I watched Ali vs Norton 1 yesterday, and my scoring was a bit strange

Was a combination of Muhammad being overweight and out of shape plus Ken being his best opponent since Joe Frazier. Also the shock value of the result made Ken's victory seem more emphatic than it probably was. The broken jaw,also figured. I have it 7-4-1 to Ken. The second fight is my fave of their trilogy. Muhammad made sure the last round was his in that one and I scored it 7-5 Muhammad.

 

For the first fight with Ken Norton. Muhammad Ali's performance was extremely sloppy. I scored it closer to you @Stevie G according to Ali's wife he was not prepared for Norton and hadn't been training or sleeping properly and was staying up all night and was very promiscious. The rematch was much closer resulting in a split decision I scored 6-5 and 1 round a draw in favour of Ali. Gene Kilroy said that the most disciplined and hardest Ali ever trained was for the second Joe Frazier and Ken Norton fights and that was the most conditioned he had ever been in his entire career! Contrast that with the Norton Rubbermatch and the earlier rounds are harder to score but I felt it was a clear win for Norton.

 

In All 3 of their fights …when Ali uses his legs ,he wins the rounds …67 Ali does not struggle with Ken Norton

 

Well maybe he wouldn’t if he used his legs for 15 rounds, but he didn’t. Not even in 67.

 

Ken would still have been a tough opponent for 1967 Ali. Would have been very similar to their second bout with some more daylight between them. Maybe 9 - 6 or 10 - 5 in rounds to Muhammad.

 

I haven’t scored the first fight but it seemed Norton was a clear winner.

I don’t think there was anyone claiming that Ali won and I would think there would’ve been out cries if Ali even copped an SD.

The most notable feature for me is that, for all Ali’s impairments in fight 1 - complacency, poor conditioning and the broken jaw - you might’ve calculated for a greater turn around and net margin of superiority for the ultra fit and focused Ali in the rematch.

I guess the other contributing factors to be that after the steep learning curve of the first fight, Norton himself improved in measure also, including greater familiarity with Ali’s style and much greater confidence after the successes of the first fight.

And finally, perhaps the stylistic problems Norton presented in fight 1 were somewhat diluted/masked by Ali’s own state of disrepair.

When the smoke cleared after the 2nd fight, it was patently obvious that Norton was always going to be a nightmare match up for 2nd career Ali any which way.

Just imo, 67 Ali does it so much easier because he can dance for the greater part of the fight with Norton himself perhaps tiring more quickly due to his trying to chase Ali and missing a lot more punches.

 

Your problem is you actually watched the fight and didn’t mindlessly believe the preconceived narrative that “Norton dominated lolz”.

You’re correct, it absolutely was a close fight despite Ali’s condition.

Futch and Frazier both scored the fight a draw, 2 stablemen of Norton who both hated Ali… I don’t think objectivity was an issue.

Foreman and Frazier would’ve killed this version of Ali, and they wouldn’t have needed an SD to do it.

For the record I think Norton’s best fight of his career was in the second fight. Confidence was at an all time high after beating Ali and he hadn’t suffered that devastating KO to Foreman quite yet which imo seemed to have ruined his confidence, particularly against punchers.

 

I had it a draw the one time I watched it ages ago. Hasn't Norton also said it was a very close fight?

And, yes, the rematch might very well have been Norton's best for the reasons that you state. He was really fast also, quite notably faster than the heavier and older version of the rubber fight and the fight with Holmes, but still had enough in his punches to really a hurt a very fit and well conditioned Ali. He said himself that he came in too light, but watching the fight he seems just right both physically and mentally.

 

All three were close and various figures picked different sides. Foreman, Futch, and Frazier inclined towards Norton, the latter two being of opinion he won all three fights. The likes of Holmes were more on board with the official 2-1 ending of the trilogy.

 

Dropping Eddie Futch as his trainer post Ali-Norton II was arguably the most detrimental decision of his career.

 

The third fight was so controversial as you know that CBS Sports assembled a panel of boxing experts to revisit the decision. Frazier had it 8-7 Norton. If one respects his opinion one can't say a fight that close was a robbery. I would argue at that point in his career Ali got in the habit of knowing how many rounds he had to win and resting in the others. That came back to burn him but not in that fight.

 

Robbery is always too strong of a word for bouts like these. Both Ali and Leonard possessed that uncanny awareness of how the men scoring the contest are thinking.

As far as I'm concerned, Norton gave up the 2nd and 3rd bout by dropping the first three rounds and letting Ali take the final round respectively. Even though I've scored the trilogy for Norton, I believe to take the crown, the contender has to truly pour out his soul. Especially against people's champ.

Ali-Norton often reminds me of Louis-Walcott. Both fighters let the title slip through their grasp, and even though their splendid performance in the ring is taken into account when discussing their all-time standing, ultimately they fought in times when the well-known fact was that you had to rip the title from the champion.

 

Ali and Leonard always would try to end rounds with a flourish knowing people and the refs are people are more likely to remember the very first and last things they see. I have a question. I once read that one of the judges turned in a incorrect card in the Walcott fight. Is there any truth to that?

 

Why? He fought exactly the same way he did after Futch left as when Futch was there. There was no change of style or effort.