Norton by TKO. Marciano would be in over his head against any of the elite heavies of the 70's...Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton & Holmes.
Nonsense. Size advantage here is immaterial. Norton didn't hit hard enough to stop Marciano. People overrate size advantages. Holyfield, a former cruiserweight, managed to beat Bowe in a rematch and very nearly knocked him out in the rubber match. Louis cleaned the clock of both Baers as well as Carnera. Tyson knocked out Bruno, Golota, beat Ruddock and many other guys who outweighed him by much. Marciano would Jersey Joe Walcott (first fight) Norton.
... only Norton wasn't an elite heavyweight; he was just part of the era. I agree w/ Sly on this one. Marciano by highlight reel knockout.
My gut feel is that the only fighters that could make Marciano look bad would be slick boxers that took advantage of his balance and reach. Norton was clumsy himself and often plodded forward. In my opinion Norton would be custom made for Marciano's attack. Marciano wouldn't have to look for him and Norton's cross arm defense ala Archie Moore would allow Marciano to batter his sides. I can see a battered and bruised Norton surviving 10 brutal rounds against Marciano before collapsing in a corner during the 11th round as the pace and clobbering prove to be too much. The memories of Norton absolutely collapsing against the pressure attack of Foreman and Shavers are too vivid for me to think he would react any different against Marciano. Norton didn't have the punch to disuade Marciano's swarming attack nor did he have the chin to withstand Marciano's power.
Here is my issue with this. In the Louis-Marciano discussion you called Marciano an "average fighter and a tiny heavyweight" and one who "benefited tremendously from a weak and aging era of heavyweights". And now in this topic you are sounding quite different. And as for Norton being made for Marciano because he had a similar defensive style to Archie Moore...for me that comparision doesn't work because a prime Norton ISN'T a 49 year old lightheavyweight.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here. To me, Norton was definately part of the upper echelon of heavies at that time. He was definately in the mix with Ali, Frazier and Foreman. Holmes came along when the others' careers were either over or winding down, but even then Norton gave him Hell. Norton went 1-2 against Ali and the second fight was very close and the the decision in the 3rd fight is always brought up when discussing robberies and/or controversial decisions. I have watched that fight many times and I don't think I have had Ali winning even one time. I would say Norton did pretty much as well against Ali as Frazier did and better against him than Foreman did. Frazier had a clear win over Ali, which Norton doesn't have, but Norton was never stopped against Ali. And I know that Foreman KOed Norton in two, but he did the same to Frazier. I've never quite understood how folks (and I'm not saying you here) think that Norton's loss to Foreman is a disgrace, but Frazier's is somehow less so. And Norton beat Jimmy Young shortly after Foreman lost to Young. So Norton did lose to Foreman, but he also held wins over the two fighters who defeated Foreman during the 1970's. I wonder how folks' perception of Norton might be different if he had gotten the decision in the 3rd Ali fight (which I really think he should have) and was the real defending World Champ when he faced Holmes. To me, Norton definitely deserved to be mentioned along with Ali, Frazier, Foreman & Holmes as the best of the 70's. He might deserve to ranked last in the pecking order in that company, but I've always thought he belonged in the mix.
Marciano was an average fighter and a small HW. I just think Norton had less to offer against a slugger like Marciano than you do. And you're right, Norton isn't a 39 year old lightheavy (Pardon the correction). Norton was nowhere near as skilled as Archie Moore. However, their cross armed defense was similar. What's funny is Archie Moore actually legitimately won a couple world titles after turning 39. That's really more than Norton accomplished in his entire career when you think about it. Norton, at his best, was a 210-212 pound HW that wasn't a particular slick boxer. Therefore, in my opinion, he didn't have the size, power or boxing acumen to trouble Marciano. That doesn't change my opinion of Marciano. It just further clarifies my opinion of Norton. Norton was a rung above the Quarrys and Chuvalos of the world.
Ok, you corrected a typo, but that doesn't change the fact that Moore was still very old as fighters go and he moving up in weight and he still dropped Marciano. And Moore didn't win the World Title at Heavyweight, he was KOed by Patterson (not exactly a huge puncher) in his only other attempt, which is the only thing that matters to this discussion. What Moore did at Light-Heavy is irrelevant to this discussion. What is relevant is Norton was a bigger and stronger fighter than Moore at heavy and I don't know that I see the much smaller Marciano bullying him the way he did Moore. Norton was at his most vulnerable when he couldn't go forward and I don't see the "tiny" (your word for him) Marciano having the size or strength to force Norton out of his comfort zone. And I disagree with Norton being merely a rung above Chuvalo or Quarry. Norton was a much better fighter than either. Norton was a world class heavy who was able to hang with the likes of Ali and Holmes. I wonder if Ali and Holmes would consider Norton as nothing more than an average heavyweight?
Next thing that we're going to see is that Ron Lyle would KO Marciano with teh logic that Ron Lyle was an elite heavyweight in the 70s. ::
Is this the best you can do? Really? Something we will NEVER see is you being funny, clever or insightful. That is pretty much guaranteed. Anyway... I never said Lyle was an elite heavy of that time. What's next, will you be exaggerating even more to prove your "point" and bring up Boone Kirkman as a fighter that I would pick to beat Marciano? PS...don't worry...Boone Kirkman is most likely listed on BoxRec so you can look him up and have a clue of who he is.
Guessing game (as MM usually is) but I'd pick Norton. Marciano did have guts but Norton was not easy to walk over either. Yes he freezed against Foreman but gave pretty brutl beating to Duran and more than enough to Ali and Holmes. And stylistically different as though they were, I amnot sure if Marciano hit harder than Holmes
:: Forgot to take your metamucil today, old man. Relax. I just think it's RIDICULOUS to pick Ken Norton, who never won a championship fight in his life, who was known to have mediocre punch resistance (especially against punches) and who had a strong punch but nothing devastating..who didn't have great speed or great defense or great movement and didn't do anything really special....over a guy who retired undefeated with one of the best ever KO ratios in Heavyweight history and who defeated the likes of Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott. And on top of that you label Norton an elite Heavy. :notallthere:
You used that lame line last week and it hasn't gotten any less lame as of today. Dude...you sound like someone who just started following boxing yesterday after you read a book written about Marciano by Marciano's brother. I'm surprised you didn't list Joe Louis among Marciano's impressive conquests while you were at it. And don't forget old and out of his weight class Archie Moore...he is a Hall of Famer as well. Louis, Charles, Moore & Walcott...the names sounds great on a resume, but the reality is that Marciano was a small heavy who built his legend against name fighters who probably should have been retired at the time he faced them. You throw around the likes Jersey Joe Walcott and Ezzard Charles as big wins for Marciano, but totally ignore that Norton beat Ali, which trumps any win Marciano had. How do you think Marciano would do against Ali or Larry Holmes? Would he win a round? Maybe, but then again maybe not. Norton also was part of a classic fight with Holmes. Norton didn't get the decision, but it's not like Holmes was headed for or should have been in retirement at that time like Marciano's biggest wins. In fact, Norton was the older fighter and Holmes was the fighter in his prime when they fought. It's easy to discuss things that sound good, like KO percentage and retiring undefeated, etc...but these things need to be looked at in context of who Marciano faced and when he faced them. I also think it was smart of Marciano was smart enough to retire while on top...because he had pretty much run out of faded stars to fight and might have had to start facing young up and comers and future champs like Patterson & Liston.
Fine, Moore didn't win a HW title. Guess what? Neither did Norton. How is that an important point? And Moore, despite never winning a title at HW, did manage to knock out quite a few of them. And you may dismiss what he did at LH, but I won't discount the fact that he was one of the hardest punching pound for pound fighters in history. Nevertheless, this isn't a discussion about Moore's worth. My point was Norton's cross arm defense was similar to Moore's and Marciano found it easy to pound Archie's rib cage. Norton, without a huge punch, would run into the same thing. Norton just didn't have the tools to deal with big punching, swarming fighters that could keep the pace of Marciano. Maybe I just think too little of Norton, but I don't think it's a difficult fight for Marciano.
I guess we're gonna have to agree to disagree because I think you are seriously underestimating Norton and I just don't see Marciano doing the job on him that you do.
