I'm not sure why so many are posting about Norton being top 20. My own post said i'd probably have him 20-25 which is long odds from him landing at 20 to be in the top 20.
I have him in the top 20, and I believe he'd beat quite a few heavyweight champs, past and present. He was a great fighter, probably would have done pretty good against Fury as far as styles go. Might have beat him imo. People keep the knockouts (by the greatest punchers who ever lived) too much in mind when considering Norton's legacy.
Thanks JT! Very surprised how difficult to obtain this information was. I stumbled on it by accident looking for something else entirely (which I ironically never found)! You'd think something like this would be common knowledge.
I can't see him beating many champions tbh. Willard, Carnera, Fitz, Burns, Hart, Spinks, I'd favor him over off the top off my head. 50/50 with Ingo but I lean towards him (much as I find him overrated). I think that's it.
I'd rate Walcott higher. He did an impressive clean up leading to the controversial Louis loss, and ultimately captured the title with a seriously great KO over Charles. Norton. His resume is very thin, and he never had a claim at being the best in the division like Walcott did with his title win.
I just wonder...to me Fury's style would be pretty amenable to Norton's. Fury is definitely not a heavy hitter and is far more of a boxer type. I'm not sure how much better Fury is than 1973 Ali was, to be perfectly honest. Does anyone here believe Fury could have beat a prime Foreman? Not being facetious, honestly curious. I don't think Fury could beat 1973 Norton. There, now I await the hate. Fury just isn't that good.
