Muhammad Ali (Zaire) vs prime Jersey Joe Walcott

On that we agree, I just don't see why one immediately assumes that Walcott measures up less favourably against Ali than Norton did.
I can accept the argument that Ali does better against Walcott, who thrived from opponents bringing the fight to him, but the original poster insinuating that Norton is somehow on another level than Jersey Joe is hilarious.
Norton Vs Walcott is as 50/50 as it gets.

 

As the bigger and more well rounded man,I'm sure he'll get a close UD like Norton 2.

 

The one who was a ,500 fighter the last 6 years of his career. That one. The journeyman.

 

Closer. But Walcott didn't like high output like Neon did. So It probably would have played into Muhammad's hand.

 

The guy who in the last 6 years of his career beat Baksi, Bivins, Murray, Oma, Ray, Maxim×2, Harold Johnson, Curtis Sheppard, Ezzard Charles×2, arguably beat Joe Louis and was on course of massively outpointing a prime Marciano until the 13th round while he himself was 39, that 0.5 Journeyman?
He falls short when compared to the guy who pretty much never avenged any of his losses and turned to goo when faced with any significant puncher?
Walcott at the very least found success against every style in the game, which points to him being a more complete fighter than Norton ever was.

 

He also found defeat at every style of the game. His winning percentage got worse as his career progressed. And still he lost ONE OUT OF EVERY THREE TIMES he entered the ring.

 

And despite the losses he still has more good wins than Norton, as I said, Walcott avenged, Norton scrapes his chin off the canvas and went on to the next one.
He has a questionable win over inconsistent Young, a shot Quarry and an out of shape Ali. Somehow that doesn't fair too favourably against a resume consisting of Johnson, Charles, Ray, Maxim and the rest I mentioned.
If you give Walcott the first Louis fight, then Norton even loses his one advantage which is the big name win he has on his resume.
Would love to see Ken get into the ring with Ray, Marciano and Louis though and make it ten rounds with any of them

 

Norton beat the greatest heavyweight in history, arguably twice. Case closed.

 

It wasn't immediately, Walcott lost to Ray before beating him then won over Ray before beating Maxim again. Their three fights were all pretty close and these fights took place when Maxin could still make 175. Tho a very good fighter Maxim was an undersized underpowered heavyweight even in those days. He had some poor losses too at heavyweight. Maxim would be tailor made for Norton.

Walcott didn't beat Joe Louis in two goes and that was the post war Louis who was not the same man as pre war. Walcott was the last two championship fights he ever won.

There's every chance Norton could give Marciano a good challenge. It all depends how Marciano's big size disadvantage translates against Norton's supposed weaknesses against aggressive big punchers. Plenty would not count Norton out.

Elmer Ray? Have you ever seen him fight? I'm favoring Norton personally.

Singling out an Ali loss against a guy who was superb against boxer types of the caliber of Ali, Holmes and Young isn't the big stick you think it is. Norton had multiple assets with which to make himself as absolute pest against elite level boxers and he did indeed prove this.

Walcott is not on Ali's level and I've often defended him in here. He could have his moments against the less mobile Ali of Zaire but it's Ali's night for sure.

 

Ahhhhhh this is where the confusion has come into the chat.

The original poster "That One" absolutely did not mean Norton when he said levels, it was obviously Ali he was talking about. His was the first post on the thread, Norton had not even been mentioned. I think you are possibly confusing your exchanges with Seamus.

I'd agree at their best Norton and Walcott are on a similar level.

 

Walcott never "cleared" the division he was consistently winning/losing fights and had a losing record in Heavyweight title fights. He lost to two of the most prominent Heavyweights of that time twice in Marciano, Louis, going 0-4 that's not "clearing" the division my guy. You need consistency to clear a division which Walcott never had.

 

As for the thread Ali was in good shape in Zaire arguably the last time in his career that he was in good shape. Ali would still have too much for Walcott even the 1974 version and he should stop Walcott within 11 rounds.

 

Final Madison Square Garden Appearance Ali beats Walcott. He might even stop him.

 

Yeah I bet he'd beat King Kong too (on the same night)

 

How is Ali more 'well-rounded' than Walcott?