Muhammad Ali and Ken Norton fought three times in the 1970s. The record shows Ali winning two out of three, but had you asked most ringside observers – and even Ali himself – Norton may have deserved to sweep the series.

So how did the decisions go the other way?

As a boxing judge and a bit of a student of perception, I believe the answer lies not just in the punches thrown, but in how the human brain processes what it sees. What follows isn’t conspiracy – it’s cognition. Here’s how psychological principles likely played a role in how judges scored these fights.


Confirmation bias: Seeing what you expect

Ali was a legend. His fights with Liston were iconic, and the dominance he showed against Patterson, Williams, and Terrell were things of boxing beauty. Confirmation bias – the tendency to see what you expect to see – can kick in hard when you’re watching someone with that kind of legacy.

Judges may have come in believing Ali was supposed to win. Ali was artful, and there’s no doubt he drew the eye. Norton was tough and strong, but he wasn’t the poetry in motion that Ali was.

The mind tends to register what it anticipates. In close rounds, that bias could have filled in the gaps in Ali’s favor.


Top-down perception: Reputation over reality

When a fighter has the aura of Ali, it affects how we interpret what’s happening in the ring. A late-round flurry or slick head movement can seem like dominance – even when the numbers tell a different story.

In their second fight, unofficial punch stats compiled from tape study showed:

  • Ken Norton landed approximately 199 punches, including 114 jabs and 85 power shots.

  • Ali landed around 160 punches, with 94 jabs and 66 power shots.

Yet Ali won by split decision. Even Ali later admitted he thought Norton deserved it.

Could it be that the judges were caught up in Ali’s aura? Most of the world was – why would the judges have been any different?


The halo effect: When greatness glows

The halo effect causes us to view people we admire through a flattering lens. Ali’s charisma and legacy may have influenced judges to overvalue his flashy moments and undervalue Norton’s steady, technical work.

It’s hard to overstate how much influence Ali had – and he played to it. The judges were human, and they were tasked with evaluating a man who had become larger than life.


Recency effect: The last thing you see

Ali was a master of closing the show – flurrying in the final 30 seconds of a round, igniting the crowd, and creating a memory that stuck. That’s the recency effect at work: we tend to remember and give more weight to what happens last.

But a flashy finish doesn’t always outweigh being outlanded for most of the round. Ali knew how to game the scoring system, and he knew exactly what to show the judges.

The numbers in the third fight

The most controversial decision came in their final bout at Yankee Stadium in 1976. According to retrospective punch stats from boxing analyst Lee Groves and others who reviewed the film:

  • Norton: 286 punches landed, 42% accuracy

  • Ali: 199 punches landed, 29% accuracy

Norton outlanded Ali in 10 of the 15 rounds. Yet all three judges gave the fight to Ali. Even Ali said afterward: “I honestly think he beat me.”

Nearly 100 more punches landed by Norton. But with eyes fixed on The Greatest, perhaps the judges simply didn’t see him — almost like missing the gorilla in the famous selective attention video.
 

Social influence: The roar of the crowd

The setting matters. When 30,000 fans at Yankee Stadium are chanting “Ali! Ali!” every time he twitches his shoulders, it gets in your head. Even trained judges can fall prey to social proof – the subtle psychological pull of the crowd.

The crowd, at least early on, was pro-Ali. Their reaction to his every movement could easily influence a judge’s perception, even if only subconsciously.

And yet, by the end of the night, the Yankee Stadium crowd booed the decision.

The verdict: Psychology on the scorecards

This isn’t about corruption – it’s about cognition. Human judgment is flawed, especially under pressure and the weight of expectation. Ali vs. Norton was more than a trilogy. It was a case study in how perception and bias can affect outcomes. Ken Norton may not have gotten the official nod in fights two and three. But if you go by the film, the numbers, and even Ali’s own admission – he probably should have. And in boxing, that’s the kind of truth that doesn’t always show up on the scorecard.