How would Norton fare against these Heavies? Joe Walcott Jack Dempsey Ezz Charles Rocky Marciano Wlad Klitschko Opinions?
Dempsey and klit knock him out... He beats Walcott and Ezzard... Marciano is a tougher call... As famous as his KOs of Walcott are, I think the Rock was more accumulation than one shot power... Norton was scared of one shot power only
Dempsey was a one shot puncher and much faster than marciano Walcott would get fucking manhandled by Ken Norton
I think affairs with Klitschko, Charles & Walcott are touch-&-go --- Norton could win or lose those fights pretty readily, as I see it. It's tough to call on those. I'm reasonably confident Marciano would eventually get to him, but I hold very little hope at all for Norton against Dempsey. That's the one fight here I would give him next-to-no chance in.
Norton could beat all of them, including Wlad. Wlad's shaky chin and stamina could cost him. Could Wlad come out fast and get Norton out early?? Sure he could. But it's not like Wlad's chin is made of steel either. I would definitely take him over Walcott or Charles. And I've always found Dempsey to be a bit overrated. Norton is a significantly better fighter than anyone on his resume. I've already picked Norton over Marciano in a days-long debate a year or so ago.
I have to disagree that Norton is, "significantly better," than anyone Dempsey beat. Its closer to the other way round (excepting Ali), as I see it.
Imagine my lack of surprise... :: Sorry, dude. There is no one Dempsey fought who I would pick against Norton. Not even Tunney, who was the best Dempsey opponent.
Disagreement is good, to paraphrase Gordon Gecko :: You're changing your tune a bit there, however. You said Norton was significantly better than anyone on Dempsey's resume. I wasn't sure whether you meant anyone beat, or simply faced. Here, you've clarified to say you wouldn't pick anyone on Dempsey's ledger (won or lost) to beat Norton --- which is quite different to the spirit of what I was responding to. I could see Norton beating everyone on Dempsey's ledger (not saying he outright would, but he certainly could do that), but Norton as a, "significantly better fighter," than prime versions of Sharkey & Tunney? Significantly better than Brennan, or Fulton? I don't see that at all. I mean, Norton might be a tough fight for Tunney head-on (he would, in fact), but I have no doubt he isn't half the fighter Tunney was. Not even near it. Only by virtue of size, & possibly styles, would Norton push Tunney --- they are in completely different classes as quality goes. As to the actual matching, I think Norton gets waxed --- but I am on-record as thinking very highly of Dempsey as a fighting machine, I won't deny that.
Yes, he is :: I just meant to convey that, subtracting Ali, Dempsey is a whole lot better (IMO, of course) than anyone Norton defeated. His next best opponent (without looking at BoxRec, here) he bested was probably Young, by a nose, whereas Dempsey faced (& beat) three or four men within Norton's range as fighters.
Norton annihilates Brennan and Fulton ... Fucking kills them... Those guys SUCKED He manhandles Tunney with ease and he is very clearly better than Jack Sharkey The only reason I even though Dempsey could KO Norton is because he was a fast starter with legitimate fight ending power... But Nortons opponents by and large kick the shit ot of Dempsey's Joe is right about Wlads vulnerability but Ernie shavers had even more of that and it made no difference
I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree, as you said, because Norton is much better and would beat all of the fighters you mentioned. As for Tunney, you are overselling him. Norton held his own with the likes of master boxers Ali and Holmes, who were both better than Tunney. I don't see him giving Norton all that much trouble...I really don't.
To be fair...the Shavers fight took place at the end of Norton's career. Shavers was old as well, but he still had that punch...Hell...he probably still does now. Personally, I think the notion that Norton "froze" against punchers is a bit overblown...especially when two of the fights that are used to bolster that opinion happened just before and after his retirement. And he didn't do any worse against Foreman than Joe Frazier did. And I don't know that he froze against Foreman, he did ok in the first round and also in the second until he got hurt. To me, he just got caught by a fighter who was one of the biggest punchers in heavyweight history.
I see what you guys are saying, but the fact remains... he was utterly blown away by the top hitters he did face
He did one-sided numbers on Jose Luis Garcia & Duane Bobick --- if he really did completely freeze up against punchers, I have little doubt a brace of very good hitters like those two would've exposed him (especially Garcia, who had already given Norton fear of his punch with an earlier KO victory), but he didn't --- he simply went about his business & took care of both men. Sure, you may question Garcia (who was a fairly good fighter, I might add) & deride Bobick (certainly a puncher at the very least), but that works both ways --- the Foreman Norton was crippled by would've bested nearly every HW who ever drew breath, while Shavers & Cooney, flawed fighters with nonetheless world-class knockout power, came at the absolute end of his career. Watching Norton's next two bouts after Shavers should be enough to convince any reasonable mind he was done by that stage. At the end of the day, Norton's, "big jinx," consists of losing to three all-time punchers, two of whom occupy the #1 & #2 consensus spots for hardest hitters in HW history (one of which is regularly seen in fans & historians' top-10, & even top-5 for all of history), & two of whom KO'd him when he was already a washed-up fighter. In turn, he made short work of two decent fighters who had above-average punches, & were known for just that. I wouldn't argue the whole thing's a myth --- I don't think it is --- but it's way, way over-the-top, like Liston being a quitter. This, too, has its own kind of simplified, flawed mythology.
agree, I certainly do see that there are nuances... in this vase, it depends on HOW hard Bowe hits... he was a big man and when he really sat down on those shots, he was a pretty convincing hitter... but I will concede that it is POSSIBLE that his punch may not have scared Norton off but I still would give Norton almost no chance if we were talking about undeniably huge hitters, like Razor Ruddock... even as limited as he was (clearly, Norton was a better fighter)
I do favour Bowe, & power is a part of that. I just think Bowe was overall a better fighter than Norton, & his upper-hand in size, in-fighting & punching power would compliment that. Bowe knocks Norton out, but it's not because Norton is the sitting duck for punchers he is often (wrongly) attributed to being.
