Ezzard Charles vs. Ken Norton

I like Norton here.

 

Ezzard Charles by decision

 

A 1950 prime Ezz vs. a 1976 prime Kenny? I (might) go with Norton. A 1976 prime Ezz vs. a 1950 prime Kenny?
Forget it guys! It's fun to speculate but let's realize the eras difference. IMO unless it's within a ten year difference you simply can't pick a winner....

 

Hard matchup to think on. Everytime I watch Charles fight i feel smarter. So well rounded and balanced but tough and cagey too. He was overall more skilled than Norton, but the problem is Norton seemed to just have the style to annoy boxer types. He's also bigger and stronger and has the stamina to press forward all 15 rounds.

It would have been a pain in the ass to score because i doubt there'd be any knockdowns and very few rounds where one guy is clearly in control for the majority of the round.

They'd probably need a best of 3. One thing I will say is Charles was excellent on the inside and norton isn't used to guys standing in front of him and duking it out. Charles had faster hands and more variety. If he can get past the cross arm block and avoids getting backed up, he might be able to outhustle Norton at that range and take a close decision.

 

Norton points

 

You saying Charles hits harder than Ali is like me saying pigs can fly, Ali did everything better Charles, but they had a similar style with movement and we all know that the Norton style gives Ali trouble

 

Two things that I suspect that Eddie Futch would notice and exploit against Charles is that he doesn't seem to be physically strong and he often moves his left foot and leaves his right foot behind. That results in him being in an almost "split" position and makes it difficult for him to move laterally. With Norton being bigger and stronger and Charles not being in a good position to move laterally after he jabs, I'd guess that Futch would have Norton ready to take advantage.

 

Charles was a great lightheavy.

 

Norton got in trouble against big punchers because with that dragging back foot in a bucket style he was ineffective backing up.Against Charles I don't think he would have that problem because,whilst a good hitter Ezzard was not a huge puncher at heavyweight.I take Norton by dec ,but it would be competitive and close.imo

 

Charles beat a 36 years old Louis ,who hadn't fought in over 2 years.

 

Yes, I know he was, but was he able, as a light heavy, to beat a Ken Norton? I suppose I could have made it clearer that I was referring to Charles as a fully filled out and mature heavyweight...and I think he would have had a better chance at winning a decision vs Norton, than as a light heavyweight....no matter how great he was at that weight.

 

That would be Norton's second best HW win. It isn't Charles's #1 or #2.

 

He was not a great heavyweight,just a good one.That's why I stipulated he was a great light heavy

 

I didn't say that he was a great heavyweight.

 

I know you didn't, we seem to be at cross purposes,I was actually endorsing your point!
Charles is the greater fighter without a doubt.