Who should rank higher all time ? Norton or Walcott ?

I remember last time this thread happened 15 or so years ago back....

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

cream

This content is protected

This content is protected

 

Some people, as you, think he beat Ali twice, some don't, and according to the AP, the officials, and the WWS panel he didn't.

 

I like Norton more, but Walcott has deeper resume and he was more versatile fighter than Norton

 

They are both legends, but I rank Walcott higher.

Both had great wins or at least fought great fights. Both could have become world champions earlier (Walcott vs. Louis I, Norton vs. Ali III). Norton gave alltime greats like Ali and Holmes helluva battles, Walcott's record has more depth. Norton's career was more stable and continuous, but he was also younger than Walcott who fought under professional conditions late. Walcott was perhaps less vulnerable against punchers, but he didn't have to fight against guys like Foreman and Shavers either.

All in all, I prefer Walcott, because of his more versatile style, which inspired already Ali. His great footwork, his ring generalship, his qualities as a dangerous counter puncher...

More particularly, he became undisputed heavyweight world champion at the age of 37, and that after many years of privation (Ken Norton lost with 37 against Gerry Cooney via knockout in round one). I think Walcott's late title win is a touch of fairytale-like (ala Rocky Balboa movies). When he lost his title, he was 38 years, 7 months and 23 days old, and therefore the second oldest lineal heavyweight champion ever after Wladimir Klitschko. https://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Oldest_World_Heavyweight_Champions

However, WK fought in a much more modern time with better conditions, medicine, physiotherapy...thus better regeneration and he didn't have to fight somebody like a modern young Marciano...

To become heavyweight world champion at that time with that age was just an enormous accomplishment.

And he gave Marciano (1st meeting) a tremendous fight and would have won on points after 12 rounds.

 

You are bagging Norton's career wins yet thrusting forth Maxim of all people as a "great" heavyweight win? Who did Maxim ever beat at heavyweight beside Walcott himself? Guy was still making 175 when he wanted during these heavyweight fights and fighting barely above light heavyweight. The trilogy was quite closely contested too.

Johnson? Do you realize Johnson collapsed without even being hit due to a back injury? I'd never put that forward as a "great" win. It's virtually a no contest really.

He actually split a pair of close fights with Ray when Ray was seasoned. I'd struggle to call him and Bivins "great" wins. I highly doubt Bivins was even ranked.

You are also ignoring losses of which Walcott had plenty at every career stage. Norton had an 8 year stretch where he only lost to people called Ali and Foreman. You can stretch it to over a decade and include just the loss to Garcia when he was green that was avenged.

Quarry was still well inside the 10. Bobick was a top 5 heavyweight when Norton wasted him.

Sure his win column is pretty thin but he doesn't have that swag of losses, sometimes to very ordinary performers in there. Walcott's spottiness makes it reasonably close.

 

I really like both there styles and enjoy watching them. I give Walcott the technical edge and Norton the power edge. I dont see a whole lot between them. For the record the Holmes Norton fight was an absolute classic but if scored round by round it's not very close. Holmes easily by 5 rounds

 

First off Bivins was the three ranked (should have been first) on the best win streak of his career basically cleaned out the division at the time so it was a GREAT win over a hall of famer. Walcott’s first matches with both Bivins and Elmer were said to be really close affairs even robberies.

as far as the Johnson fight went Johnson was knocked down in the second round and hurt it in the third. Walcott deserves the credit. Just as any fighter would.

Maxim has better wins then Norton lol
Walcott
Patterson
Satterfield
Nardico
Muscato
Bivins
Sheppard
Some were at LHW but all were decent to great HWs. I wouldn’t compare Bivins to Norton it’s embarrassing to Bivins

 

At the time Walcott beat Bivins, Bivins was rated one of the best heavyweights in the world and coming off wins over Mauriello, Valentino, Lee Q. Murray etc and on a long win streak. It was a huge win.

 

Although Ken Norton has quite a few accomplishments, he broke Muhammad Ali's jaw in March 1973, which brought him into world prominence. Ken defeated Jimmy Young in Nov 1977, that essentially gave him the WBC title, then in turn lost the WBC title to a prime Larry Holmes by a split decision in June 1978. Jersey Joe Walcott fought his way up the ladder too, He stopped Ezzard Charles in round 5 on July 18 1951 to claim the World Heavyweight title. He defeated Charles again, only to lose it to undefeated Rocky Marciano on Sept 23 1952 by KO 13. Walcott had a lineal title, Norton only won half of the heavyweight title because Ali chose not to meet the mandatory challenger (Norton) instead fought and lost to Leon Spinks in Feb 1978. The WBC had no choice after Spinks decided to meet Ali again instead of a mandatory fight against Norton.

 

This.

 

Really? Walcott

 

If you are giving out unofficial wins, then Walcott beat Joe Louis.

Walcott, although I have them pretty close.