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

i guarantee you that h2h ali and holmes did hit harder than charles and as hard as walcott

 

ALI and Holmes both stopped a lot of heavyweights. On paper they had good KO ratios. I don't know how you can guarantee if one fighter hits harder than the other. You can decide who is the better puncher however by totting up how many world class rated contenders they knocked down because the better puncher is the one who can land his best shot on the best fighters who are harder to hit.by that maxim Charles and Walcott were better punchers than Ali and walcott. That is not to say Norton had a weak chin or a poor defence. It takes more than being the better puncher to win a fight. Ken could beat some but not all of the best fighters Marciano beat at world level.

 

I haven't read the rest of thread and wanted to just respond fresh.

I don't see it. Norton was KO'd in his own day by Jose Luis Garcia, a fighter with an unimposing record of 12-2-1 with 6 KO's if I read boxrec correctly. In size, experience, and record, he was almost an identical comp for Carmine Vingo. Norton was down in this fight more than Marciano was in his entire career.

Frankly, I just don't see Norton being able to protect his chin well enough to be able to sweep Marciano's opposition. This is all always theoretical, but I wonder if Norton might have been more vulnerable to the lighter, quicker guys who still had a punch like Walcott, Charles, and Moore.

This also assumes that a Norton of the fifties, before drug supplements, would have been the same physical specimen as the Norton of the seventies. That is just another wild card.

 

Every big puncher that hit Norton, stopped him.

He was very fortunate not to face Frazier, Lyle, or a non-shot Quarry. He could've added at least 2 more KO losses to his record if he had.

 

:thumbsup

 

I believe I saw it this way as well