circumstances and so did Ali's.

In Ali's case, in 1973 he still had some of his best performances ahead of him and he was still a great fighter.

[CF Gauss]

I've noticed that only with Muhammad Ali, is there so much emphasis on the man's past prime career. We subject only him to mythical match-ups for when he was past his best, and people bring up the Lyle, Shavers, and Norton III fights like that actually meant something stylistically. The man was past his best...by quite a margin.

So to answer the thread's question, Ali's struggle with Norton, Lyle, Shavers, and Young gets too much consideration.


I would agree with you if we were talking about strictly the post-manilla Ali (Young, Shavers, Norton 3, etc. took place).

But 2 of the 3 fights being discussed here took place in 1973, before some of Ali's biggest performances.

[Addie]

I would agree with you if we were talking about strictly the post-manilla Ali (Young, Shavers, Norton 3, etc. took place).

But 2 of the 3 fights being discussed here took place in 1973, before some of Ali's biggest performances.

Ali suffered a broken jaw in the first fight, and it's widely agreed that Norton would always pose problems for Ali. He was a good Heavyweight, good enough to give Holmes absolute hell, and would certainly hold a belt in today's Heavyweight climate. However, and this is purely speculation, would a 1967 Ali dance rings around Norton? Absolutely.

[Bummy Davis]

Not really, Ali is known by his big wins and abilty to do well in the rematch. His big wins may have been his easiest, Liston and Foreman. Ali saw the flaws and their slowness and lack of stamina. THe Frazier, Norton and Spinks fights Ali came back to improve. I know a lot of people felt he lost the Norton fights but he did come back much better from the 1st Norton fight. I think Ali's ability to adapt for the most part was his strength along with making the referees, judges and people believe he was in charge and control at all times. He ultimatly payed the price and fooled everone but himself.

[Bokaj]

Different fighters with different styles are going to peak at different ages (for instance, a boxer like Holmes was perhaps at his peak in his early 30s, while swarmers are sometimes finished at such an age).

Anyway, the general point is that if you limit a fighter's prime to 2-4 years, the vast majority of great fighters were undefeated during that period. When you look at a larger time span in which a great fighter is still a strong championship contender and reasonably close to his best abilities, that's when you see the occasional losses appear. Other fighters' losses that are often discussed here took place under such circumstances and so did Ali's.

In Ali's case, in 1973 he still had some of his best performances ahead of him and he was still a great fighter.

He was still a great fighter, just not what he was. When you take away 3,5 years of a man's prime that's gonna be a pretty clear divide. There's just no way around that. It's the same allowance that's made for post-prison Tyson or Dempsey after his voluntary lay-off.

Here you can either see the glass as half empty or half full. Either you say that Ali shouldn't have struggled so much with Norton when he still had enough left to convincingly beat Foreman, Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena etc. Or you can say that even though robbed of his prime by the exile, he for the first half of the '70s only really struggled with Frazier (an ATG) and Norton, who at 34 would give a prime Holmes one of his toughest fights.

[Longhhorn71]

I immediately knew Ali was in trouble in Fight One when I saw it live on TV back in 1973.

Norton neutralized his jab, wasn't afraid of Ali, and had great people in his corner.

Joe Louis would have the same assets too.

[Addie]

I immediately knew Ali was in trouble in Fight One when I saw it live on TV back in 1973.

Norton neutralized his jab, wasn't afraid of Ali, and had great people in his corner.

Joe Louis would have the same assets too.

Yup, but the same Norton gets outclassed by '67 Ali.

[Longhhorn71]

Yup, but the same Norton gets outclassed by '67 Ali.

They never fought...but don't really see what a lesser experienced Ali would bring to the table.

Take away Ali's jab, and he has no body attack, and a limited left hook.

[Addie]

They never fought...but don't really see what a lesser experienced Ali would bring to the table.

Take away Ali's jab, and he has no body attack, and a limited left hook.

How about more speed? More movement? More stamina? He's a more elusive target altogether, and therefore a more formidable opponent. By saying he brings nothing else to table is to say that Ali post exile was the same fighter as he once was, and anyone with a brain clearly knows that isn't the case. You do have a brain don't you?

[Longhhorn71]

How about more speed? More movement? More stamina? He's a more elusive target altogether, and therefore a more formidable opponent. By saying he brings nothing else to table is to say that Ali post exile was the same fighter as he once was, and anyone with a brain clearly knows that isn't the case. You do have a brain don't you?

I think his pre-70's "aura" is overated.

Frazier would have pounded those challengers out too...except for the first Liston fight.

And Karl Mildenberger, Brian London, gut-shot Cleve Williams, bouncing ball Patterson, etc?

Ali was the Champion over a transition grade of 1950's to 1960's type challengers. Old, small, or really not very good.

[Addie]

I think his pre-70's "aura" is overated.

Frazier would have pounded those challengers out too...except for the first Liston fight.

And Karl Mildenberger, Brian London, gut-shot Cleve Williams, bouncing ball Patterson, etc?

Ali was the Champion over a transition grade of 1950's to 1960's type challengers. Old, small, or really not very good.

Outside of the first Muhammad Ali fight, I don't see how beating up Buster Matthis, Jerry Quarry, and Jimmy Ellis is anymore impressive than outclassing the formidable Sonny Liston twice, and putting on absolute clinic against good contenders like Ernie Terrell and Floyd Patterson, who had only lost to Liston and Ali from 1960 to 1965. Ali was dealing with contenders like they sparring partners. You only have to watch the tapes to see how much better pre-exile Ali was in my judgment. Reality is, Ali could have stopped the clocks of Terrell and Patterson in whichever round he pleased, whereas the best fighter Frazier came up against was arguably Quarry, who gave Joe all he can handle, but was totally outclassed on both occasions with Ali.

You pick Norton to beat Clay?

[Shake]

I know Muhammad Ali has very passionate fans, so let me make it clear hear that I am not intending for this thread to be a hit job. I just want to open up discussion on a topic that I think doesn't recieve much consideration.


Sometimes I think that Ali's loss to Norton and his two disputed victories over Norton do not get enough attention when assessing Ali's legacy.

This is especially striking here where people are always quick to downgrade fighters by picking out struggles with a few opponents. For instance, Foreman lost to Ali and Young so he's substantially downgraded for being unable to handle slick boxer types. Frazier lost to Foreman so he would always have lost to any slugger. Joe Louis struggled a bit with Billy Conn, so he's downgraded for not being dominant against opponents who were quick on their feet.

Many people say that Ali's loss to Frazier in the FOTC doesn't mean much because Ali had just come back from his exile. So Frazier didn't beat the "real" Ali. But what is the excuse for Ali-Norton I? It was 1973, and any supposed rust was no longer a factor.

Perhaps even more troubling is the fact that Ali never decisively beat Norton, even though they locked up two more times after their initial meeting. It was always life and death. One would expect more from a fighter widely hailed as the greatest of all time. (For instance, Joe Louis annhilated Max Schmeling in their rematch.)


As I said before, Joe Frazier's inability to defeat George Foreman is often identified as a fatal flaw. Many people generalize and conclude that Frazier would always have trouble with a first-rate slugger and, at least on ESB, it greatly diminishes Frazier's standing in all-time rankings and discussions. Similar critiques are made of other great boxers.

(Let's be clear that I'm not saying Ali's struggles with Norton were EXACTLY the same as Frazier's with Foreman, since Ali was competitive in the fights and they were close and went to the scorecards.)

So why isn't the same standard applied to Ali and his trouble with Norton? Is it because their first two fights weren't title fights? Was it because Ali had been in so many other big fights that no one cared?

Moreover, SHOULD Ali's trouble with Norton be held against him more than it is?

why is it that when Ali comes in terms of a resume people don't say "he lost to a very good, but not quite great fighter while in his prime"?

Why is it that when Ali comes up in terms of head-to-head discussions people don't say "Ali struggled mightily with unorthodox boxers like Kenny Norton"?


I'd appreciate any thoughts.

Personally, I always thought a pre-exile Ali, with fresher legs, would have had far less trouble with Norton. This is obv just a personal estimation and not something for a historian to go on, but the few times Ali did dance against Norton, he made it look easy.

[Stevie G]

Personally, I always thought a pre-exile Ali, with fresher legs, would have had far less trouble with Norton. This is obv just a personal estimation and not something for a historian to go on, but the few times Ali did dance against Norton, he made it look easy.
A fight between a 1967 Ali and a 1973-76 norton would still go the distance. Only difference being,that there would be some more daylight between them on the scorecards. I can see Muhammad saying,post-fight,something like "Ken Norton has been my toughest ever opponent" Norton,indeed would have been a '67 Ali's toughest opponent. Same thing would apply with Frazier. Muhammad would have beaten him,but would still have had a tough fight. It just illustrates that Ali had the best resume out of all the heavy champs.

[ChrisPontius]

I immediately knew Ali was in trouble in Fight One when I saw it live on TV back in 1973.

Norton neutralized his jab, wasn't afraid of Ali, and had great people in his corner.

Joe Louis would have the same assets too.

I agree: saying that Ali would've "easily" beaten Norton years earlier is pure speculation. Let's not forget that Doug Jones ran a younger, faster Ali to an extremely close decision, too.

As for talking about diminished stamina: i've never seen him throw more punches than he did against Frazier in '71. In 73, his stamina was fine as was his form. He was great during the 60's, but the horrible level of his opponents made him look better, too.

Norton simply had a style that neutralized Ali's strengths and would've always given him Hell. And yes, that's a bad mark on Ali's resume, considering Norton wasn't all-that, in my opinion.

[Bummy Davis]

I agree: saying that Ali would've "easily" beaten Norton years earlier is pure speculation. Let's not forget that Doug Jones ran a younger, faster Ali to an extremely close decision, too.

As for talking about diminished stamina: i've never seen him throw more punches than he did against Frazier in '71. In 73, his stamina was fine as was his form. He was great during the 60's, but the horrible level of his opponents made him look better, too.

Norton simply had a style that neutralized Ali's strengths and would've always given him Hell. And yes, that's a bad mark on Ali's resume, considering Norton wasn't all-that, in my opinion.

good point

[Stevie G]

I agree: saying that Ali would've "easily" beaten Norton years earlier is pure speculation. Let's not forget that Doug Jones ran a younger, faster Ali to an extremely close decision, too.

As for talking about diminished stamina: i've never seen him throw more punches than he did against Frazier in '71. In 73, his stamina was fine as was his form. He was great during the 60's, but the horrible level of his opponents made him look better, too.

Norton simply had a style that neutralized Ali's strengths and would've always given him Hell. And yes, that's a bad mark on Ali's resume, considering Norton wasn't all-that, in my opinion.
In all fairness,the young Cassius Clay who fought Doug Jones was still very much a 'work in progress' version of Muhammad. He was n't yet at his 1966/67 best. Nonetheless,Jones was still pretty good.

[ChrisPontius]

In all fairness,the young Cassius Clay who fought Doug Jones was still very much a 'work in progress' version of Muhammad. He was n't yet at his 1966/67 best. Nonetheless,Jones was still pretty good.

Yeah but don't you see where this itches?

He was past his best for the Norton/Young bouts. He was green against Jones and Mildenberger(?). I'm not just talking about you specifically, but in general about this argument. You basically throw out all the negatives that are not in the period '66-'67. Fine, but if you want to stay objective, shouldn't you throw out the positives as well? This doesn't give you much to work with.

How about i say Frazier isn't susceptible to a huge hitter early on because he had no such trouble during '69-'71? Or that Lewis was never knocked out between '97 and '00?

[CF Gauss]

Yeah but don't you see where this itches?

He was past his best for the Norton/Young bouts. He was green against Jones and Mildenberger(?). I'm not just talking about you specifically, but in general about this argument. You basically throw out all the negatives that are not in the period '66-'67. Fine, but if you want to stay objective, shouldn't you throw out the positives as well? This doesn't give you much to work with.

How about i say Frazier isn't susceptible to a huge hitter early on because he had no such trouble during '69-'71? Or that Lewis was never knocked out between '97 and '00?


This is exactly the point I made earlier. If you restrict a great heavyweight's prime to a few years, he'd never look vulnerable.


This thread isn't about what would happen between the 1967 Ali and Norton. This is about what DID happen between the two, and if it receives enough consideration in assessing Ali.

[Stevie G]

Yeah but don't you see where this itches?

He was past his best for the Norton/Young bouts. He was green against Jones and Mildenberger(?). I'm not just talking about you specifically, but in general about this argument. You basically throw out all the negatives that are not in the period '66-'67. Fine, but if you want to stay objective, shouldn't you throw out the positives as well? This doesn't give you much to work with.

How about i say Frazier isn't susceptible to a huge hitter early on because he had no such trouble during '69-'71? Or that Lewis was never knocked out between '97 and '00?
He certainly was n't green against Mildenberger. I see your point. You do some good posts,by the way :good

[mr. magoo]

He certainly was n't green against Mildenberger. I see your point. You do some good posts,by the way :good


No, he wasn't green, but there is definitely another factor to consider there. Mildenberger was the 5th or 6th title defense that Clay had fought in just about 11 months, with most of those defenses coming in his opponent's own back yard. Few champions that I can think of ever fought at that frequency except for Joe Louis, and he didn't always look invincible against some of those second rate contenders either. Ad on the fact that Mildenberger was one of the few, or even perhaps the ONLY south paw that Clay had faced to this point, and you can't really blame him for having a little trouble.

As for the Doug Jones bout, he was barely 21 years old with 17 pro bouts, and close fight or not, he still won. I know that Ali is an easy fighter to make excuses for, as he is afterall an iconic figure and did have some bizarre twists and turns throughout his long and controversial career. Some of his critics however, really go to great lengths to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find flaws at times though.

[Bokaj]

I agree: saying that Ali would've "easily" beaten Norton years earlier is pure speculation. Let's not forget that Doug Jones ran a younger, faster Ali to an extremely close decision, too.

I agree.

As for talking about diminished stamina: i've never seen him throw more punches than he did against Frazier in '71. In 73, his stamina was fine as was his form. He was great during the 60's, but the horrible level of his opponents made him look better, too.

C'mon. Even if Ali was still a great fighter after the lay-off the difference in speed and workrate is easy to see. Chuvalo and Patterson both testifies to this difference. Especially the version that lost to Norton. Look at him and say that it's not a clear difference compared to how he looked during his championship reign.

In the rematch he looked considerably closer to a "prime" version, though. Still, I don't think he would have gassed after five rounds like that 5-6 years before.

By the way, calling Ali's challengers "horrible" is way off the mark. Liston and Patterson are both ATGs, and Terrell, Folley and Mildenberger were decent contenders. Nothing special, but how special were Berbick, Thomas (after rehab), Tubbs, Tucker etc?

Hell. And yes, that's a bad mark on Ali's resume, considering Norton wasn't all-that, in my opinion.

He showed his worth against boxers, that's for sure. He was never clearly outboxed over a whole fight, even though he was nearing 35 when he faced off with Young and Holmes. How many outside the top 10 would give Ali, Young and Holmes such good fights?

[groove]

when ali danced for the first half of Norton 2, norton couldn't live with him. when he tired and stopped moving then he got in trouble. peak 67 ali wins atleast 9 rounds outta 15.

[Unforgiven]

when ali danced for the first half of Norton 2 he made norton look like an amateur. when he tired and stopped moving then he got in trouble. peak 67 ali wins atleast 9 rounds outta 15.

In the first half of the Norton fight Ali moved well but a lot of his punches were missing. Most of his jabs were missing. Ali gets a lot of credit for beautiful quick stuff but sometimes he's just not landing anything. I'm not saying he didn't win most of the early rounds but it wasn't a shut-out or making Norton look like an amateur. If Ali dances too well for Norton to catch him but he's moving so fast he cant actually land that jab through Norton's guard, it's hard to call it one-sided.

[Bokaj]

In the first half of the Norton fight Ali moved well but a lot of his punches were missing. Most of his jabs were missing. Ali gets a lot of credit for beautiful quick stuff but sometimes he's just not landing anything. I'm not saying he didn't win most of the early rounds but it wasn't a shut-out or making Norton look like an amateur. If Ali dances too well for Norton to catch him but he's moving so fast he cant actually land that jab through Norton's guard, it's hard to call it one-sided.

Yeah, Norton actually did quite well in these rounds. He lost most of them, but he wasn't getting tagged by anything serious and he knew Ali would gas eventually in that pace. That's why I firmly believe Norton always would have been difficult for Ali.

[JIm Broughton]

I think CF Gauss made some good points in his post regarding Ali and other fighters or rather champions in regard to thier actual primes. Ali of '73 certainly wasn't in his prime but he wasn't that far removed from it either. Even if Ali never had the foced layoff imposed upon him can we really believe that he would still be as fleet of foot and fast of hand in '73 as he was in '67? He was 6 years older and getting bigger. There's no way he would be as fast. Plus Ali had 4 or 5 fights before fighting Norton and plenty of training as well. Of course fighting Frazier in '71 had to have taken a toll but Ali was still a championship calibre fighter in '73. Some people make it sound as if Norton was fighting an old washed up ex champion. Clearly he wasn't. Ali proved as much in '74 against Foreman and '75 against Frazier. Foreman took 10 years off and came back to win the title in his 40's! And that was after going 12 rounds against a prime ATG in Holyfield and fielding hundreds of clean hard shots in the process. Lets not forget that Louis joined the Army for 4 years as well. That certainly took it's toll to a certain degree on his reflexes and fighting form. Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to diminish Ali in any way but I think we have to put things in perspective. The layoff certainly had an effect on Ali but he was still a fantastic fighter after it but Norton would have probably given any version of Ali a tough scrap.

[ChrisPontius]

This is exactly the point I made earlier. If you restrict a great heavyweight's prime to a few years, he'd never look vulnerable.


This thread isn't about what would happen between the 1967 Ali and Norton. This is about what DID happen between the two, and if it receives enough consideration in assessing Ali.

Yes, it's a valid point.

Norton is ranked highly mostly because of the Ali win. He had a few other good performances, like the razor close win over Young, and a valiant losing effort against Holmes. But his devastating KO losses to Garcia, Foreman and Shavers are not something to be ignored.

I'm scratching my head to think which top15 heavyweight would've lost to Norton in a similar career stage. To be frank, i think 80% of them would lay Norton out within 5 rounds. I'd pick even a "second-rate" all time great like Patterson or Walcott to beat him, although that is speculation.


Then again, sometimes a lucky decision can a substantial impact on our viewings. Let's be honest: Holmes could just have well lost the decision against Witherspoon (a fighter similar to Norton in ranking), or be stopped against Shavers/Snipes. Louis could've lost the decision to Walcott. Dempsey nearly lost to Firpo. Holyfield was nearly stopped against Cooper. etc etc.

However, in being on the receiving end of a lucky - or downright undeserving - decision win, Ali ranks at the top as well. Norton III and Young should've gone against him, and the Shavers and Norton II fights could easily be scored in the favor of his opponents, too. So, i don't think Ali deserves to get a break here.


He certainly was n't green against Mildenberger. I see your point. You do some good posts,by the way :good

Thanks.

[Stevie G]

No, he wasn't green, but there is definitely another factor to consider there. Mildenberger was the 5th or 6th title defense that Clay had fought in just about 11 months, with most of those defenses coming in his opponent's own back yard. Few champions that I can think of ever fought at that frequency except for Joe Louis, and he didn't always look invincible against some of those second rate contenders either. Ad on the fact that Mildenberger was one of the few, or even perhaps the ONLY south paw that Clay had faced to this point, and you can't really blame him for having a little trouble.

As for the Doug Jones bout, he was barely 21 years old with 17 pro bouts, and close fight or not, he still won. I know that Ali is an easy fighter to make excuses for, as he is afterall an iconic figure and did have some bizarre twists and turns throughout his long and controversial career. Some of his critics however, really go to great lengths to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find flaws at times though.
The bottom of the barrel certainly does get scraped. Mostly about some of Muhammad's controversial decisions near the end of his career. Every champion throughout boxing history has had his share of those.

[Boxed Ears]

Two of those fights were very close and Ali was past his best when he came out of retirement. Still great though, not to rob Norton of that. Norton was just a very, very difficult style match-up and Dundee said they could have fought a hundred times and it'd always be difficult for Ali. You can't discount the effect of the broken jaw either in the first.

[Bokaj]

I'm scratching my head to think which top15 heavyweight would've lost to Norton in a similar career stage.

I have no problems seeing a 29-year old Norton beating the Holmes who fought Witherspoon. He was after all five years older than that when he nearly beat a better version of Holmes. Because of that my money would actually be on Norton in this match-up.

Also, there have been said on this site that Norton got the better of Frazier in sparring before the Foreman fight. So perhaps Norton would have had a good shout against this version of Frazier.

Tunney is another fighter I'd give Norton good odds against. And he's in quite many's top 15.

I'd pick even a "second-rate" all time great like Patterson or Walcott to beat him, although that is speculation.

I haven't seen the Garcia fight. But otherwise Norton was only KO'd by aggressive fighters with a huge punch. Neither Patterson or Walcott were punchers of that pedigree, and Walcott wasn't as agressive. He was rather the kind of fighter Norton thrived against.

[groove]

mar 66 chuvalo, may 66 cooper, aug 66 london, sept 66 mildenburger, nov 66 williams, feb 67 terrell, mar 67 folley - ali defended his title 7 times in 12 months. i think he was allowed a few off-nites. don't you? but imagine how many more defences he could've made if not for exile :)

[johnmaff36]

I think that quite a few people dont seem to realise that kenny norton was a hell of a good fighter. The comparisons with louis-walcott and ali-norton3 dont really compare, apart from the actual result, as Louis was comprehensively outboxed AND dropped twice before trying to climb out of the ring at the end before the decision was announced only to be called back in. The Ali-norton3 was close that could have went either way although if you look at Ali at the final bell at the end of the 2nd fight, hes very agitated and kinda throws a punch at bundini brown. Gave me the impression he thought he lost

[Stevie G]

I think that quite a few people dont seem to realise that kenny norton was a hell of a good fighter. The comparisons with louis-walcott and ali-norton3 dont really compare, apart from the actual result, as Louis was comprehensively outboxed AND dropped twice before trying to climb out of the ring at the end before the decision was announced only to be called back in. The Ali-norton3 was close that could have went either way although if you look at Ali at the final bell at the end of the 2nd fight, hes very agitated and kinda throws a punch at bundini brown. Gave me the impression he thought he lost
When Muhammad threw the punch at Brown,I get the impression that he knew it was very close,not ncessarily that he lost. I like the way that he made a grab for Howard Cossell's toupee,just beforehand.