Ken Norton verus Joe Louis' opposition...

I agree with all of what you are saying. A lot of people overrate Norton because of his matches with Ali and Holmes but they forget he lost to every puncher he faced that had life left.

When people say well Norton lost to Shavers so what, remember light heavyweight champ Vincente Rondon who was KO'd by Middleweight Bennie Briscoe and Jose Gonzales and Ko'd by light heavyweights Bob Foster and Johnny Conteh went the full 10 rounds with Shavers also Bob Stalling who was Ko'd 7 times not only went the distance with Earnie but dropped him for a 9 count to take the UD.

Earnie could punch no doubt and so could Foreman, Cooney but Garcia and Ledoux where more known for there losses and Norton got Ko'd by Garcia at 188lbs and hit the deck 2x vs Ledoux......Norton had a flaw and it would be exposed in the Louis era way before it got to Joe Louis

 

Fair enough, but even if you place him as a contender of some sort in the 1940s, the same caveats apply. He might not look any more impressive than he did in the 1970s if he's unlucky enough to get Shavers'd a couple times.

And I would think that this ability to perform in another era (pretending for a moment that stuff like nutrition, training, management remain at 1970s levels) was the quality comparison you were aiming for, right?

 

Norton may have had chin problems, but it took a "special" kind of puncher to expose that , and in most cases, when he was either past or pre-prime. Buddy Baer, Max Baer, Tony galento and the like were not of that calibur.

For the record, I would not be foolish enough to expect Norton to outlast Louis's full list of 25 title challengers, nor even beat all of them in single head to head encounters.. But for all practical purposes I think he was better than the vast majority of them.

 

King Kenny Norton goes 69-1 [if he does NOT have to go into army], his only loss to Marciano, teh rest he beats EASY. OK Maximilian Baer MIGHT score a v.lucky onepunch KO - BUT Kenny whups his ass in a Rematch. :!:


Foreman Hoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooook!:smoke

 

Sorry. I assumed (perhaps incorrectly?) that the purpose of these matchups was ultimately to assess Norton's abilities vis a vis Louis's division. Not Louis himself, obviously.

I'm just suggesting that consecutive fights -- or acting as a contender -- might be a better way to determine that.

 

Seamus, We agree. Where have I gone wrong ?
Yes Max Schmeling in the second Louis fight in 1938 was OVER the hill at age 33. Joe Louis at the age of 24 was smack in his prime then. I have always wondered if Joe Louis was 33 years of age in 1938, and Der Max was 24 years old in their 2nd fight in 1938, what would have been the result ??? Interesting question I think...

 

Max Baer not that big a puncher??? http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/images/smilies/icon_confused.gif

 

Max Baer is shockingly underrated. So what if he was gawky? He was ****ing dangerous.

And yes Seamus I know it doesn't relate to your hypothetical before you go all wild on me ;-)

 

In what way? I imagine he realised quickly he was at a speed disadvantage, tried to lay the nut on him, then **** himself when Louis popped him with an explosive combo. He had no chance to get the better of the exchanges, and was being walked into shots himself, with Louis not falling for Baer's wild swings. Understandable considering the firepower he was quickly lined up for!

 

Ken's prime, for me, was from the first ali victory until the shavers loss.

The only guys who beat a prime norton, in my books are ali, foreman, holmes and shavers. That's 3 top ten hw's who'd be favoured against every one of louis's title defences.

Shavers is the man who caught ken at the right time and ended his charge as a top level opponent. He caught him cold and finished him off.

Norton was the gapstop between ali and holmes. A period of maybe two years where he was the best hw on the planet.

Only a couple of louis's title opponents would I give any consideration to beating norton: schmelling, baer and walcott.

I probably wouldn't favour any over ken but if any where to beat ken it'd be them 3.

If there's some sort of timeline going on then by the time he gets to jersey ken would definitely lose.

Max has the skills and power to beat ken, but that's prime for prime.

Baer has the power and he could catch him, I doubt it though.

 

Don't get the point of the thread, unless I'm just over-analyzing something. Did this arise from a dispute between Seamus and Janitor? I mean, sure, you could favor Norton against every man Louis defended his title against, but the probability of him going through such opposition successfully, or even half as successfully as Louis did is very unlikely. Norton just wasn't that great a caliber of fighter, nor consistent enough as one despite the great troubles he gave Ali. His style weaknesses against punches seems to be unfortunately just as bad the other way around as his strengths against the boxer types like Holmes and Ali are.

Yes, if Louis had a prime Norton on his record it may very well be his best win. Ali and Holmes can barely brag about doing such a feat; they basically just scrapped by. Great fighter.

 

Norton was good but people on this thread are definitely underrating Louis's title opposition.

Some of those were good also, and should be at least seen as 50-50 propositions against Norton.

 

Seamus must be pissed that were still talking about Max Baer taking out Norton when Louis didn't defend his title against him he's talking about Mann, Farr, Schmeling, Godoy, Simon, Galento, B Baer, Lou Nova, Conn, Walcott etc.
The only two i'd favour over Norton would be Galento and Nova
Walcott would be a verrrrry interesting fight, pick 'em for me