Ken Norton vs Big Cat Williams

TBI.....absolutely on the money. Norton could not avoid being koed by big punchers and Williams was a brutal puncher. Boxing 101 for those who lived through that era. Aside from being chinny Norton kept that ultra wide stance that did not allow for side to side movement. He in effect became a sitting duck when faced with real power hitters. He had no way to keep away.

 

doublechin.....great finds with those videos and articles.

 

Hardly bodes well for Williams if you have a cite a fight where he was brutally KO'd in less than three rounds...

Might as well say if Norton boxes the way he did the first round against Foreman, Williams has no chance.

 

Foster was a one punch ko artist so he did not need to have great lateral movement.....horrible comparison on your part.

I assume you did not live through that time period and this is why your thoughts are so clouded.

Boxing thought by everyone from that time......Williams was a killer puncher, Norton froze, could not maneuver away from huge punchers. Add to it he was thought to be chinny.

Chinny, no movement, freezing under pressure from a puncher......all are not good characteristics walking into the ring with prime Cleveland Williams.

 

Haha good points.

For the first point, Norton was no Liston. Williams played puncher against a better puncher and came out the loser; that's how it goes sometimes (or two times in this case). Again I'll say that you don't need to be an elite puncher to intimidate and stop Norton.

But to your second point, and if we're taking both examples, Williams kept up his act for 3 rounds before Liston decided to take his turn, but Norton could only keep his act for one round before the roof caves in on him.

I think Williams' advantages going in outweigh Norton's assets. Norton was good at boxing the boxers, not so good at imposing his boxing game on the punchers.

 

Williams was not an ATG. He was a devastating puncher.

Williams is not the one that needs to worry about Nortons power. It's the reverse that is the problem for Norton and would weigh heavy on his mind I am sure.

I was not just a casual fan during that time. What you illustrate is the real danger of looking back at past eras when you were not born and then thinking you can educate those that were around during that time. I've seen it constantly with well intentioned fans who look at records but have no grasp of all the details. This is why undeniable greats such as Dempsey, Johnson, And even Louis and Ali are judged negatively by those who don't know the full picture. As time goes by those that lived through specific eras die off leaving only those who speculate. Speculation leads to erroneous conclusions. The history of the greatness of Johnson, Dempsey, Louis and Ali is already written and cannot be changed just like the history that Cleveland Williams was a devastating puncher was written and cannot be changed.

 

As another example there are excellent writers that have written articles that the greatness of the third Ali-Frazier bout is a myth. They go on paragraph after paragraph providing mostly misleading information obviously gathered well after the fact by watching the bout on YouTube. Both men were overweight, Ali did not train hard, it was a one sided bout etc etc etc....all wrong.

Hey I was there during that time. I was sitting in an audience of hundreds and hundreds of people and I never before or since ever witnessed the excitement this bout generated. One fighter would surge and then the other. Not a great fight? It was the best I ever watched.

Just looking at the record book and watching the bout knowing who won in the end the authors mislead themselves. Ali trained incredibly hard for this bout. He said it himself post fight several times and he looked in great shape. But the announced weights for both men show they were heavy...that's what they point to. Again the details lost in time.....both men weighed in FIVE days before the bout took place. This is why their weights were announced as being on the heavy side. In fact they both were in the best of shape at more than likely normal weight after the typical last stages of training for a major bout.

Bottom line. Be very cautious making claims that try to change known history. More than likely the conclusions you reach will be not be accurate.

 

Norton's KO losses, when anywhere near his prime, were against elite punchers. It's not as if he was blasted out by Jimmy Young. Was Williams in the same class of puncher as Foreman and Shavers? I'm doubtful, given his lack of KOs/KDs against elite level opposition. Was Billy Daniels any more durable than Norton? He went the distance with Williams both times they fought. How about Frankie Daniels, who also went the distance with Williams twice.

If Williams can't KO Norton, and there are good reasons to be doubtful since he never KO'd a heavyweight of Norton's calibre, then you'd have to favour Norton.

 

That Version of Williams who Knocked out Terrell in 7 gets Norton in 2-3 Rounds.

 

I would put Williams in the same boat as Shavers for sure. Foreman was obviously more proven against better opposition. Williams is in the range of both in terms of stand alone power.

Of course Young didn't stop Norton, and his chin obviously couldn't be that bad or he wouldn't have accomplished what he did. I am asserting that Norton had a mental hurdle with known punchers, and Williams fits that bill.

There are countless examples of ham and eggers, cans, and solid pros taking feared puncher and top fighters to the limit without being stopped; those guys obviously knew how to survive and figured something out against Williams.

I don't think anyone could argue with your last statement.

I've always said that just because a fighter didn't do it doesn't mean he couldn't do it, and that applies to both men here. Williams never knocked out a guy of Norton's caliber, and Norton didn't get past any noted punchers. (I could be wrong on that last one.)

 

This is true, however if a fighter never did something, I'd ask on what basis you think he could do it?

Yes Norton doesn't match well against big punchers, on that we're agreed. If the topic was Norton vs Mike Tyson, I'd be happy to pick Tyson for that reason. But then Tyson was a proven puncher at the highest level. When Norton fought Foreman, the image of George bouncing his stable mate Frazier around the ring must have been fresh in his mind. Which of Williams KOs would have had the same impact? He didn't fold against Bobick, who was 38-0 with 32 KOs and was being hyped at the time as a puncher.

The question I keep asking of Williams is who did he KO or knock down that warrants him being called a devastating/killer/brutal puncher? The type of opponent likely to make Norton fold. Where is that stand out KO, that knockout of a champion or top contender, that knockout out of someone known to be hard to KO?

He had lots of KOs against journeymen and club fighters. He had none against highly rated opposition, which makes me question just how effective his power was at the highest level and hence whether he fits the description of someone likely to KO Norton.

 

How his power translated into his fights is your issue if I'm understanding. His record against top opposition isn't great, and I'm not saying it's not possible for Williams to lose here.

He was an imposing-looking guy and a guy who had a reputation as being a very hard puncher in the gym and in general. Based on that and the fact that we aren't talking about a slick defensive genius in Norton, I think Williams has a much better chance of making his main strength the difference than Norton does.