Kenny Norton vs Marciano's opponents. Would he have also ran the table and went 49-0?

Why does it always have to be one or the other with you? Why can't it just be that I think Ali was pretty shot after Manila? I think most people "who know fights" think Ali was shot after Manila, still world class but still shot. Dr Ferdie pacheco certainly felt Ali was already getting into the danger zone before manila. Why argue if he was much further on after that point? Ali was clever enough to bluff his way through a decision after Manila, but that's all. It worked barely against Norton and SHavers but failed against Spinks.

I think it is a bit petty to make a deal and try and find hidden agenda that just is not there. Just let it go mcgrain, you have to get over this weird obsession.

 

Right. But, that is a question for the OP not me. I didn't pose his question - lol.

Ya know, there is no easy path to having all the answers in looking at great or perfect records (especially with guys long gone) except perhaps to note that at various times it was the MOST IMPORTANT thing to certain fighters (like life and death to the point of avoiding risk as they believed their market value would be destroyed) and irrelevant for other ATGs (which is not altogether surprising as most of them had already lost their "0" long ago so there was no choice <g>) and there we note their title defense streaks or regaining titles or titles in multiple weight classes, or ambitious weight jumps, etc.

There was a brief moment you'll remember when SRL tried to do something not done for a number of years and that was move multiple weight classes to try and gain multiple titles (even if it was a suspect one or suspect opponent at the upper weights). It was basically one-offs. But, the sport in the US was long declining and things settled down again.

For Hopkins and Calzaghe, they both were doing a similar thing at a similar time. Hopkins was trying to be independent and felt he couldn't lose again or he would get pushed to the outside and financially impacted by the sport's established promoters. RJJ was being paid well enough with HBO and just wanted to keep being his own going concern and not be subject to the whims of the promoters. Fans (or haters) attribute this to not wanting to face the best and cherry-picking. But, at that time, these guys were actually making a prudent business decision in a weak US boxing market - broadly (there were exceptions but few). It was bad for the fans and potential matchups were lost but it was understandable if longevity and continued income was the goal. Calz was being matched the same way - as if the "0" was his elixir of life. The mindset was it was better to keep the title against a weak opponent then fight a trilogy against someone difficult and risk losing and/or shortening a career (and one's earning life).

There was a change when Dela Hoya and then Trinidad decided to do some upper mobility and move weight classes. It culminated much much later with Pacquiao taking it to the extreme.

I would find it hard to believe - knowing the nature of boxing (is there a more corrupt sport?) and the times and conditions during the fifties (noting this was pre-civil rights, MLB, professional football, professional basketball had only started in the mid- and late-40s to begrudgingly let the smallest number of African-Americans - under the most difficult circumstances - into the pro ranks) that Rock - after his early period - wasn't the beneficiary (as any fighter with the promotion or stronger support or backing) of optimized "environments" for opponent choice - though I have no facts to provide. Nothing surprises me about boxing though. I would not be surprised if "X is looking bad in the gym, just coming off an small injury" or "Y is having money troubles, or marital issues, or something at the moment" and bang - they are quickly pushed to the top of the list. Doesn't mean every aspect can be orchestrated or manipulated like a puppeteer and doesn't change that a fight still has to occur. Doesn't mean the fighter himself was a direct part of the equation. But, sometimes the differential between two athletes is small and at the margin. In such cases, slight "advantages" can be the difference on a night. Over a season (like in other sports), it would be evened out and less material. But, as boxing involves betting - it is much more of an all or nothing environment. The advantages of being the backed fighter cannot be underestimated.

So, you state Marciano didn't cherry-pick his opponents. Whereas, it is fair to say that Hopkins, RJJ (as they attempted to grab more personal control), Calzaghe, just as examples, surely did attempt to control the choice of opponent, and the timing of the battle. Or, in FW's case, the judges or ref, as well. Why would we imagine that Rock or Rock's promoters would view things differently and choose the toughest and best opponent to kindly give the world the most competitive fight possible?

Is it impossible (if not highly probable) that he could have met "the other ATGs" at moments more optimal to their chances of success? We've seen in the current (ABC) era, that fighters can go from completely unranked to title opponent in the shortest order imaginable. Is it likely that today's Orgs are more corrupt than the 40s and 50s? With what we know of race relations during the period?

If you and I are runners and of comparable speed we know it will be close. If I race you the day after you just had a series of heats and eliminators you won't be optimal.

The primary problem is always the behind the scenes aspects regarding the ratings (which led to being the #1 contender which led to getting the title fight) and in other non-title fights (which still are part of that record setting 49 or whatever number for any other "perfect" fighter) the common circumstance in which the promoters of the fight (again, non-title) are the effective initiators of the bout and are affecting the timing (when best for THEIR fighter), the venue (where best for my fighter and/or worst for the other), the refs and judges (the most sympathetic or corrupt for my fighter), and even conspiring to affect the rating of the opponent or the approval of the opponent which often means knowing the preparedness (lackthereof) of that opponent for the time the bout will occur. While most fights may be without those factors - (can't be happening all the time, right?) - it will surely be to the benefit of the backed fighter when it occurs and will still read as a "win" without asterisk as no one can know or remember the events of the past unless they were on the inside or there behind the scenes.

I tend to suspect that what has occurred in boxing regarding ranks, refs, judges, etc. since I began watching boxing in the midish '60s to date was every bit as pervasive in Rock's era.

Still, no need to be weight class dogmatic or "divisionally" rigid in theory. Calz was undefeated and a champ. Ottke was undefeated and champ. FMJ is undefeated.

There seems to be a bit of "manufactured" success in many of these perfect records and many ways to skin a cat (so to speak).

If you line them up correctly it can be easier to hit them all.

If we are all afforded that luxury we will get that much closer to perfection.




Note: Couple hours past my work day. Got to go. Cheers.

 

I think there was not much difference. He was shot for both fights. ALI fought Norton and Spinks 17 months apart. You can make a case he was worse against Leon I don't mind that. Leon just put three minute a round pressure on. Leon might have beat 1976 Ali with those tactics. Who knows? Leon gave it a go. Norton was bluffed out if it I feel, Ken did not grasp that oppertunity as well as I think he could.

Where is the "propaganda" in saying Norton should have done better against Ali the last time since Ali was shot and ripe? What is dishonest about thinking and saying that? I am learning so much about myself here.. dishonest propaganda... ok to be obsessed...hmm.

 

Yes, I think Norton won all 3. I grew up thinking Ali lost the first, won the 2nd and scraped the 3rd. I recently watched the 2nd fight and thought Norton dominated Ali. Just my opinion. Big fan of Ali(a genius) but Norton had a style that befuddled Ali.

 

Am I on the list?

 

Walcott absolutely had a shot of pulling a Garcia for sure although it becomes a matter of if Ken was ready and up for it or over confident .. Archie Moore had a real shot as well .. Both those men could crack and if Norton got stung he froze up ... I see no challenges from the rest ..

 

Hmmm, interesting. What about Jimmy Young? Do you think Norton dominated him? I thought Norton won a very close fight over Young.

 

Not sure Norton would make it past the early stages without a loss. I think he had a good style to beat Lastarza but the Layne that fought Marciano and got past Satterfield was a rugged guy that could bang and take it.

Walcott could bang and shake Ken up with either hand so i am not sure Ken can go 10-15 rounds with out catching a pinpoint wallop but if you let Ken push forward and back you up you were in trouble. Archie is another crafty guy who could bang, he would put out enough to win but when he put his foot on the pedal he had a bag of tricks and some explosiveness. Charles of Marciano 1 and the Coley Wallace, Satterfield fights is another one that could test a chin and adapt so this may also be a tough fight for Ken. Charles could also fight in the pocket.

Ken busts up Kockle IMO but there were other crafty guys that may have beat him early and not sure how Ken would do at similar stage of his career against the 6"4 Vingo

Norton would be a force in any era and always be trouble for guy that backed up and boxed but he also would have trouble with the bangers or the guys that could back him up or hurt him. Who knows a Satterfield may have gotten to Ken like he did to Big Cat Williams ...the era was not as easy as it looked in fact none of them are

 

I'm gonna come out and say it.

Norton is the best body puncher in the divisions history.

And, to be truthful I could quite easily see him beat all of Rocky's opponents, but chances are he gets knocked out along the way.

 

No but I am.

 

Be careful or you might wake up with the head of an Aberdeen Angus in your bed.... mcgrain is one angry jock.:good

All i said was ali got past Norton when he was shot and he got his Tam o Shanter in a twist.

If Ali was better against Norton than he was against Spinks it wasn't by much.