Ken Norton vs Big Cat Williams

yeah bob foster used it, he really did have a wide punchers stance and even threw his jab from the floor.
Ali and Holmes both struggled against Norton.
as you say pros and cons with any style such as the lateral problem Norton had.
liston also had poor lateral movement from having his back foot directly behind the front instead of offset.
I think Norton fought in a better era against better opposition and that is the key.

 

Cheers choklab, youre not bad yourself!!!

 

Norton's chin wasn't any better than Cleveland Williams' chin. And are you seriously bringing up Mac Foster's wins over Williams? That fight was 10 years after Williams first fought Liston.

Guys age in 10 years. How did Ali look 10 years after he fought Frazier the first time? Against Berbick.

And guys who nearly die from gunshot wounds tend to age even quicker.

Cleveland Williams and Ken Norton were basically the same ... except a "literally shot" Williams fought Ali at Ali's absolute best, and Norton fought Ali when Ali, well, clearly wasn't.

You put the 1959 version of Cleveland Williams in against 1976 Ali, and you put the version of Norton who lost to C00ney in with Ali at his best in 1966 ... you're going to get the same results we saw with Ali-Norton in 76 and Ali-Williams in 66.

That used up version of Norton would've been destroyed by a prime Ali, and Williams at his best would've give Ali laying on the ropes for 15 rounds hell.

Both Norton and Williams could punch. Both got stopped by best puncher of their era. Both were stopped early and late in their careers. Both barely won close decisions. Both were among the top two or three best at heavyweight but were never the best heavyweight in the world when they fought.

Norton had a paper belt handed to him. Williams would've faced Terrell (a guy he'd already stopped) for a paper belt, but he was shot first and didn't get the fight.

Running one guy down and propping one up is pointless. They were basically the same. If Williams came out strong looking for a quick KO against Norton, he'd likely get it. Same if Norton came out quick against Williams, although he rarely started quick.

Like I said last week, I'd give the edge to Norton ... because he showed better endurance in 15 rounders. But that's not to say Norton could go 15 with Williams. Either guy could win early.

It's a toss-up. They were the same.

 

You pick a Williams who was a late sub for Satterfield and an old washed pro when he fought Foster and accuse others of double standards? Foster has less ko wins over names than Williams yet you name him as" a power puncher", yet exclude Williams as he doesn't have signature kos over many top men,.

Talk about having your cake and eating it too!atsch

 

You need to know what you are talking about. The only men to stop Williams PRIOR to him being shot and nearly killed were Liston and Satterfield. Two all time KO punchers. Norton does not rate with either of these two as a puncher. Norton would swing with either fist and a good % of these blows would be open gloved slaps. (Dundee pointed this out years later). Stylistically Norton not Williams was prone to be stopped by punchers due to several factors:

No lateral movement.

He did not have the KO blow to swap punch for punch once he was trapped along the ropes. Thus the puncher had the huge advantage. He could not move and he would be overmatched in terms of firepower.

Cross armed defense was open for the left hook which so happened to be Williams best weapon.

If you would have spoken to Any of the noted trainers from that period no one would have picked Norton. As much as I liked Ken he was stylistically all wrong to keep away from the big bangers......they all would have knocked him out. He could not keep away and could not punch with them......very bad combination.

 

I am another that seconds this post.

Norton was just a much more proven fighter,

and Williams' effective power seems to me to be overrated.

 

The glaring flaw in the argument for Williams being this all-time puncher, and therefore Norton's kryptonite, is the total absence of KOs (or even knock downs) against elite level fighters on his record.

It's true he had lots and lots of KOs against journeymen and club fighters, but then so did Lamar Clark, Tony Galento and Butterbean. Whenever he fought someone near the top of the division, which actually wasn't that often, he failed to knock them out.

I'm yet to see any evidence that he was a puncher on a par with Norton's bogeymen Foreman and Shavers.

 

I have to second this point also.

 

Norton is more proven. Williams really isn't proven at all. In that view the match clearly favors Norton.

Williams has had many top fighters vouch for his power and he has a long list of Club fighter knockouts. Norton both mentally and physically folded against every big puncher he faced.
In this view the match clearly favors Williams.

It's all about what perspective you take on the bout. If I was a betting man I would pass on making a bet on this fight.

 

That's really about what it all comes down to.

 

Can't change known history as much as some would like to. No top heavyweight gets to be known as an all time banger unless he in fact is. Liston and Foreman, both top hwts who were in the ring with Williams, testifies to his power. Norton does not beat an elite puncher. Ken had no way to avoid a ko blow.....he was there to be hit.

 

And BTW Galento in his time was also known and feared as an awesome ko puncher. 80 years later those that sit at their desk and look at a fighters record feel they can reach back and alter what was a known and established fact. All the experts at that time were wrong but 80 years later after everyone from that time is long gone you think you can turn history completely on its head? Hardly.

 

You'd think an all-time banger would have managed to KO a few top heavyweights...