Cone vs prime Norton

****ey in one, at any time.

 

Big punchers were Norton's Achilles Heel unfortunately. Garcia, Foreman, Shavers & ****ey did him in. He was decked by Dutra and LeDoux as well....and maybe by someone else. I admire Norton for his ability to deal with Ali....but don't put too much stock in him vs any of the big punchers....I think it was a good thing that he didn't fight Ron Lyle. Yes, I think that ****ey may have been bad news for Norton at any time of his career....Gerrie Coetzee may have been a disaster for him too, nevermind LL and Tyson.....and I'm just talking about his contemporaries and near contemporaries only here...none of the heavyweights of the past.

 

Duane Bobick was 38-0 with 32 KOs.
The forgotten 'White Hope'. A hard puncher.
Norton slaughtered him in 1 round in 1977, exactly four years before being similarly beaten by C00ney.

It would be interesting to swap C00ney for Bobick, see how Norton does.

It's very possible that Bobick would have smashed the 1981 Norton, and C00ney been destroyed by the 1977 version.

 

Bobick was no hitter. He did guys in with volume. His brother hit harder.Bobick himself didn't fare to well with the hitters either when he fought them in Stevenson and Knoetze. And he went out in a round against Tate also & that big loss to norton.

Back to the thread. ****ey anytime. The Norton cross arm defense is wide open for left hooks. Even worse, Norton will bend down and leave himself right there for the left uppercut. He'll throw lead wide right hands to the body from way on the outside.

And Gentleman Gerry backs him up early and Kenny doesn't have the footwork backing up to get away from the hitters when they fire away.

 

Bobick was a pretty hard hitter. Either way, it hardly mattered, Norton took care of him so quickly

Dread to think what Stevenson would have done to C00ney.

 

Being a big puncher was no guarantee to beating Ken Norton. Men like Dwaine Bobick and Tex Cobb found that out. That said, I doubt he beats Gerry C-oney. Gerry had exceptional power even by puncher's standards to go along with the type of size and style that would always force Norton to fight on the back foot. Something he wasn't real good at doing. To be fair, I don't see a prime Ken losing in 54 seconds the way he did to Gerry in 1981.. But I don't see him winning either.

 

I think ****ey would still win, but it wouldn't have been as quick and brutal. I think Norton may have some success getting inside ****ey's reach and work the body. I think he'd get caught though and stopped at some point. Bad style matchup for him. That said, if Norton had been in his prime at the same time as ****ey, ****ey's management wouldn't have had ****ey fight him unless he was Champion and big money was to be had.

 

Ken was always susceptible to big punchers. Gerry may well have won in a round or two at anytime. However,if Norton is still standing after five rounds or so,he could overcome ****ey.

A big 'IF' though.

 

C00ney gets a lot of undeserved credit.

There's really no evidence that he would beat ANY GENUINE CONTENDER ... the only thing he did was lose bravely to Holmes and knock out some washed-up has-beens.

I mean, he hit hard, but there's no evidence he could defeat a top fighter, regardless of whether or not the fighter is deemed to be "chinny" or "stylistically vulnerable".

Who's the best fighter he beat ? Eddie Gregg ? Phil Brown ? Eddie Lopez ? Seriously.
Probably the over-the-hill Jimmy Young !

 

****ey would still win, but probably about five rounds later.Norton being better not going to change Gerry's power.

 

Amateur wise, Stevenson would destroy ****ey,but he wouldn't do the same to Frazier, Green, and especially Page.

 

Norton simply did not have the chin, style, or power to beat C-oney. You're point about Gerry never beating a prime ranked contender is valid, but I don't think that means that EVERY ranked guy in his prime throughout heavyweight history would have beaten him.

 

What does it take to beat C00ney ?

I certainly believe Norton had the POWER to beat C00ney.

If anything, I think Holmes's cool measured performance against C00ney flattered Gerry.
He had him doing a chicken dance in round 2, all the way to the canvas.

I don't think C00ney was even that strong to be guaranteed to back Norton up.

C00ney might hit hard but it's balanced out by the fact that he's actually more chinny than Norton.

Correct.
C00ney's bound to have had the beating of some.
It's just weird that Norton is rated so low and among them because he lost to C00ney years past his prime.

 

Holmes defeated C-oney by handing him a sustained beating over 13 rounds, and by out boxing him from the outside, while having the chin to take his shots.. Norton would be inside close, which is a mistake given that he lacked the whiskers.. His crab defense would make him susceptible to taking a lot of those left hooks to the body. Just bad chemistry all around.

I'm glad we agree on that much. I concur with those who say that C-oney is overrated, especially for having proven so little. But its getting to the point where some people are practically picking journeyman to beat him, which is going drastically to the other side of the spectrum.

I for one don't rank Norton low. He was a very good fighter who did well against "certain" types of opponents. Fortunately for him those opponents happen to be named Muhammad Ali, Jimmy Young and Jerry Quarry. But he fell drastically short against others.. Norton was well past prime, perhaps even shot when he fought Gerry. But he showed up in reasonably good condition, had just beaten a good prospect and was still ranked by the ring when he lost in only 54 seconds.. Obviously I wouldn't expect this same EXACT result had they met in 1974.. But I'm not sure I'd turn the tables in favor of Norton.