Would Ken Norton had become a genuine ATG if he fought in a different decade?

He’s really not that good.

 

Hypocrite. Pathetic.

 

Re-watch his first fight with Ali or his fight with Holmes and let me know if you still think that. He looks fantastic in both.

 

He really doesn’t. He’s a very average fighter who gave some great but flawed, past prime or injured boxers a hard fight but ultimately couldn’t overcome them. Being competitive isn’t winning and he only beat Ali when he was out of shape or at the end when he was shot (even that’s debatable). Larry Holmes was injured and handled him fine.

 

And in which decade?
I'm going to guess the 60s, and the 80s. The decade before and after Ken Norton fought.
60's:
He would face a better version of Muhammad Ali, whom he would not beat.
He'd go against Sonny Liston like he did against George Foreman.
Against Joe Frazier, he wouldn't be able to handle the pressure, and anyway; he would lose.
He would have a chance against Floyd Patterson, and Ingemar Johansson, but only because they didn't fight in 1960-61 against Sonny Liston. Otherwise, Ken Norton would not have been world champion in the 60s.
80's:
In the early 80's he would fight an even better version of Larry Holmes than the version he lost to.
In the "transitional period" (Holmes -> Spinks -> Tyson) he might have a chance to get one of the belts, but only for a short period; until the arrival of Mike Tyson.
All in all it could be a one place move on the ATG list (up or down).

 

Right, so I will repeat. What SPECIFIC decade would we be taking about?

 

Great point...I don't think Weaver had quite enough overall boxing skill to beat prime Norton, I don't think Page (who lost to guys like Berbick and David Bey) would have beaten him either.

I think both Tate and Dokes would have been stopped.

Coetzee, Witherspoon, and Thomas could have quite possibly stopped him. Berbick could have taken a decision.

 

Just a different decade, man.

 

I think maybe if he came on the scene in the mid 50's after Marciano retired, til the early 60's if he retires before facing Liston.

 

Norton did not have nearly the power of a Liston or Foreman.
You are likely be going by his build only.
He did not do well against top notch big sluggers.
Liston easily had enough left against Ali to have taken Norton out. Norton with his foot dragging style-not as evasive as Ali-& less chin than Ali would not have survived.

 

Ken would have been a titleholder in the mid-eighties without a shred of a doubt in my mind. I would favour him against Tubbs,Page,Berbick,Thomas,Witherspoon,Dokes,Coetzee etc. Norton-Witherspoon would probably have been a thriller.

 

Physically, the chin will always be a potential inhibitor for Ken, as well as his own psyche when it came to fighting big punchers.

Still, Norton could handle the power of Ali and Holmes very well - not so vs Foreman, Shavers (old Ken) and Cooney (old Ken). The latter 3 being among the top punchers all time.

Ken might’ve had a bit more punch tolerance beyond the power he felt vs Ali and Larry but likely not too much more.

 

In my estimation Norton IS a top 20 ATG. He fought in an era whose toughness was only approximated by the 90s since.

 

A lot of guys could have been ATG’s if they were carefully matched under ideal circumstances. I think if a prime Norton Came around in 1956 he might have reigned until perhaps Liston fought him in 1961-1962. To be clear it’s wouldn’t be guaranteed but I’d at least give him a chance against an aged Archie Moore, Floyd Patterson, Ingo, Cleveland, Machen, Folley, Harris and the rest

 

McGrain has him #22 and his list is always an exemplary starting point. It's a bit of a mix of resume and H2H with, from memory, resume carrying a tad more weight. Don't quote me on that last sentence tho lol

So edging into the 20 would not be outrageous and everyone has their own criteria.