Yeah saying Norton lacks ring savvy despite free publicly available footage of him having back and forth wars with skilled fighters like Ali, Holmes, and Young is comedy. People will say almost anything to drag down Norton for some reason.
I think it's because of the brutal knockouts... of course, those were suffered at the hands of the most powerful punchers in heavyweight history.....
3 of Norton's KO's were to 3 of the biggest hitters of all time, guys who frequently make top 10 and even top 5 lists. I never understood the logic that if you get KOd by a huge hitter it means you have a glass jaw. You're kind of supposed to get KOd if you get nailed by a big hitter, it's in the definition. Norton did not know how to fight backing up and didn't have great survival skills. Also, 2 of his KO losses were when he was far past his prime. Very few guys nowadays would take on such big hitters when they're past their prime, especially if there is no Belt on the line such as against Shavers and Cooney. That took guts, but people use that as a reason to hate on him somehow.
I'm not going to wade through 19 pages to see if I'm repeating what another poster said... How good was Foreman's performance over Cooney? I first read it as "How good was Foreman's win over Cooney?" I think it can be looked at this way. 1) Prior to the fight it was a tossup. Most didn't take George's comeback seriously and thought he'd be beaten badly by the first good heavyweight he faced. Cooney was still young, only 32 (though the bout was billed by some as "Two Geezers At Caesars"), and, per the publicity, had a new lease on life, quit his substance abuse, and was in great shape with a new trainer, Gil Clancy. 2) Immediately after the fight it was looked at as a super good performance by George. He'd taken a great shot from an in-shape Cooney in round one, couldn't miss with his punches, and taken out a pretty good (perhaps his first world class opponent of his comeback) heavyweight faster than anyone had before. Perhaps he and his comeback could be taken seriously... 3) Years after the fight the result looks like a foregone conclusion. Cooney, who's heart wasn't really into boxing, had only fought sporadically (8 bouts, 6-2 with the wins coming against no top-ten ranked fighters) in the previous ten years, and never fought again. Foreman had been very active and had fought nearly monthly since his comeback, stopped quality guys like Qawi and Cooper, along with several solid journeymen, to build up his skills, confidence, and ring generalship. He'd go on to regain the heavyweight title and prove his toughness, stamina, and skills against some of the best of the division. In a hindsight is 20/20 sense, no way could Foreman be beat by Cooney. In this way it looks like Foreman's win over Cooney has been diminished. Again, a foregone conclusion. But in 1990, it was really something impressive.
I will explain this as simple as I can to you want to be boxing experts. Gerry Cooney was a good fighter. He is either overrated by some of underrated by others. Gerry Cooney had some good wins in his career. Phillip Brown was undefeated and a solid guy in his prime. Cooney destroyed him. Eddie Gregg was a good fighter (who really couldn't take a punch well) and Cooney destroyed him. Even Cooney beating a washed up Ken Norton and Ron Lyle was just as good as Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua beating a washed up Wladimir Klitschko. Cooney was maybe 33/34 when he fought Foreman. He was in great shape. I believe he was off the drugs at the time as well. Cooney was far more skilled than Fury, Joshua, Wilder or any other current heavyweight. For a 6'6 230 pound or however tall guy he was he had incredible talent. George Foreman still destroyed him. This was a impressive win for Foreman. Cooney was still a top level guy who was inactive because of drug use. That doesn't take away from Cooney's skill or power. Clueless fans will try to less Foreman's victory by given you their clueless backwards views.
Oh I know. People around at the time know that. But people looking back now have cited those as quality wins on these pages.
After masterminding McCall"s knockout of Lewis in 1994....Emanuel Steward (ES) was asked to train Lewis and show him the errors of his ways......ES says the first thing he did was get Lewis to watch old Foreman videos....ie 1970s George Foreman....in order to improve
Except the part where Wlad was champ at the time, and Norton and Lyle were nowhere near that. No. Just no. Cooney wasn't even in the league of Fury and Joshua in terms of skill. Have you seen him fight? It was a decent win because Cooney was unknown at the time. In hindsight, he was a shot fighter on his last leg. But no one really knew that at the time.
Young, Ali and Holmes all had more or less what should have made Norton look good against them. Young nearly beat him, Larry did it injured. Ali the ever flawed masterpiece managed it fairly once as an older man even twice depending on your preference It was not like he ever fought someone outside his comfort zone- He never had to adapt I never saw anyone pressure Norton without success show me a fight where he had to adapt? He was a good HW no doubt, but a smart one I don't really think so.
The Garcia rematch he had to adapt to a man who knocked him out before. Norton was not "comfortable" in the fights with the 3 men you mentioned those were all back and forth wars and he had to give it his all. Cobb tried to pressure an old ass Norton and couldn't impose his will despite his size and strength. Norton got backed into the ropes and had to fight more defensively than in other fights and managed to win.
Cobb was a punching bag way, way, way below Norton in terms of boxing. Norton adapted five years later. Ali, Holmes and Young simply did not have the style or skills to fight uncomfortable enough to topple Norton.
don't ask questions if you've already made up your mind that you will ignore any explanations someone will give you.
