ron lyle vs ken norton

It's hard to say for sure. Lyle may have given Foreman a bit of trouble even if Foreman was at his best but the bottom line is that Lyle is getting knocked out either way. I'm done with this debate, it's getting old.

 

If Lyle was the huge super-strong super-punching granite chinned warrior he would have destroyed a guy like Quarry.
Truth is, Lyle was a fearless and strong heavyweight, but he was more of a boxer than a puncher, not a greatly skilled boxer either, and his chin was average for his size.

 

Yet you can't take Nunn's about Toney? Classic stuff.

 

Ok, so you agree with his rating all those other fighters above Toney in the various departments.

Cool.

 

I've always liked and respected Ron Lyle and felt that he was a solid contender. But lately he's been getting overrated around here and primarily because of a gallant losing effort to a man who hadn't fought in 15 months and was coming off a devastating loss. Had Lyle faced George Foreman on the night he demolished Joe Frazier the first time, would we even be having these debates?

 

Its fine to favor Ron Lyle. But to do it with the kind of conviction and certainty that you're applying is naive, especially considering that he didn't posses the extreme tools necessary on either end of the spectrum ( punching power or boxing. ) Lyle was neither a pure puncher nor pure boxer. He was a boxer/puncher hybrid. Nothing wrong with that, but this falls into the category of fighter who Norton generally did well against.. If Ron had the type of power that a Foreman, Shavers or C00ney had, or the type of boxing skill that Ali, Young or Holmes possessed, then I could see your argument. And even the latter of those two wouldn't guarantee victory as Norton had the tendency to give even the best boxers hell.