How good was Ken Norton?

Good thread...am enjoying this over my Saturday breakfast.

Am enjoying the contrasting views, Norton was always an opinion divider. I've gotta say that I agree with mr magoo, salsanchezfan, janitor, unforgiven & mark clitheroe's take on the subject.

It amuses me that some say Norton was matched carefully & didn't like punchers yet fought 3 of the biggest punchers in the division's history in Foreman, Shavers & Cooney - well he couldn't have been matched that carefully then could he?

Some people excusing Quarry's loss to Ken as Jerry was shot but not using the same logic for Ken's losses to Shavers & particularly Cooney.

People calling Norton chinny yet holding up Lyle & Foreman as bastions of durability, but Ali barely made a dent in Ken yet stopped Lyle & Foreman?

People say Norton never won a title fight but most observers considered Norton-Ali 3 controversial at best. Look at Ali's body language at the final bell - he knew.

That result denied Ken his legacy. I believe the natural lineage of best heavyweight of that time was Ali-Norton-Holmes, for me Ken was HW champ from Sep 76 to June 9, 78.

Ask Ali & Holmes what they thought of Norton as a fighter - Holmes said Norton was the best he fought. Who are we, sitting at our keyboards, to question the value of these opinions?

Norton for me was a top 25-30all time heavyweight.

 

Agree with Entaowed too, particularly re Foreman. I've always thought Norton faced the ABSOLUTE PEAK Foreman. Full of confidence & with the aura of having destroyed Frazier, but before George was emotionally dishevelled by his loss to Ali.

 

Those opinions would be very valuable. So would those of Jose Luis Garcia, Earnie Shavers and George Foreman.

 

I see no way for Norton to win that fight, whether Wlad's on his back or not.

 

I agree they would be valuable too, in order to get a balanced view. I've not heard Shavers' view of Norton, but Foreman speaks well of Norton, Garcia may well speak well of Norton seeing as he was kayoed in their rematch.

Shake - You've commented on one aspect of my post, do you have a view on the other points I've raised?

 

Garcia came in grossly out of shape for their rematch with a wobbly little belly and still managed to hurt Norton in that fight despite always being naturally 20 pounds lighter.

 

Take note that Ken Norton faced George Foreman, Earnie Shavers and Gerry Cooney only once each. Norton fought Foreman in a bout in which Foreman's WBA and WBC belts were at stake. I remember reading that Norton received a purse of $750,000. for his bout with Shavers and a substantial purse for fighting Cooney. In other words, Norton had very strong inducements for facing all three of the mentioned fighters.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Then why don't so many others fight the dangerous ones? Money's money, right? Yet we know that's not the way it works. He didn't HAVE to fight them even once. It figured he'd fight Foreman, that was a title fight, but he didn't have to fight Shavers, for example.

What difference does it make that he didn't rematch any of them, anyway? Other to then be derided for not fighting them all three times?

 

Back during the late 1970s, $750,000. was a lot of money, an important consideration for any professional fighter.

- Chuck Johnston

 

Of course, as it is now.......

The point is, there are a world of fighters who would have pocketed easier paydays and not risked their future with fights like that, rolling the dice on one good payday. You've seen that as well as I have.

 

A "top twenty all time great heavyweight"is not so much a level that cannot be defined but a fighter who makes a rating on somebody's actual list. I think we are all entitled to put any contender or champion on our own top twenty but we have to be able to back up and state a case why a fighter is there and why another is not on it.

A person has to be able to know who is on his own top twenty before he can make a statement about who is worthy of top twenty recognition.

If you cannot fathom how Norton "would not be in the top twenty all time heavyweights" you must be pretty certain of all the attributes and credentials of all the filmed champions you have selected on your own top twenty.

How can you be so certain if by your own admission you "don't know enough about Jack Sharkey to judge"?

Surely we have to exhaust all the records and film of each champion to be able to assess a personal top twenty?

 

well stated

 

what I want to know is, how would Kenny fare against past greats - Dempsey, Louis, Johnson, and could he last the difference against great bare knockle champs like John L Sullivan, the toughest son of a ***** in the house (so long as no blacks were around)

It is rumoured that John went 75-100 rounds

 

We would all want to know that and it would be fascinating if there was a way of knowing for sure. However, Johnson, Louis and Dempsey rose to the occasion, won their biggest fights, each dominated in their own time and had far better careers that Ken Norton. Each was regarded as the best heavyweight in the world beyond dispute from the generations who followed them.

Being able to give Ali good fights just dosnt compare. All great champions had tough fights that could have went either way. it does not make the guy who always pushed a champion that hard worthy of all time great status if he did not really stand out in any other respect.

 

Choklab the skeleton of what you said sounds reasonablethough top ratings are also always subjective-but your prmise is based upon quoting me completely incorrectly.

I said above that I could not fathom Norton not being in the top 20's. That is very different from not being top 20. I even said before possibly he is not top 20.

The comprehensive evaluation of each fighter is best to have a top 20, but there is no one way to go about it that is definitive, nor can you say a guy who does greater research is necessarily correct-he may have a large unconscious bias, bot take era into account properly, weight certain things too heavily or lightly, have confirmation bias...

Now thus far I do not see a good case can be made for Sharkey as top 20 or better than Norton. If a convincing preliminary case can be made, I will look further. This is what I see so far:

In an era somewhat weaker than Norton, by no definition a strong HW era, Sharkey had a record of Total fights 55, Wins 38 Wins by KO 13 Losses 14 Draws 3. Now like I did with Norton it is only fair to also assess his BEST record, before any decline: 34-8-1. Still not a very good KO % by any standards.

So a priori his record looks somewhat worse than Norton's. He was somewhat smaller & less muscular than Norton, & based upon how many good fighters he BEAT, I do not see his resume being as good, let alone better, than Norton. As the Cyber Boxing Zone website describes him, “Sharkey had good skills, could hit with power, box well and take punishment when he set his mind to fight; But, he was an erratic, 'up-and-down' boxer who never seemed to put all his skills together consistently; when he was good, he was very good but when he was bad, he was awful.”

So I suppose it is possible that at his very peak he tops Norton, still does not look as good overall. I'll litsin to a case even that he was better peak for peak against all comers than Norton, which seems easier to make than better overall/better legacy.