jersey joe walcott vs ken norton - who do you take

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by David Hanssen, Oct 16, 2014.


Page 2 of 2
  1. Bummy Davis

    Bummy Davis Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    23,769
    2,350
    Aug 26, 2004
    :goodsounds good
     
    Bummy Davis, Oct 17, 2014
    Bummy Davis, Oct 17, 2014
    #16
    Pedro_El_Chef likes this.
  2. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    114,710
    51,569
    Mar 21, 2007
    :lol: you must be joking.

    OK. But this seems a bit 101 for Classic.

    1 - As Norton advances he jabs. Walcott needs to slip that jab then close that gap and punch. If people want to make an argument for either fighter that's a good place to start.

    2 - Withdrawl of a significantly longer jab results in a serious punching opportunity for Walcott and a chance for Norton to pre-counter. Does Norton have a history of pre-countering? Has Walcott shown good form countering a hanging jab? Possibly crucial, definitely interesting to people who like technical aspects of boxing.

    3 - Walcott needs to have his timing spiff for his walkaway. Does he have experience against this type of reach advantage? If so, how might his out-boxing defence be compromised, if at all?

    4 - Does Walcott come under? This is a fine opportunity for him to punch with Norton, but he has to get low, has he history here?

    5 - How often does Walcott follow his biggest power-punch in? How often does Norton? How does this affect the dynamic of their infighting exchanges given Norton's considerable weight advantage and the distances involved here?

    There's loads more. Like, loads.

    In both gyms I spent serious time in, respect for the opponent's reach is taught soon after sparring begins. It's up there with height. It's the begginings of strategy. It always matters. There are no exceptions.


    I'm taken aback that you think this is the only type of fighting reach matters in. Really.
     
    McGrain, Oct 17, 2014
    McGrain, Oct 17, 2014
    #17
  3. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    129
    Aug 13, 2009
    Norton had a supposed 8 inch reach advantage against Quarry, he should have been untouchable, yet he got drawn into phone booth exchanges and rocked several times over.

    Norton was a big man on paper but in the ring, he didn't fight like one. His reach against Quarry might as well have been 70 inches at points.

    As for Walcott's experience. Murray was 6'3" and probably close to Norton's range in reach. The 6'2 broad looking Elmer Ray was probably there as well, another big pressure fighter.
     
    The Mongoose, Oct 17, 2014
    The Mongoose, Oct 17, 2014
    #18
  4. McGrain

    McGrain Diamond Dog Staff Member

    114,710
    51,569
    Mar 21, 2007
    I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying that this is always a thing worth exploring. And I do mean always.

    So sure, there will be fights where a big reach wasn't a big factor. But there won't be a big fight, in history, where a significant reach advantage wasn't widely discussed pre-fight. By both sides.
     
    McGrain, Oct 17, 2014
    McGrain, Oct 17, 2014
    #19
  5. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    129
    Aug 13, 2009
    I'm not saying reach is completely irrelevant and shouldn't be discussed.

    But the attitude of the comments following your post seemed to be leaning towards THE REACH being the x factor. And Norton just isn't the guy that is going to utlize a reach like that, he fought small.
     
    The Mongoose, Oct 17, 2014
    The Mongoose, Oct 17, 2014
    #20
  6. dinovelvet

    dinovelvet Antifanboi Full Member

    63,236
    26,724
    Jul 21, 2012
    Norton beat Quarry unmerciful and one sided. Is Goose ever right about anything?
     
    dinovelvet, Oct 17, 2014
    dinovelvet, Oct 17, 2014
    #21
  7. KuRuPT

    KuRuPT Boxing Junkie Full Member

    8,463
    2,821
    Aug 26, 2011
    I think people are wanting Norton to fight a certain way to win this fight than how he actual fought. Reach does matter if you actually use it properly.. I just don't see Ken doing that or being able to do so. I see JJW winning via KO about the 8th
     
    KuRuPT, Oct 17, 2014
    KuRuPT, Oct 17, 2014
    #22
  8. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,812
    10,021
    Jul 15, 2008
    Norton had an excellent jab and made use of it in all three fights v.s. Ali .. Walcott was a counter puncher and would have a hell of a time against that ..

    Perhaps you can point out the several times Norton was hurt against Quarry from the film of the fight unless it's more of your hot air. :lol:
     
    he grant, Oct 17, 2014
    he grant, Oct 17, 2014
    #23
  9. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,812
    10,021
    Jul 15, 2008
    :good :lol:
     
    he grant, Oct 17, 2014
    he grant, Oct 17, 2014
    #24
  10. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    129
    Aug 13, 2009
    I think the real X factor is can Norton take Walcott's punches?

    If he can, he'll pull this one out. But I don't think he can.

    Walcott could adapt a more aggressive approach as we've seen in footage of Marciano I, Charles III, and Hoff(who had an 84 inch reach btw). As I said he was smart, he'll know Norton has trouble off the back foot and he'll make a play at an early knockout or at the very least, make him respect his punch.
     
    The Mongoose, Oct 17, 2014
    The Mongoose, Oct 17, 2014
    #25
    Pedro_El_Chef likes this.
  11. The Mongoose

    The Mongoose I honor my bets banned

    24,478
    129
    Aug 13, 2009
    I agree, the reach listings are unreliable to begin with.

    Liston was measured at 80 inches by Nevada for the Martin fight. And him and Ali looked roughly equal.
     
    The Mongoose, Oct 17, 2014
    The Mongoose, Oct 17, 2014
    #26
Page 2 of 2