Ken Norton vs Big Cat Williams

Roy Harris (who fought Liston and Patterson)
“My toughest opponent and most dangerous was sparring with Cleveland Williams.”
http://www.doghouseboxing.com/Ken/Hissner030911.htm

 

Cleveland Williams-Bob Baker sparring ... https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QaxTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=EogDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3507,6648152&dq=&hl=en

 

I said it's irrelevant that no one thinks Norton was the hardest puncher they fought. We aren't discussing whether Norton or Williams hit harder, only the effectiveness of Williams' power at world level. If you want to argue that more people said Williams hit hard than said Norton hit hard, fine. Who was the best fighter that Williams actually KO'd or even knocked down?

Btw, Larry Holmes reckoned Norton hit harder than Tyson. Do you think Norton hit harder than Tyson?

 

Who did Ken Norton knock out at the top level?

Foreman crushed him. Shavers destroyed him. ****ey wiped him out. Ali - even with a broken jaw - didn't even go down.

Norton didn't fight Lyle. He didn't fight Frazier. He eaked out a 15-round split decision against Young.

You keep going on and on about Cleveland Williams not bringing his punch to the top level. It's not like Norton was mowing all the top guys down. He lost to nearly all the top guys. The Young fight was a virtual tie.

The big ko scalp on Norton's record is Jerry Quarry ... who was totally done at that point.

Foreman fought Norton and sparred with Williams and he considered Williams one of the hardest punchers he ever faced.

If Williams punched as hard as C00ney, and according to Foreman he did, then you're damn right Cleveland Williams could knock out Ken Norton.

I've said repeatedly I'd take Ken Norton in a fight with Williams because Norton showed his endurance going 15 rounds a couple times, but Williams could certainly win by KO early.

Don't kid yourself. Foreman would disagree with you. And he got hit by both.

 

Give me a break. Ken Norton's ONLY big KO came against Quarry at the end of his career, and he didn't even knock Quarry down.

Who is the biggest name Norton ever dropped -- Duane Bobick?:roll: I mean, give me a break.

Ken Norton lost to everybody. And he didn't have the excuse of being critical wounded by a cop or be fighting with a bullet lodged in his hip, either.

If C00ney could knock out Norton and make Norton freeze, Williams could, too. Williams punched just as hard.

 

You were going on and on about Mac Foster beating Williams yesterday ... even though Williams had most of his colon removed and still had a bullet in him ... but let's be fair to Norton?atsch

Cleveland Williams knocked out Ernie Terrell ... and, according to Foreman, Williams hit as hard as C00ney, therefore he could knock out Norton.

Who cares if he didn't knock out Billy Daniels. Norton didn't knock out Young. Norton didn't knock out Middleton. I could easily say he's not knocking out Williams, either.

If it goes late, I'd give the edge to Norton to win by a decision, because he was used to fighting deep into fights (because he scored so few KOs against ranked guys). But either guy could win early. In fact, if it ended early, Williams is the likely KO winner.

Then again, Ledoux had Norton all but out at the end of their fight ... so maybe Williams would have a shot at winning late, too.

Either way, Norton and Williams is a toss up.

 

Once again you're going off on an irrelevant tangent. I don't care how hard Norton hit. I don't care whether Williams hit harder.

The argument here is that Norton was vulnerable against big punchers. I agree. Williams is being put forward as a monster puncher and therefore likely to KO Norton. I'm simply asking who Williams actually KO'd or knocked down that qualifies him as a monster puncher.

If Norton was being matched against Mike Tyson or David Tua, we wouldn't even be having this argument. But as he's being matched with someone who never managed to KO a highly rated heavyweight in his career, we are.

 

You keep saying you don't care how hard they hit, and then you bring the discussion back to HOW HARD THEY HIT.

Williams hit hard enough to win. The best punchers of his day spoke of his power.

Williams also boxed well enough to win.

He fought the excellent boxer Eddie Machen to a dead heat (in fact, one judge gave the fight to Williams by three points, and the other two had it even. NONE of them gave it to Machen.)

I give Williams the edge in power. Norton the edge in endurance. Both guys were stiff boxers. Choose your poison.

The difference is who could take the other guy's shots. That's the wild card.

Neither had a stellar chin. Then again, Williams didn't freeze when faced with a banger, like Norton did.

Too close to call. Early in the fight the advantage goes to Williams, later in the fight the advantage goes to Norton (if it gets to later in the fight).

 

You do understand that Ernie Terrell was a top contender, don't you? A year after Williams stopped him, Terrell was ranked among the top three or four heavyweights in the world. He was on the rise. He was approaching his peak.

Where was Jerry Quarry - the only name Norton ever stopped - a year after Norton stopped him?

I like how you guys just IGNORE Williams knocking out Terrell. But you hold the-closest-split-decision-you-can-get loss to Terrell over Williams' head.

How many guys knocked out Ernie Terrell? How many knocked out Norton?

What was more impressive to you? Roy Jones edging Antonio Tarver in their first fight or Tarver knocking out Jones in their rematch?

If you say Jones' narrow decision win, I have to call bullsh*t on that.

The WBA didn't either. They had Williams rated above Terrell even after the decision.

I've got to go.

 

Earlier in this thread you were complaining about people rating Williams based on Boxrec, rather than where he was at that moment in time. Well you're doing exactly the same with Terrell.

Williams beat Terrell in 1962, when Terrell was an unranked nobody who was yet to beat a single rated heavyweight. His best wins were against the likes of Herb Siler and Ernie Cab. Williams knocked out an inexperienced 22 year old with no major scalps to his name.

Do you think Terrell was as good in 1962 as he was in 1964-66 when he won the WBA belt and was actually beating ranked heavies? Did he never improve? All Terrell's important wins in the division came in the years AFTER his loss to Williams. When they had their rematch in 1963, he beat Williams and by the time they were due to meet a third time, he was ranked above Williams. Clearly someone thought he'd improved in that time.

 

If Williams comes out against Norton like he did against Liston, Norton is a gonner.

I don't see Norton getting through that onslaught against a fighter with a reputation as a puncher among fighters. Norton freezes like he did against Foreman and gets knocked out in 1 or 2 rounds just like Foreman.

And I don't think you need to be an elite puncher against top opposition to hurt and finish Norton.