Is Norton Overated or Underrated?

Mostly rated just fine. Underrated and perhaps misunderstood in certain aspects of his career (was ducked by many contenders per Futch up until Ali gave him the breakthrough chance; some of his wins are underrated) but in general he gets his due respect.

 

Finely rated, Ali and Holmes had massive,bull-like balls for fighting him.

 

That's what makes his legacy so difficult to assess IMO - it's mainly predicated on 4 highly competitive fights w/ 2 ATGs in which he officially came away 1-4 overall. However, his record of actual wins @ the world class level is rather sparse IMO.

 

he is rated quite well, usually top 15. He did great with Holmes and Ali, but terrible with big punchers: Foreman, Cooney, Shavers. So it looks like it was a bit flawed. His CV is also weakened by the defeat against Garcia, even though he avenged it.

 

Better than one would think, though him essentially starting to fight at the top stage from '73 onwards didn't help. He had a lot of mileage as an athlete and showed strong wear and tear in '78 already, similarly to Lyle, whose near-fatal stabbing was a likely a factor taking some years of life off of him. In those five years he:

Fought Ali thrice, taking one bout, and dropping a controversial split-decision and a controversial 1 round toss-coin
Beat Young, who was ranked #2 and around the time was at the absolute top of his game, with wins over Lyle (x2) and Clancy-tutored Foreman.
Beat the fading Quarry who was ranked #5 (the original opponent was reportedly Bonavena, who was ranked for some years already.)
Beat undefeated Cobb, ranked #9, who stopped Shavers in his previous bouts, and Kenny was arguably faded at that point.
Beat Zanon who was ranked #10, derailed the Futch-trained, Frazier-sponsored Duane Bobick trained (Joe advised them against putting Duane in ring with Ken) and stopped the remains of Garcia in a world eliminator.

And naturally the Holmes bout (which Larry called the toughest fight of his career, with 15th often being cited as one of the best heavyweight rounds of boxing, and the fight repeatedly featuring in top heavyweight bouts lists) was a razor close affair with two 143-142 and one 142-143 scoring. Just a timeless classic.

I think there is a reason Kenny got into the IBHoF on the second year of its existence along the likes of Burley, Schmeling, Jofre, Graham, and Arguello. His most famous bouts being razor close losses does make him a perhaps controversial figure to rank though.

EDIT: I think the Young win especially is overlooked. He pretty much derailed the major force of mid-70's on a great streak. Jimmy really let the disappointment ruin his career afterwards. It was another shot at the title lost after all.

 

Rated just fine. Both Muhammad Ali and Larry Holmes admitted that Norton’s style was the toughest for them. However, this style didn’t work well against big punchers, which was exacerbated by Norton’s average chin. I think Kenny is rated fine, although sometimes he might be a bit underrated.

 

Well, I personally scored the Norton vs. Young fight 7-7 over 14 rounds, so it was a close fight. I'm not sure who won, but most people believe it was Young.

 

Had it for Norton, though it being a split-decision definitely indicates variety of opinion. You could say Ken got the nod here, when he didn't against Holmes or Ali in their rematches.

 

Good fighter. Slightly over-rated.

 

He's underrated because with competent judging he wins the heavyweight title in the ring at Yankee Stadium against a beloved legendary champion. He would of had that moment.
Much better than being awarded the WBC belt. I believe people would remember Ken Norton a little differently.

Ken was awfully good at his best. Not an easy guy to beat.

 

He rated fine. His detractors have some valid points, as do his fans and there's plenty of grey area as well, like most boxers.

 

Norton was a solid fighter-but a tad overrated IMHO. His unorthodox style could give quality opponents trouble (e.g. Ali, Holmes) but he could not handle big punchers (Foreman, Shavers, Cooney) at all!!

 

In the wider scheme of things, with all things considered, Norton is rated about right.

However, in discussions of Norton, the focus is primarily on the trilogy with Ali, the circumstances of his title reign (or lack thereof), and his knockout defeats, often leading to his career being pigeonholed. This is unfortunate because it washes over Norton's physical athleticism and strength, technical skill, versatility, and broader impact on the heavyweight division during the 1970s.

While common in online debate, I find Norton suffers from this type of reductionist narrative more than most, which can often undervalue his presence in history as an elite heavyweight.

 

Ken is rated just fine on this site on the whole. I'd rank him as number four or five in an all time great list of 1970s heavyweights.

A really nice bloke too by all accounts.