Kenny Norton was not even that big (for athlete his height) only people impress by his beautiful body! LOL was put together real nice. has great body builder potential yes he weigh 215 for Jimmy Young fight is 34 age look him warming up here: This content is protected nothing huge he was boxer. he did exercise yes! if he was not boxer & claim he never did any exercise his muscle at all and sit on couch and is all genetics at age 34 look like. yes would be understand why you call him " liar ' ' but he is boxer heavyweight
It's more about appropriate balance than it is moderation. There is no downside to being extremely strong at multiple joint angles, however, there is a massive opportunity cost of getting there and losing focus on things like cardio, technique, explosive, etc. Lifting weights a lot isn't a bad thing, but wasting your time investing into that at the cost of other, more important aspects of training is.
I’ll make it simple. Mcvey, Jeff and Williams did not look like Norton. Jeff lifted sand bags, wrestled etc. Williams I don’t believe ever denied weight training the way Norton religiously does talking about his genes but check me on that I know he did farm work to rebuild himself. Mcvey like Jeffries wrestled and strength trained for grappling. But they wouldn’t matter because they’re not peeled to the bone nor overly muscular like Kenny Norton. I want you to look at Ken Norton and make a conscious effort to say to yourself “this man hit the bag, did sit ups and ran, nothing more then super genes at the dawn of the PED era”
Look, to keep it brief it’s a little sus captain no weights is bigger then all the bodybuilders and strongman pre 1940s (the undeniable no roid era) like compare Hack the biggest guy they had (from what I’ve seen) and Norton.
Considering that none of his other nicknames seem to have caught on, I second the moniker Ken "Captain No-Weights" Norton.
Maybe I should have worded it differently. There's definitely nothing wrong with being as strong as possible, I meant getting too bulky and stiff.
But I did and do understand. I never said Lamotta’s physique is/was the crux of the point. I said that appearance is the crux of JM’s point - you’ve actually just stated yourself again. Physiques borne out of weights/peds do not, of course, necessarily yield the physical appearance of a Norton - BUT it’s Norton’s appearance that JM is basing his assumption that Norton must’ve at least lifted and/or even used PEDs. I asked HIM for examples/proofs in their own right of PED use in the 50s - you answered with Lamotta - I merely stated that Jake doesn’t fit in with the crux of JM’s point - and it’s just a simple fact that Jake doesn’t fit in with that point. So we have 1 possible example of a form of PED usage and that example didn’t call in a ripped physique from the 50s - and for the latter: there are a number of examples of such physiques.
You’ve oversimplified. You initially also called in height as an illogical filter. You then precluded Jeffries and McVey because you said they both did forms of weight/strength training. Now you’re saying their physiques weren’t overly muscular like Norton’s anyway?? That’s all over the place. I asked for details of any/all of the weight training that’s being called in for proof - you gave none. Williams didn’t deny weight training - so that defaults him into weight training without any proofs? I don’t think so. Sure, Williams did do farm work as a form of training - including to rebuild himself after the gun shot incident. That’s NOT the weight work being focused on - nor is it, of course, proof of any PED usage. No one’s ever denied that old school day to day labouring was not a natural part of lending strength and muscle to the old schoolers. What, are you throwing your blanket over those practices also, now? There are no reasonably fit and active people who haven’t naturally built some degree of muscle via means aside from express weight lifting. I think you need to actually look closer at the physiques of Williams and Norton. The acute, tell tale muscle volume isn’t there. Nor are other characteristics of any particularly accented weight training and/or ped usage. A contemporary article on the Foreman vs Norton described Ken as looking like a skinny LHW by comparison. Sure, some hyperbole there, but the point being Norton wasn’t any where as big or artificially built as you’re suggesting. Foreman had the notably heavier muscle and did look that much bigger. Don’t confuse natural attributes, including above average definition/proportion WITH heavy employment of muscle gaining weight training and/or PED usage. There are plenty of snaps/vision of Norton depicting not so startling muscle mass/size, particularly when there is someone to directly compare him with.
I think I'm misunderstanding you somewhere, then. Let me explain where I'm coming from a bit more so you can hopefully tell me where I'm missing the point: As I read @Journeyman92's argument, he's claiming that Norton's physique is basically impossible without weights or PEDs. That doesn't mean that weights / PEDs will always produce physiques like Norton's. Just that IF you want a physique like Norton's, you need weights or PEDs. Let me give an analogy. If you want to go over 70 mph on a road, you need a vehicle. That doesn't mean everybody driving a vehicle will go over 70 mph. Most won't. But if you want to go that fast on a road, you need one. On Lamotta, you correctly point out that the guy didn't look super muscular. That's true. But he had access to PEDs. He presumably could have used them to get more muscular if he wanted, since the tools and willingness to use potions were there. To bring us back to the vehicle analogy earlier, imagine the following exchange: A: "It's impossible to go 70 mph on a roadway without a vehicle. If Norton went that fast, he used a vehicle." B: "No. There are plenty of people who can go that fast without vehicles." A: "Show me one person going that fast without a vehicle." B: "How about Cleveland Williams?" A: "That doesn't count. Vehicles capable of going 70 mph already existed during Williams's career." B: "Nonsense! If you think Williams used a vehicle, I challenge you to find anybody from Williams's era who was caught using a vehicle." A: "Here's a newsreel of Jake Lamotta driving a vehicle." B: "But the vehicle isn't going 70 mph. That doesn't prove Cleveland Williams used a vehicle to go 70." A: "It doesn't matter. It shows that vehicles were available to boxers in Cleveland Williams's era. Sure, Lamotta chose not to drive at 70 mph. But that doesn't mean he (or others from that era) lacked the tools to do so. The tools were there." In this analogy, the vehicle capable of going 70 mph represents PEDs. Just because Lamotta didn't use them to get really muscular-looking doesn't mean that they were absent. They clearly existed. The tools were there. DISCLAIMER: I am not accusing Williams or Norton of PED use, but simply trying to interpret JM92's argument.
Do not yield. Pick up thine (thyn) sword and fight, Captain Feathersword, you’ll not “wiggle” out of this one! Kidding. Post as you like, no drams, just a fun debate. Me thinketh I’ve posted enougheth on the subject for noweth.. Yes, definitely an interpretation breakdown. The vehicle analogy: Is that to do with JM92 promising to give me his car? OK, roflmao jocularity aside. I think the all As=Bs but not all Bs = As was sufficient to understand where you’re coming from. I’ve italicised and underlined some comments from my previous post to hopefully reinforce this. So, All Kens = weightlifting and/or steroid usage BUT All weightlifting and/or steroid/usage does not (necessarily) = All Kens. Believe me, I understand you and perhaps I’m not conveying that understanding and/or my own counter points adequately. I appreciate the further, fleshed out analogy but, tbh, it is somewhat circular and defeats the inherent crux of the argument specifically posited re and against Norton. Put simply: WHY is Norton, specifically, suspected of weightlifting and/or PED usage? Answer: physical appearance. Put simply: WHY is Jake LaMotta suspected of or proven to have indulged in some form of PED usage? Because his wife Vicki claimed his injecting of bull testicles/other hormones. (and let’s also note pretty rough and relatively primitive example of PED usage). A newsreel of Jake would merely depict the accused, not provide the proof - unless it was filmed evidence of Jake caught in the “act”. Another analogy might be ALL Apples are Oranges but not ALL Oranges are Apples. Why is Ken an Apple? Because he just looked like an Apple. Why is Jake an Orange? Because his wife said so, NOT because he actually looked like an Apple that would equate him to an Orange. Hehe. So, the basis for the accusation against Norton does not converge with the basis for the accusation/proof against Lamotta. Therefore, the Norton/Lamotta “connection” is, essentially, Apples to Oranges. @FastLeft has made some very good points imo - including the linked vision of Norton prior to the Young fight - Ken not appearing so “suspiciously” built up or muscular - I personally see somewhat of a misread on Norton’s physique but one never knows. I appreciate the considerate reply and respect where you’re coming from.
Hackenschmidt much thicker muscle mass. i am not sure what you are looking at with Norton. he was not so huge at all . he has correct muscle insertions and bone structure. it produce a beautiful physique. this is all. Ali had arm & delt same about size as Norton . but less aesthetic body over all. Norton just was best shape body in boxing. but not huge
