Certainly not out of the realm of possibility I look at styles and eras being relative...Kenny hit hard but was no Foreman or even a Frazier and more importantly not adaptable...he had a style and size in his era that was difficult to solve for most and it seems that is what his trainer went with, his two biggest factors that hurt him was his footwork and cross arm style....Morrison could come in the ring with the Michael Bentt attitude or he could come in the ring like he did with Ray Mercer which was 95% of the time...with Ken he would come in the ring on kill....Kenny doesn't have the durability of Mercer and he doesn't hit as hard.
If I were to compare "Duke" beating Foreman to Norton beating Ali - I'd bet on Norton. Both are chinny, but not at the same level (Norton is slightly better). Norton lacked one win over :Ali, Frazier, Foreman or Holmes for everyone to recognize him as ATG; Morrison didn't even come close to that. I see Norton as the MD winner in this chess game.
While I think Norton is generally underrated, I think Morrison is even more so. Not really sure who to pick here.
Ken Norton has to be the favorite here, in my view. Swarmer Norton had a win over (not at his best) Boxer Muhammad Ali. And Boxer-Swarmer/Puncher Morrison has a win over (not at his best) Slugger George Foreman. Ali (not at his best) beat Foreman and Foreman beat Norton. Those are somewhat confusing comparisons, but not hard to explain with styles. Morrison cannot do what he did against Foreman (box and move) because it will not work against Norton's style. Morrison can come in as a Swarmer/Puncher and probably look good early. I think Norton can weather the early storm and go after Morrison after Tommy starts getting tired because of the pace Norton can set. I am going to have to go with Ken Norton for the win, but he is in danger in the early rounds.
I know. I should have (and wanted to) write: Norton lacked one more win over :Ali, Frazier, Foreman or Holmes for everyone to recognize him as ATG... This is how it turned out to be completely wrong. I don't know why I didn't write what I wanted
We have that in common. I do not always write what I wanted to write. And, often, I do not even say out loud what I wanted to say. My brain knows what I mean but it sometimes does not get correctly to my fingers or mouth.
Would be interesting for as long as it goes. Either could get KO'ed in this. Norton didn't do well against big punchers, but Tommy had his issues and could be caught as well. Guess I would lean towards Norton but not a fight I would bet money on.
I’d bet my retirement money on Norton in this fight. This place’s affinity for, quote, “big punchers,” unquote, is showing. IMO Norton is arguably Top 25, Top 30 at worst all time, and IMO Morrison is not remotely close to that level.
I love that fantasy fights between men who had bad chins get compared to old western duels- I think it's the perfect analogy. That being said, I don't concretely know who to bet for here. I think that Norton would be the favorite of the odds makers, as he has a much higher chance of shooting right through the Duke and knocking him out quickly- He did it with men like Bobick and was much more technically sound, so I figure that he'd find more opportunities to land that crushing overhand of his, especially against Tommy's leaky chin. He'd be put out for good with one fine shot. Consider him the Sheriff. At the same time, Morrison is an insanely fast combination puncher, who despite a lack of defense always looked good while stringing out quick head and body blows. If Tommy can come forward and put Black Hercules on the ropes while he's in trouble, there might not be much more to see. As good as Norton was, if he gets hit like Bentt did, he likely crumbles- Kenny didn't throw back when pushed into a corner, he'd start bobbing and weaving in hopes of weathering the storm, only to get caught, more often than not. Consider him the Outlaw. In a shootout like this, only one man may win, and I'd bet my money on Ken Norton (If this was peak for peak).