Ken Norton: "my normal weight is 225-230 and i train down to 206"

What ? Fury has been flattened by multiple people the size of Norton. You're saying someone the size of Norton can't beat Fury, is that what you're telling me ? I just need to make sure.

People being bigger than Norton doesn't mean Norton isn't big enough. I'm a bit confused by your argument. Usyk as a cruiser is still better than Fury despite being a little smaller and likely would have beaten him due to superior speed and workrate

 

No. That is not what I'm telling you. Usyk is about Norton's size and beat Fury.

I'm saying that the "good big man beats a good small man" rule of thumb doesn't stop at 6'3", 210 pounds.

 

I never said it did but clearly it's not an absolute rule, im not even sure its that general of a rule, I've seen enough fighters with a significant size disadvantage win for me to not invoke that kind of thinking. Yeah I can understand what you mean but I'm not writing off the smaller guy

 

Sure. There aren't many "absolute" rules in boxing.

That said, your original question was why I think Norton needed to gain weight when he had enough size to win as-is.

My answer is that yeah, he could win if he stayed 210-220, but would have better chances if he was heavier.

 

Yes and No.

The context of your original statement was that a 205 Norton would struggle with the weight difference (presumably more so than if he was 220lb Norton). But I am not sure this difference creates the kind of issue your original assertion implied, hence the question about the relative strength of Norton at 205 or 220.

On the chance you were referring to a broader context, I added the notion that extra poundage for Norton could have an effect on Fury (i.e., make it harder for Fury to manipulate Norton).

However, given your additional context, I am not sure it fully appreciates the sophistication of "fighting for position" and I just don't consider the weight in this case as being as significant as the factors of skill, balance and upper body strength - especially explosive bursts of power. That is not to say it is a non-factor, just that the practical difference between 205lbs and 220lbs might not be substantial enough to alter the shape of the contest.

Put simply, while it’s logical to assume that Norton at 220 lbs might have a slight advantage over his 205lb version, the actual benefit is hard to predict; it’s equally likely that, in real terms, there would be no noticeable difference in how the fight would play out.

And I wasn't asserting that anybody was outright stating it as such. It is, however, being strongly implied.

In the very post I am responding to of yours, you state: "The latter Norton was a bigger Norton, and the weight gain wasn't useless lard."

I'd say Norton weighed-in variably, in the main and roughly between 205 and 220.

I wouldn't say Norton got bigger.

No. We were talking about the effects of the weight cut.

'Bigger' than what?

Norton weighed in at 210 for Fight 1 and at 205 for Fight 2.

That's all very well and good but, it's an "issue" of your making; not mine. If you could point out to me where I made the categorical claim that Norton was as strong or stronger at 205 than he was at 220, I'd be much obliged.

It began with a question, has run since then on a hypothetical and only in the post I am replying to here (see earlier response above) has the initial question been answered in some fashion.

Added to this, I think we’re overlooking some key points here. Firstly, the idea that Norton’s stamina wasn’t "noticeably better" at 205 lbs is not evidence that he was weaker - it actually indicates that he retained core capabilities like endurance and resilience despite a weight cut. Strength and stamina don’t operate as a direct equation with body weight; they depend on conditioning and individual physiology.

Additionally, your claim that Norton was "drying himself out" is speculative. His ability to go 12 hard rounds against Ali without signs of stamina loss suggests he managed his cut effectively, not that he weakened himself. The assumption that "adding lean weight is going to make you stronger" overlooks what actually matters in boxing: functional, adaptable strength, rather than raw mass.

In the absence of evidence that Norton’s performance was diminished at 205 lbs, it’s reasonable to conclude that his functional capabilities -- like endurance, power, and resilience -- remained high despite the cut.

It's reasonable to speculate this, yes.

'Dieting' is straightforward.

Interesting.

You attribute a burden of proof to me on a question I have posed; not a claim I have actually made (I have never stated: "[Norton was] as strong -- or stronger -- at 205 [than he was at 220 or any other higher weight]").

Then, you skirt around the issue of your own claim that in losing 10-15lbs Norton was reducing muscle mass, which you can't prove but feel it unnecessary to do so because of what he "looked" like at various weights.

OK...

...Please don't ask me for proof on the strength of a bogus attribution of burden and then decide to hold yourself to a lower standard for a claim you actually did make...

"...chopping him down to 205 is removing functional weight, [that is to say] muscle."

 

Replacing one oversimplified equivalence with another could be revealing a fragile grasp of the issue... ... ...

 

That's a KO if I ever saw one.

 

I’m not sure what to make of the “starving” himself comments when Norton’s diet has been recorded as such:

Breakfast - 9 eggs, 7 pieces of bacon, 8 pieces of toast, a bowl of cereal, 2 glasses of orange juice and 2 glasses of milk.

Dinner - 2 steaks, some beans and lots of vegetables.

Doesn’t sound like the diet of a man who is starving himself to cut weight, regardless of how many calories he burns in a rigorous training session.

 

Trying to find the source, I wrote this down years ago as whenever I find a fun fact about heavyweight training routines/diets I jot it down in a notebook I’ve had for years. Unfortunately back then I didn’t always write down the source. I’ll keep looking though.

 

I made this same point re Holyfield when a poster suggested putting on 20lb between 88 and 89 was indicative of underhand tactics, but that was comparing a bone dry, cut cruiserweight Holyfield to one fighting at a weight of around 208 from memory because he didn't have to cut down

 

A good part of what Norton trained down must have been fat. For what its's worth, he did say that he thought he trained down too far at 205 lbs for the second Ali fight.

But I also think that he'd train differently for bigger and slower fighters than for those his own size and speed. And he did put on 7,5 lbs for Foreman in his next fight.

If he was a HW today, I'd expect him to bulk up in most cases and come in at 230+ lbs. But against someone like Usyk he might go in the opposite direction and come in around the same weight he had in the 70's.

 

We seen that at the middle-end of Norton’s career, he was 225lbs in fights and was still shredded. The best weight for a fighter is the highest weight they can be at whilst still being lean (12-15% body fat).

 

I agree, but it was a thing back in those days to burn muscle to become light and fast. In Chuvalo 1 Ali was 215 lbs and probably around 10% body fat (which is the average for elite athletes), but just a few months later he got down to 201 lbs for the rematch with Cooper. That was the fastest I ever thing he looked, though.

 

To be fair - replace the 'vegetables' with several pancakes and some form of cooked potatoes, and that entire grocery list looks vaguely like an All-American Breakfast I once ordered at a Marriott Airport Hotel.