Ken Norton Vs Lamon Brewster

I'm not really seeing an argument for Brewster.

Yes, Norton didn't fair well against punchers, but the two punchers he got beat by were two of the hardest hitters at HW. and Shavers didn't meet Norton at his prime, only Foreman did.

Aside from having a big punch Brewster doesn't have much. His best wins were over Wlad and a past prime Golota, so I'd say he hasn't got a win comparable to Norton. He's never been able to beat that level of opponent, I have to think that Norton would stop him late.

 

TKO6

Brewster was coming off a long lay off for the first fight as well. Brewster was in good shape and it was thought he still had the tools to rattle Wlad and repeat the upset. Many were skeptical Wlad would pull it off but of course after Wlad dominated...easy to not credit him for this necessary rematch that further cemented he was a changed fighter.

 

You mean TKO6 can go both ways for the Klitschko's? Who would have thought

 

I think Brewster was genuinely finished by the Klitscko rematch. He hadn't been fighting much recently, had spent much of the past year nursing a torn retina, and his fighting style which involved taking lot's of shots to land a good punch didn't go well with being 34 years old. His abrupt demise after the Klit fight confirms a lot of these things as well.

 

Would be ironic if Wlad and Vitali were the same person. But this is the first time I've seen someone try to argue Brewster "won the event"...sitting on his stool, losing every round, muttering a sad "ok..." in response to McGirt telling him "I'm pulling the plug." That is some fine event winning.

 

I think Norton is a better fighter over all, but mano a mano is a different story.

Norton's biggest weakness was vs aggressive power punchers and Brewster was that. In addition to having top level power, Brewster took a heck of a shot, and had good heart.

Who was the best USA heavyweight since 2005? Perhaps Brewster.

 

Sad to say but also true. Although Eddie Chambers and Tony Thompson may be close seconds.

 

Klitschko II was the last fight he bothered to get in shape for at the very least, coming in at 228 I think. Certainly he was on the decline, but as I said, there were still so many people who thought he still had the tools to rattle Wlad, he was still rated and the IBF mando, and if the fight didn't go down, it would be another Sanders situation where you have critics still claiming "Wlad ducked the rematch, Brewster always had the style to beat him." I do remember some intrigue for the rematch because of that, and gamblers were skeptical of putting big money on Wlad.

As I recall Brewster was moving well for the first two rounds, and landing some good body shots, I think he squeezed one of his signature jab/hooks in as well, but once it became clear Wlad was going to keep his cool and pot shot, and there would be no early fireworks, he just didn't have a hope. He was on his way to taking a bad beating, and Buddy did the right thing. A more prime Brewster may have held on and saw the final bell.

 

I guess everything is 20/20 in hind sight, but Brewster really should have retired after the Liakovich ( spelling ) fight. He might have saved his vision.

 

I think Norton stands a chance against vulnerable punchers if he comes out attacking, he did blow out Bobick. Though he came out timid against the vulnerable Shavers and was quickly disposed of. So he's 50/50 against those guys.

But Brewster's durability and aggression is all wrong for him. I fear Norton will go to retreat and end up getting stopped. I give Norton a shot over Liakhovich though, if Norton can hold his ground and dig to the body without being intimidated, he may get a points win.

 

He certainly should have never took the Helenius fight. I think that is the one that ruined his eye for good..if I'm not mistaken. That one sadly looks like it was just for money too, he showed up in bad shape, and looked like he was there just to take a beating and give Helenius a name. I hate fights like that. It was painful and sad to watch.

 

I can agree with that on terms of resume, I think Brewster is underrated and doesn't get his dues. Rahman is a close second.

Lewis and Wlad wins are hard to top, but Chambers probably on their heels with the wins over Brock, Peter, and Dimitrenko..and the excellent showings against Povetkin and Adamek. He was really busting Povetkin up in the early rounds.

In terms of ability, I think Brock was the real deal and another sad story there with a damaged eye.

 

I know. I wish someone could talk some of these out of taking those kinds of fights. Even if they needed the money, they'd be better off bagging groceries or delivering pizzas than spending the rest of their lives brain damaged, blind, etc..

 

Didn't Brewster later claim some dirty dealings with the hand wrap situation for his fight with Helenius? Something about his seconds not being allowed to witness Helenius getting his hands wrapped I believe.

Brewster, later had multiple surgeries trying to restore vision to the damaged eye after the Helenius fight. I'm unaware at this time, if Lamon is still blind in the eye or not. Seeing interviews with Brewster he always seemed a decent man. Hopefully, his situation has improved.

 

Right. Forgot about that to be honest. I remember Brewster claiming Helenius had used illegal hand wraps, but not sure what came of that.