I never used the words " not that big of a puncher." Of course he hit hard. But I'm talking about comparing him to men like Shavers, Foreman, and Cooney who I think were superior in the power departement, and who two of them beat Norton when he was between 36-38 years of age.
I have to strongly beg to differ here. Foreman was a great fighter, but Shavers and Cooney wern't. I see no reason to suggest that they would be able to pull something off which was beyond a Baer or even a Gallento. There are punchers like that in every era.
Where is the disconnect here? Norton was very over the hill against Shavers and totally shot against Cooney. At the same age, Galento had been out of the game for 7 years, Buddy Baer for 11. That's some damn selective comparisons, a 38 year old Norton against a 27 year old Buddy Baer. And there is no way in hell that either Buddy Baer or Galento hit as hard as either Shavers or Cooney. Put that contention to a test in a new topic if you like. This topic was started on your contention that Norton was only as good as a "bum of the month club" member, an opinion which it appears only you hold.
So let's use a 27-year old Norton then. Oh wait, that's the version who got his ass kicked by bloated LHW Jose Garcia.
I think Norton is favored against every single one of Louis title defenses.. sans maybe Walcott. Lets face it... it was an incredible run by Joe... a run that most couldn't duplicate... However, the quality of his defenses, were well, subpar.
Well, for one, the heavyweights from what is arguably the greatest era of heavyweights almost unanimously agree that Shavers was the hardest puncher of the era. Where is the analogous heavyweight to Galento in the last 30 years, a 5-9, skilless, short-armed, fat, swing for fences on every punch heavyweight who challenged for the title? I'm sure the classiscenti will claim that Tua fits the bill but he demonstrated a whole different level skillwise on film, and showed great endurance and workrate.
I thought you thought the 1970s heavyweight era is overrated and over-hyped. Or was that someone else. Anyway, Shavers was a big hitter no doubt. But so was Galento. Not sure how this is any sort of argument against Galento possessing monstrous power. Because a Galento-clone hasn't challenged for the title in the last 30 years ? mmmm. Anyway, if I was to pick one - this guy was a ranked contender 1992 - '95. A bit like Galento, I don't think his chin was even nearly as good, and his conditioning was even worse ..... [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bIVtnHXorw[/ame]
James Smith Survived the punching power of Mike Tyson, Tim Witherspoon, Michael Moorer, and Frank Bruno... He was stopped late on cuts by Holmes when he had 14 pro fights, and most of his KO losses came post 36 years of age and primarily to big hitters.... Tony Galento was stopped by a super middleweight named Al Gainer.
Overrated does not mean bad. Yes, the 70's are overrated but the argument can be made that from 67-76 was the greatest era of the division. It can not be made for the era of 47-56. Are you comparing the monster Bonecrusher, 6 foot 4, 82" reach, chiseled at 235 pounds to a 5 foot 9, 70-inch reach butterball in Galento? What sport are you watching?