Could go either way, but one thing we KNOW is that this bout ends in a knockout. Gimme Morrison by KO, early.
Both guys are susceptible to power and Morrison was very agressive. I don't see how this goes the distance.
Norton by middle rounds TKO. He's just the better all around fighter. Morrison could punch, but I don't know if he's in the league of a Foreman or Shavers in that department. And it's not like Morrison's chin was made of steel. And if the fight goes more than a few rounds...it's all Norton.
I'd go with Morrison by KO. If I'm betting I take round bets on Morisson through the first 5 as the man part of my bet straddled with Norton to win, covering late stoppages and decision wins which can only go one way.:Thumbs:
Norton wasn't a terribly big puncher for my money. Big enough to get a stoppage against Morisson in the right circumstances of course but Morrison is def 'the puncher', here.
Agreed. But you didn't have to be a HUGE puncher in order to hurt Morrison. Bentt wasn't all that big a puncher. Still, as you, I lean towards Morrison by KO. I figure that if he could survive Ruddock and KO him (Ruddock was fairly durable, and exceedingly powerful) I think that on his best night he could do the same to Norton.
Norton was perfectly capable of getting Morrison out there early. Morrison's chin was not reliable and his defense was close to non-existent most of the time. And it didn't take huge punchers to hurt/drop Morrison. I would give Morrison the proverbial puncher's chance, but that's about it.
In the case of a Norton win, Morisson would be either by far the best fighter Norton ever stopped early; or by far the biggest puncher he ever survived should he win late. Conversely of course, Morrison never beat anyone on Norton's level. A win would be unchartered territory for either man. The only precedence on the records is for Norton to lose to the puncher.
agREED. Tommy has an outside shot if he hurts Ken early, but I agree with you. Morrison was an excellent puncher, but he wasn't Foreman/Shavers where the power is just absurd
Your theory here is based on the assumption that Morrison = Foreman/Shavers as a puncher...and I don't know that is the case. To me, Morrison's power is somewhat overrated. Morrison's power looked spectacular against the flotsam and jetsam of the division and the remains of Razor Ruddock, but once he stepped up in competition, it was far less effective. Now I know that it makes sense that would happen, but the true great punchers carry that power into fights against world class opposition. To assume that Norton simply loses to any fighter that can punch is unfair. Norton was a quality fighter...AND when you look at his career, the Foreman fight took place during Norton's prime, but the Shavers fight took place at the end of Norton's career when he was clearly not the same fighter. Hell...he was hurt and dropped by Scott LeDoux around the same time...a fighter he would have beaten sensless a few years earlier. And are you telling me that Norton has NO chance of duplicating what Michael Bentt did? I really don't want to be a dick here...but that doesn't make an ounce of sense to me. Morrison could punch, but he was no George Foreman...not by a long shot. Foreman was a huge puncher, was skilled at cutting off the ring, was ridiculously strong and had a solid chin. Morrison is considerably behind Foreman in all of those ways. I mean, sure...these are heavies and Morrison COULD get Norton out of there early. But to me, when I look at each fighter's career and their skill sets, Norton was the better fighter. I think you are seriously underestimating Norton and overestimating Morrison here.
To be fair, I didn't say there was no chance of anything, besides leaning heavily against Morrison winning anyway except during the first 5 or 6 rounds. Post 8 = my opinion on this fight and where my money would be. Norton's the better fighter but the intangibles are what they are and they make it a very volatile fight.
Yep. Norton was not as glass jawed as some folks seem to think. And Morrison was dropped and/stopped by fighters who were not big punchers.
I do think Morrison has the punch to both hurt & stop Norton, but Norton's alleged weakness to punchers has become hugely over-estimated over the years. Norton is better in 90% of all departments & it's not as if Morrison was the type of quality boxer to overcome such deficits. I wouldn't rule Morrison out, but I do see this as a very likely Norton triumph. Just flat-out the better man, & I personally feel Morrison is the most vulnerable man in this fight, all told.
