Ken norton vs floyd patterson

Could be an even battle .Both suffered early rounds kos .Both were decent punchers though not the hardest in history, which is not to say Patterson didn't have some solid ko s .
I'm going to say that Patterson shocks Norton with a from behind, cracking left that scramble s his mind.
Patterson w ko 9

 

I got Norton

 

Norton is not going to KO Patterson. Here's my 'eras' thing again. A 74-76 prime Patterson, born later, vs. a 58-67 Norton, born earlier. Patterson prevails, Norton's body shots could hurt Floyd but Floyd's rapid fire combos and LH would freeze, and hurt Ken.
IMO? Floyd clear UD or late TKO. Styles make fights folks.

 

I see this as being a closely contested, even-fought battle that goes the limit, with Patterson getting the decision but like with the Patterson-Bonavena and Norton-Young fights many observers feeling it should have gone the other way.

 

Patterson

 

Norton. Easily. Those body shots would land easy enough because Floyd kept those elbows out. He is not absorbing the 2 fisted assault Kenny throws to the body. Those were hard body shots he threw in there and it will not take long to show the effects on Patterson.

I also think the underrated jab of Norton creates a big problem for Floyd. I don't see him slipping it. And the body shots would follow. Tko 9 in a one sided contest.

 

I understand what you're saying but:
Patterson was 37 when he beat Oscar and, IMO, came on strong in the late rounds to gain a close decision.
I thought Jimmy beat Ken and so did the referee.
My $0.02

 

Exactly like i see this

 

Absurd

 

Hey zad!
Let's not forget to throw into your analysis Floyd's moments of attack which could hurt Kenny and...
A 37 year old Floyd took some major body shots from Oscar and, in 65, Chuvalo pounded Floyd's mid-section (and head) often for twelve grueling rounds and Patterson clearly prevailed; Ringo & Chuvalo's body attacks are, at least, on a par with Ken's.

 

I say Ken.


Floyd's speed builds up an early lead but Norton catches up with then stops Patterson in the later rounds. Ken's size and strength are the decisive factors in this bout.

 

Patterson, from my previous comments.

 

I think we're really on the same page here. You make a good point about the Patterson-Bonavena fight. That Patterson, at 37, was able to come back from a knockdown and win the decision, albeit close, in a fight against a rugged man who was still good and had given both Frazier and Ali fits is testimony to his skills and abilities as a fighter. When Floyd was mentally 'up' for a fight, he was a hard man to beat. Incidentally, Patterson during his prime years was someone we seldom saw in the ring. From the time of his first bout with Ingo in 1959 (TKO by 3) he appeared in the ring once in the Johansson rematch in 1960 (KO 5), twice in 1961 - Ingo (KO 6) ,and McNeeley (KO 4), once in 1962 - Liston (KO by 1) and ditto for 1963. Twenty rounds over four years. And he suffered three of his stoppage losses during this time. It has been said, and I agree, that many of Floyd's best victories came after he had lost the title. He seemed to be most vulnerable in the earlier rounds against big punchers. Norton had decent power, but tended to be a slow starter, usually coming on stronger in the later rounds. This would give Patterson a good chance of surviving the early rounds and getting off to an early lead. Norton's size and body attack would probably give him the middle rounds. The last rounds would decide it and I would look for the speed of a younger Patterson to tip the fight in his favor.