Ali vs Norton 3 Short

Doesn't tend to get a mention when people discuss boxing's worst ever robberies but it was a shocker:

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=11964990

Up there with Walcott v Louis

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Up there with Walcott v Louis

Far worse. Press were split over Louis-Walcott. Not so here.

You can plainly see Ali had been affected by all those tough fights here.

Haven't watched it in ages. From memory, Ali started strong in the second fight and norton came back into it. In the third, it was the opposite. I remember having it for norton and think he should have got the nod, but does it warrant in the great robberies list? I think most people had it for Kenny but quite a few had it close. Poor decision perhaps rather than terrible robbery, if you can make such a distinction.

milkyboy wrote:Haven't watched it in ages. From memory, Ali started strong in the second fight and norton came back into it. In the third, it was the opposite. I remember having it for norton and think he should have got the nod, but does it warrant in the great robberies list? I think most people had it for Kenny but quite a few had it close. Poor decision perhaps rather than terrible robbery, if you can make such a distinction.

Well, the film's called "Robbery" and someone featured in it labels it the most controversial decision in heavyweight history.

I thought Norton walked it.

The January 1998 issue of Boxing Monthly ranked Ali-Norton III as the fifth most disputed title fight decision in history.

Oh well if someone they interviewed for a film called robbery said that, and it made a top 5 list by an expert then I stand corrected.

Whenever this crops up on forums it's overwhelmingly in favour of norton winning, but often the cards are quite close. Like I said, I had it for norton, can't remember by how much, but didn't see it as a Whitaker Ramirez.

I like that, "disputed", as if there's some sort of debate over the real winner.

Anyway, it's quite simple really. It's near sacrilege to point out shortcomings in Ali's legacy. He's still probably the biggest thing in boxing. I'd fancy the average casual sports fan to answer "Ali" before "Pacquiao", "Klitschko", or "Mayweather" if you asked them to name a boxer. For what it's worth, I'd fancy them to answer "Rocky" before the other guys as well. When you're a minority sport bereft of Crossover superstars, it's nearly suicidal to tar your greatest legend's legend. Hence, running through Cooper, London, and Folley is evidence enough that no fighter in the world would have touched '67 Ali. While Young, and Norton fights were mere aberrations.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1677686-ranking-the-15-worst-judging-decisions-in-boxing-history/page/16

http://www.esnewsreporting.com/most-disputed-judging-decisions-boxing-history/

http://www.boxing-monthly.co.uk/content/1108/one.htm

Only ever seen the third Norton-Ali fight once, but I had it to Norton by a 9-6 in rounds kind of deal. No way Ali won it and even a draw would have been slightly rough justice for Norton.

I remember watching this fight and the comentators were saying around the tenth round "Ali needs a knockout to pull this out of the bag" eVen Dundee was saying "You've blown this Ali"Definitely a robbery.

Is Ellie just trying to test people to see if they're still reading when he lists Trinidad-Wright inside his top fifty most disputed verdicts of all time? The only thing to dispute in that fight was whether Tito won one round or none! For a minute I thought he must have meant Wright-Vargas instead, and that it was an error....But then that fight was listed a couple of places below. Very strange.

Agree with the general idea that the third Norton-Ali fight isn't one of the first fights you think of when you think robbery on the big stage. But if you're meaning just the Heavyweights, Haz, then it's a bit more of a glaring one.

Incidentally, I'm in a very small minority it seems, but while most people get their knickers in a twist over his win against Witherspoon, I think the verdict Holmes got against Williams was the more dubious of the pair. I thought he beat Tim, just about, but got edged out by Carl - yet nobody seems to talk about the Williams fight. Either way, both fights kind of dashed the idea that nobody, but nobody, could ever out-jab Larry, albeit he had passed his peak by the time of the Williams fight, where he came in pretty heavy by his standards and looked a bit softer than normal.

88Chris05 wrote:Only ever seen the third Norton-Ali fight once, but I had it to Norton by a 9-6 in rounds kind of deal. No way Ali won it and even a draw would have been slightly rough justice for Norton.

So no different from Holmes-Spinks...

Worth pointing out the OP thought both Ali-Liston fights were fixed and that he's not the greatest's biggest fan..

If Haz likes a boxer he's the greatest fan you can have....If he doesn't he's a boxer's worst enemy..

Contentious not a flat out robbery..

Enough with all this expert Poopie...Like shrinks in a murder case you can always find one to help your case.

milkyboy wrote:Oh well if someone they interviewed for a film called robbery said that, and it made a top 5 list by an expert then I stand corrected.

Whenever this crops up on forums it's overwhelmingly in favour of norton winning, but often the cards are quite close. Like I said, I had it for norton, can't remember by how much, but didn't see it as a Whitaker Ramirez.

Oh well if it's debated on forums and some people think it's quite close then I stand corrected!

I have no axe to grind with Ali. He was gifted decisions against Norton and Jimmy Young (and there were other close calls along the way).

That doesn't change the fact he's the greatest heavyweight ever - even if those fights had been called correctly.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Only ever seen the third Norton-Ali fight once, but I had it to Norton by a 9-6 in rounds kind of deal. No way Ali won it and even a draw would have been slightly rough justice for Norton.

So no different from Holmes-Spinks...

Worth pointing out the OP thought both Ali-Liston fights were fixed and that he's not the greatest's biggest fan..

If Haz likes a boxer he's the greatest fan you can have....If he doesn't he's a boxer's worst enemy..

Contentious not a flat out robbery..

Enough with all this expert Poopie...Like shrinks in a murder case you can always find one to help your case.

Loves Ali so dislikes Louis and the real greatest Sugar Ray Robinson.

Loves Tommy Hearn so dislikes Hagler.

Loves Mayweather therefore dislikes Pacquiao.

Loves Don Curry therefore dislike Lloyd Honeyghan.


Anyone see a pattern here.

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Only ever seen the third Norton-Ali fight once, but I had it to Norton by a 9-6 in rounds kind of deal. No way Ali won it and even a draw would have been slightly rough justice for Norton.

So no different from Holmes-Spinks...

Worth pointing out the OP thought both Ali-Liston fights were fixed and that he's not the greatest's biggest fan..

If Haz likes a boxer he's the greatest fan you can have....If he doesn't he's a boxer's worst enemy..

Contentious not a flat out robbery..

Enough with all this expert Poopie...Like shrinks in a murder case you can always find one to help your case.

Loves Ali so dislikes Louis and the real greatest Sugar Ray Robinson.

Loves Tommy Hearn so dislikes Hagler.

Loves Mayweather therefore dislikes Pacquiao.

Loves Don Curry therefore dislike Lloyd Honeyghan.


Anyone see a pattern here.

Now that you point it out, I finally do see a pattern.

Its coming through.....

Getting clearer.....

it says......


You are a bell-end.

Adam D wrote:

Strongback wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

88Chris05 wrote:Only ever seen the third Norton-Ali fight once, but I had it to Norton by a 9-6 in rounds kind of deal. No way Ali won it and even a draw would have been slightly rough justice for Norton.

So no different from Holmes-Spinks...

Worth pointing out the OP thought both Ali-Liston fights were fixed and that he's not the greatest's biggest fan..

If Haz likes a boxer he's the greatest fan you can have....If he doesn't he's a boxer's worst enemy..

Contentious not a flat out robbery..

Enough with all this expert Poopie...Like shrinks in a murder case you can always find one to help your case.

Loves Ali so dislikes Louis and the real greatest Sugar Ray Robinson.

Loves Tommy Hearn so dislikes Hagler.

Loves Mayweather therefore dislikes Pacquiao.

Loves Don Curry therefore dislike Lloyd Honeyghan.


Anyone see a pattern here.

Now that you point it out, I finally do see a pattern.

Its coming through.....

Getting clearer.....

it says......


You are a bell-end.

Just pointing out the irony of Truss calling Haz partisan.

I suppose its partly because there has been 100's of 1000's of words written on the same issues around these fighters since 2007.

hazharrison wrote:

milkyboy wrote:Oh well if someone they interviewed for a film called robbery said that, and it made a top 5 list by an expert then I stand corrected.

Whenever this crops up on forums it's overwhelmingly in favour of norton winning, but often the cards are quite close. Like I said, I had it for norton, can't remember by how much, but didn't see it as a Whitaker Ramirez.

Oh well if it's debated on forums and some people think it's quite close then I stand corrected!

Touché. Some ringside press scored it for Ali, but I guess not the expert ones!

Jokes aside, I thought norton won and you can certainly say Ali got the benefit of the young fight too. Though young's Backfoot style didn't seem to endear him to judges in several fights. Ali was pretty much done after Manila... And he was especially tubby against young.

Strange career young. Fights foreman, Ali, norton and a case can be made that he beat them all. Yet he couldn't beat billy aird.

kingraf wrote:I like that, "disputed", as if there's some sort of debate over the real winner.

Anyway, it's quite simple really. It's near sacrilege to point out shortcomings in Ali's legacy. He's still probably the biggest thing in boxing. I'd fancy the average casual sports fan to answer "Ali" before "Pacquiao", "Klitschko", or "Mayweather" if you asked them to name a boxer. For what it's worth, I'd fancy them to answer "Rocky" before the other guys as well. When you're a minority sport bereft of Crossover superstars, it's nearly suicidal to tar your greatest legend's legend. Hence, running through Cooper, London, and Folley is evidence enough that no fighter in the world would have touched '67 Ali. While Young, and Norton fights were mere aberrations.

You realise you're saying this on a thread in which the OP highlights he didn't deserve to beat Norton and pretty much everyone agrees?


Weird fact I read on 606 a while back about this fight: Norton's buddy and Ali's nemesis one Smokin' Joe Frazier had it a draw!

I said "near".... besides which, it was a rather easy fight to score, I'd rate it's nearly impossible to give Ali a win unless, to paraphrase to the point of misquoting, you gave any round where Ali resembled a fighter to him. My point stands though. Wladimir barely got any credit for beating Pulev on here. Imagine if he dismantled a guy who was a contender five years ago, who now had a leg atrophy... I can't think anyone over here would call it his greatest ever performance.

Your problem Raf is trying to compare Wlad to Ali, it's just too ridiculous to take seriously.

Not really my point raf, I'm saying a thread dedicated to a consensus massive short coming of Ali's is an ironic choice of thread to suggest criticising Ali is generally frowned upon.


And Williams isn't his best performance, just one that allowed him to showcase his athleticism and showmanship. Ali had some weak defenses? Damn. He also had Foreman et al, so I reckon he's done alright.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Your problem Raf is trying to compare Wlad to Ali, it's just too ridiculous to take seriously.

And your problem is you place Ali up a pedestal so high he might actually get the bird shi.t when its still fresh. "No heavyweight in history stands a chance against '67 Ali", because if
old 'Enry Cooper and a one legged Williams couldn't touch him... what chance anyone else hey?

John Bloody Wayne wrote:Not really my point raf, I'm saying a thread dedicated to a consensus massive short coming of Ali's is an ironic choice of thread to suggest criticising Ali is generally frowned upon.


And Williams isn't his best performance, just one that allowed him to showcase his athleticism and showmanship. Ali had some weak defenses? Damn. He also had Foreman et al, so I reckon he's done alright.

Hes hardly been criticized, if anything the tone has been more, "okay, he lost... But it wasnt that bad. Have you seen [insert fight here]"

kingraf wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Your problem Raf is trying to compare Wlad to Ali, it's just too ridiculous to take seriously.

And your problem is you place Ali up a pedestal so high he might actually get the bird shi.t when its still fresh. "No heavyweight in history stands a chance against '67 Ali", because if
old 'Enry Cooper and a one legged Williams couldn't touch him... what chance anyone else hey?

I suppose standing up to the indomitable Liston, getting blinded through foul play and still winning has something to do with it but do bang on about Cooper and Williams all you want.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

kingraf wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Your problem Raf is trying to compare Wlad to Ali, it's just too ridiculous to take seriously.

And your problem is you place Ali up a pedestal so high he might actually get the bird shi.t when its still fresh. "No heavyweight in history stands a chance against '67 Ali", because if
old 'Enry Cooper and a one legged Williams couldn't touch him... what chance anyone else hey?

I suppose standing up to the indomitable Liston, getting blinded through foul play and still winning has something to do with it but do bang on about Cooper and Williams all you want.

Because nothing screams dominant more than winning a fight that was dead even on the cards because the other fighter pulled out on a dodgy injury, ey? Invincible that is.

Been busy on Boxrec I see, that fight wasn't even in a million years but do overlook why Ali was blinded for a round and a half if it suits your argument.

Imagine you of all people calling someone out on Boxrecing... Of course I was, that tends to be how I get scorecards for fights which didn't go to the cards. How do you do it? Online Osmosis?

Ali may have been blinded, but thats what happened when you fought Sonny. Hardly the first time he used that trick, and yet I don't see you standing up for the rights of the other disadvantaged? Your argument ignores the fact that Liston's jabbing shoulder was injured during the fight, which is rather unfortunate. A master jabber, with a bad shoulder... Or the fact that he was quite old for a pre pumping Iron champion, or about a million other excuses.

Ali had a fantastic career, wins over Foreman, Frazier, and Christmas gifts against Young and Norton are fantastic hauls. He's quite possibly the greatest of them all, and I genuinely do like him. Just find it amusing how you spin this invincible story.

I think you imagine things Raf, he's not invincible just find it funny when you try to bring Wlads name up when discussing him, you can try to disregard the Liston win all you want but it's a fantastic achievement.

I prefer to watch a fight that is readily available than jumping on Boxrec and taking the scorecards or results on there as gospel.

So if Wladimir fought a guy who'd been shot a year ago... and danced around him, you'd definitely think it was a good win?

And yes... I'm imagining things that aren't there... no one ever said Ali was invincible... "Saying no heavyweight in history would have stood much of a chance against '67 Ali" seems an adequate buffer, since you did technically say they stood some sort of a chance....

I have watched the fight, just like I've watched the Dough Jones fight, Folley fight, London fight, Cooper fights. Knowing what the scorecards read for any of them doesn't mean I didn't watch them, anymore than knowing what Brian Lara averaged wouldn't mean I never watched him bat, or knowing that Nadia Comăneci scored a perfect ten meant I never watched videos of her performance. It's a strange rebuttal.

Just as we've seen Sanders and Brewster..

I just wish Ali had a brother that could have beat Holmes up for him..

Boxing scoring is qualitative not quantitative like cricket Raf so pull the other one.

In my opinion I don't think any Heavyweight could have beaten the late 60's version of Ali, too much speed, too much movement, the jab and the spitefulness. You could however for a change say who you think could have beaten that version of Ali and how.

Wlad doesn't even belong in the same sentence as Ali or Louis, it's embarrassing to see him mentioned alongside either of them.

Agree entirely..

Of course you would Truss. You're joint head cheerleader.
Boxing isn't cricket... but I dare you to judge a batter's average just looking at him... Knowing you, you'd then say '81 Botham was the greatest batter in history. The idea, which I'm pretty sure you cottoned, but just chose to avoid it, as evidenced by the fact that you ignored my Comaneci example. In fact there are many examples. I've watched Rousey-Tate three times now, would you believe I actually know what the judges scorecards were before the stoppage? It's ridiculous to think watching a fight and knowing where the fight was going are mutually exclusive.
I've stated more than a few times now I'd back Foreman to beat a younger, less ring experienced Ali, especially if he'd been preparing for Foreman by beating the likes of Folley. I'd also back Norton to beat Ali, again... and again... and again. And maybe a few more times after that. Norton went 3-0 against Ali for my money, and he's too cagey and Ali too fundamentally flawed to beat him... unless of course You choose to give Ali any rounds in which he wasn't resoundingly thumped.... which of course is how Norton-Ali fights were scored. Reality is pre-67 Ali had physical advantages over every championship fighter he faced, except that oaf Terrel, and probably Liston. Much easier to pull off his fighting style when your four inches taller, 20lbs heavier and have a six reach advantage over your opponents. Impressive coordination, sure. As I've said, by 1967, a case could be made for him being the finest physical specimen boxing had ever seen. But it was nearly unfair on poor old London, and Little 'Enry to go into fights so overmatched. Great for Ali of course, but I fail to see how beating up guys who weighed and had roughly the same physical dimensions as a fight Night Kovalev makes you absolutely invincible

As for Wlad... your hate is irrational. It's boring and it's only slightly less worrying than your hate for Tyson Fury, which is equally humorous. You seem to have the mist descend every time Klitschko's name appears.