Sonny Liston vs Ken Norton, both prime, 15 rounds.

Plz, give me a break. Norton was way faster, and could last a lot longer than Foreman. Norton was also a fair combination puncher.

 

Liston wasn’t any kind of doorman without a jab, he had a great left hook, straight right hand and was a great finisher and combination puncher, Norton may be able to take the jab from Liston, but that would be his downfall, because when he did that, he came forward and he would be caught with the right hand sooner or later and that is either the end or the beginning of the end

 

Excellent post.

 

All about opinions Devon. We've only got the films to go on. Yours is as good as mine mate. Fair do's.

 

It's not even debatable. Norton's weaknesses stops him from being anywhere near Foreman overall. Foreman's power and durability make him a much more effective fighter.

There's a reason why Foreman's basically automatic top 10 and found in quite a lot of top 5's. Kenny can't make a reasonable top 10 and that's taking nothing away from him - very good fighter.

Not many in history would beat George at his best but a lot more would beat Kenny.

Hell, Foreman absolutely obliterated the guy.

 

I look at it this way John. Norton was a guy with more skills. Foreman's skill set was more narrowed to a select few techniques, all of which he mastered, and that's why he beat Norton.

 

I think you both have good points. I think Will is saying Norton was more overall skilled than Foreman even if he couldn't beat him kind of like Frazier-Foreman. Foreman would likely beat even a '71 Frazier but Frazier was undeniably the more skilled fighter.

 

Liston early KO.

 

Thanks swag. You hit the nail right on the head.

 

Yes Will but overall Foreman is a better more effective fighter. He beats more people than Norton for sure.

It wasn't a few select techniques that beat Norton it was overwhelming power and aggression.

 

Didn't Foreman win here in 2 rounds?

Norton would have to box and move in the early round to have a chance here. He tended to freeze vs punchers.

 

Yes, overall-that is true. But effective? idk. He wasn't that effective against Ali or Young. Norton beat the two men that beat Foreman in his prime.

That's true, but I believe Foreman's ability to cut off the ring and execute well also added to the success of that win over Norton.

 

For the record IMO he fought a better version of Ali than Kenny ever did unless you rate the Ali of Norton II up there and Ali won anyways.

Foreman for me was one of those unbeaten guys who didn't handle their first L. He second guessed himself and tried to change his style in an effort to better himself for an Ali rematch. Against a guy like Jimmy he should have just reverted to form but no he wanted to box more, conserve more etc. Even so he almost had Jimmy out of there. Many people believe Jimmy edged Kenny as well.

Guys like Cooney and Shavers would start favorite over even peak Kenny imo. Foreman would clobber the pair of them with his durability and power.

Foreman's ability to cut off the ring helped beat Norton for sure, that's a no-brainer. He was renowned for his ability to cut off the ring. He was also great at maneuvering guys where he wanted them with punch selection, footwork and pure strength.

 

I'm just saying it took some brains to beat Norton, well-anybody for that matter.

 

Sorry meant to get back to this.

I'd have Patterson a tad ahead i think but there's not much in it.