Would Ken Norton do well in today's Heavyweight division?

When it comes to head to head matchups legacies pretty much get thrown out the window for me. I stick to styles and physical attributes. If Tyson Fury were a 6'2", 210 lbs cutie with minimal power and relied off jabbing from a distance to win his fights then I'd vote for Ken regardless of how high that cutie was ranked. But I really don't see Norton as being able to do much against someone who can impose on him physically and has more than enough power to crack his chin, even if the said fighter was a journeyman which Fury isn't

 

Well, that's not the Tyson Fury I know.
He's got very modest power and doesn't really impose himself physically, not particularly strong for his size, soft and flabby, open to the right over the top that Norton liked to throw.

Yeah, he's probably better boxer overall than giant Jack O'Halloran, I'll give him that. :good

 

And to clarify my position on Tyson Fury.... I think he sucks.. And for many of the reasons you stated... As for Norton.. He was awesome.. But the chemistry here is what decides the fight for me. Not Norton's legacy and beautiful physique or Tyson's lackluster abilities.

 

Fury is like a platypus- it doesn't make sense that a fighter that big fights on workrate and conditioning, or that someone with that physique could maintain it, but he does anyways. He also seems to hold back on alot of his shots, so his power numbers look misleading.

Overall, he's just a weird fighter to project. I do think there's real talent there, though he was also prone to laziness and losing focus on the way up. I really would've liked to see him face 1-2 more top five guys to get a better read of him before the Wlad fight. I like Fury, but he's still a bit of a riddle.

 

Yeah that's kind of my question too.. I can't call him a serious world beater yet because he's still too untested. But with an olympic Bronze medal, a 34-0 pro record, and a title you can't say he's a bum either. For me the word "bum" has always been reserved for the Mike Jameson's and S**** Iron Johnsons of boxing.. And not the men who make short work of them the way that Wilder has done to that type.

 

Originally Posted by HerolGee
he doesn't have the power to seriously kill true, but its enough to stop wladdier chin if shot2shyte fattie retired sanders was enough.

"styles make fights" is of course true, but also whats true is "when wladdie steps up he gets atomised"

HerolGee is approaching Dino's status. UnleashedFURY is correct. Sanders hit harder than Norton. Wlad would stop Norton.

If he was around today, Norton would be #1 or #2 depending on how you view Povetkin. Norton had nice skills and enough size. He just wasn't very good at taking a punch, and tended to freeze a bit vs punchers.

 

Wlad was wiped out by worst ever failure sanders, what chance does he have versus a prime hofer..

and kliturd needs to use the "would"

 

Sanders was a big man, with fast hands and a lot of power. No one says he wasn't. Not sure how you think he was a failure. Sanders tried to get matches with Lewis and Tyson...they said no thanks and picked lesser marks.

So Wlad has three KO losses in 60+ fights. Big deal, many all time greats were stopped more often or a higher percentage of the time. In addition past greats were stopped by lesser punchers than Sanders or Brewster.

 

you'll find a lot of people say that retired fat shot2shyte old sanders didn't have fast hands,

but you need to leave your bedroom to find them.

Heres another "was" versus your "would" - Norton beat an ATG.
Kinda the same way you think Wlad "would" beat ali, not.

 

And it also seems to have gone unnoticed to some people that the man hasn't lost in 11.5 years and 22 fights, 19 of which were world title bouts.. Man has beaten former olympians, men of large size and plenty of dudes with unbeaten records. I don't think this gets him entirely off the hook for those earlier career defeats, but for someone to seriously sum up his ENTIRE career based upon them is ludicrous at best and outrageous at worst.

 

You do realize that he hasn't been stopped in more than 10 years, right? If it were as easy as you're making it out to be, and Wlad was really that sorry, there would have been plenty of men since shot2shyte Sanders...

 

he not that bad at all. i'd say hes fairly good.

Norton is better than fairly good.

 

Who said Sanders did not have fast hands? Statements like this do not enhance credibility.

HBO's Jim Lampley who has seen at least 100 heavyweight fights said he did. Pro trainers agreed.

 

Magoo put on your glasses. Fury a match for Norton???? Get ready to lose your most prized possessions!
I can understand the argument for the top level power punchers but Fury doesn't have the pop to stop Norton. Norton gave Holmes and Ali all they could handle, so unless you get him out of there early then it would be a long night and a boxing lesson.

 

He doesn't need to hit as hard as Shavers or Foreman to get the job done. And his style and size would be overwhelming. Do you honestly see Norton standing right in front of Fury with his crab defense and getting anything done?