Ken Norton verus Joe Louis' opposition...

You have to give Max Schmeling one helluva shot. He was very good, very craft, and an underrated puncher.

You'd have to favor Max Baer to blow Norton away. Buddy was worse, but his heavy hands and strength should also make him a favorite.

Thats about it, really. Norton should beat the rest, with Walcott being the best candidate to outbox him.

If we're counting guys who Louis lost too, as well, I give Marciano a 50-50 and I think Charles pulls the trick, as well.

 

If you're talking about consecutive title defenses, then the punchers' collective odds go up. We may not know who will catch him, but it's more likely that somebody will.

 

None of them. Norton is better than anyone Louis fought.

 

What about Tony Galento? He had the punch to put Norton out, I reckon..

 

The punch, aye, but not the ability.

Took more than a punch. Biggest thing to look for with a puncher taking Norton is skill at cutting the ring and strength.

Norton is bigger and stronger then Galento, and yards better. Tony was pretty mediocre as a contender, Norton was just leagues better.

 

Tony Galento is also a lazy, one dimensional tub of goo.

Shavers and Cooney were huge men, bigger punchers then Tony, and knew they could, if need be, rush Ken at the bell, force him backwards and batter him till he stopped twitching.

Ken is stronger than Galento, and if they got close, it'd be Galento on the ropes.

 

I agree, many make it seem as though Ken would fall over from the wind of a hard punch.

His chin was solid enough, I don't think there is much shame in getting knocked out considering he got hit clean by arguably the top 3 hardest punchers (Cooney, Shavers, and Foreman) in history. Norton usually needed some time to really get into his groove and all 3 of those massive punches rushed him before he properly was warmed up and Norton got knocked out. Against 2 of them he wasn't even prime.

I think Norton would do fine against Louis's opposition. I see Walcott giving him a lot of trouble though. Master boxer with a lot of power and accuracy could spell problems.

 

So the Garcia loss was "too early" to hold against him, and the Shavers loss not even a decade later was "too late"? So when did Norton even have a prime??

And why was the Garcia loss a "fluke" just because it was later avenged? You make an issue of Norton's "prime," yet ignore the fact that Garcia was totally washed up by the time of the rematch - yet even a washed up Garcia managed to buckle him a couple of time.

To answer your original question, I would favor Baer(Buddy), Simon, and Walcott over him.

 

Even if you make an excuse for every single time he was knocked out, he still didn't show that great of a chin otherwise. He was buckled a couple times even in his rematch with (a washed up) Garcia, and was also staggered by Randy Stephens. Even if his chin wasn't pure glass, it was still only so-so at best.

 

Also staggered by ledoux and cobb.