I've seen a lot of Ken Norton discussions in the last few days. These have inspired me to a rather daring hypothesis. Could Ken Norton have become the Louis of the 70s if: - he had started boxing earlier? - he would have had an average solid chin?!? I expect his timing, punch selection and accuracy would have improved greatly if he had started boxing earlier. Especially his left hook would have improved, which sometimes misses wildly. The great Eddie Futch would have probably continued to work with him and possibly let Frazier go?! So the qustions are: -Could he possibly have made stylistic adjustments with a little more training and education? -I've seen the 1970?? sparring with Joe where he was dancing around on his toes like Ali. Could he have really learned and used this style under competitive conditions, complement his one-dimensional style and be able to use it in certain situations? -Could he have learned to box on the backfoot, to counter, to set traps etc? -> I assume he wouldn't have been able to implement or perfect all of this. But I suggest he would have learned and improved a lot if he started with 15-18. I think if most of that improvements comes together + an average chin and defensive instincts, he could have made a run in the 70s and probably cleared the division like Louis did in his time. I still think he could easily suffer a heavy KO against Cooney and especially Foreman though. But it is more like a punchers chance than a stylistic nightmare. He would have most likely been able to survive Shaver's early attack. Btw: I believe his chin is underrated and the glass chin talks are exaggerations. But i still I think it was slightly below average among the heavyweight contenders. What do you think?
Hard to say really, not sure if he'd rule the division as such. A lot does boil down to his chin and his confidence against the big hitting guys. He'd have to get past George and my mind just can't seem to envision him doing that. A better stronger chin? Yes that's gotta give him a better shot but I'd not be confident.
Yes, I have to agree with you. It is the most competitive era with a lot of threats due to the high amount of highly competitive but different types of boxers. Yes, I'm just as torn about it. I feel like: Kenny is a hell of an athlete. Starting earlier which probably results in a little bit better fundamentals, improved style, ballance and versatility + a 7-8/10 chin (like Tyson) would make him a big threat. If he keeps his determination we would blast everything ~1970-73 (guys like Ellis, Bonavena, prime Quarry, Foster, comeback Patterson,Young). I would also favor him vs Frazier and Shavers and Lyle. Foreman would still be his Kryptonite.
70s simply couldn't be dominated. Would he be in the top 5? Of course, he always was top 5 and always will be, even without a strong chin and despite starting boxing late.
I’m not 100% sure that Ken Norton didn’t have an average chin — getting taken out by Foreman and Shavers isn’t evidence of glass as those are two ATG punchers. Even with an above-average but not concrete chin, I’m not sure he wins either of those fights. If those guys hit you right, you’re done unless you’re Ali/Chuvalo/Cobb tier in the chin department. And he couldn’t clean out the division without fighting Joe Frazier, which apparently was never going to happen.
As good as he was (and apparently, he could be even better) the competition does not rest... especially at the top. I think Norton could give certain fighters all they can handle (Ali, Holmes, Holyfield...) but he struggles against the big punchers, ala Foreman. Possibilities to overcome that somewhat: 1. Elusiveness (but Norton was a pressure fighter) 2. ATG chin qualities (that was not the case) 3. Be a big puncher by yourself (Norton was a decent puncher but not a natural born Foreman/Liston etc...) 4. A sufficiently good mix of the previous points
Louis shelves Frazier to a similar status as Norton, a guy who beats Ali. Joe Louis steals his role as the guy to destroy Ellis, Quarry, Bonavena etc leaving Frazier as an “opponent” Louis decimates him… (terrible match up IMO) Ali gets his shot after some left over opponents of JL… probably Quarry and Bonavena again (they side step Frazier) Ali most certainly loses to Louis but it’s a war - Blackburn sees what Futch did in both the FOTC and against Norton it’s a UD or a stoppage for the Brown Bomber never saw it any other way, too savvy, smartest HW of all time on top of his corner Ali hangs in and fights his ass off like he did with Frazier in the FOTC but it’s clear who wins. After Ali he goes through Patterson, Mathis, Norton etc - Frazier gets a rematch after beating Ali and the same thing happens again… Ali’s comeback sort of fizzles out even if he gets the rematch he likely does it fighting Foreman who is the hot commodity running over Norton, Frazier etc - Louis chops Foreman to bits anyone who thinks otherwise is insane, Archie Moore and Saddler would’ve NEVER sent Foreman in with Louis it would’ve been suicide, if Ali gets his rematch it’s possible he wins depending on how much he has left I personally think Louis exploits the same flaws I mean Norton did it 3x and he was no Louis… Louis is getting older so either way eventually Holmes shows up and ends his career. What do you think of this timeline Jan?
That reminds me. In direct answer to the OP’s question, I need to detail how Galento might’ve fared against the 70s era crop.
While you are at it i'm sure you could tell us how Holyfield or someone goes thru Liston's era like a dose of the salts. Feed that craving pal!!!!!!