Ken Norton Would Get Slept by Povetkin in Every Universe

Another guy to add to this interesting side topic is Mike Weaver. He didn't get the nickname of Hercules for nothing. He's more robust again than Norton. They spent 7 years in the marines collectively and became quite close in Weavers early boxing years. As a matter of fact Norton is cited as one of the biggest reasons for Weavers spectacular turnaround in form.

To further continue the parallels Weaver said he didn't do weights either. Even more interesting is his hard stance against steroids. He said he was tested umpteen times in his career. Nevada was quite thorough apparently. He was only once offered steroids, by a body builder type on the street. He said nobody spoke about steroids in the gyms let alone offered it up. He also said he knows of no-one using it during his time and he didn't suspect anyone at all.

 

Addressing you @swagdelfadeel and @themaster458 all in one:

Yes, I do think Quarry very much resembles Povetkin. Both are boxy, hunched-over types at their best who also take mental breaks where they stand straight up. Quarry was more of a counter-puncher by temperament but also could take the initiative and lead. I do not see Povetkin as some kind of Joe Frazier/Mike Tyson/Rocky Marciano pressure fighter, although he was usually on the front foot. Watched him many times and he’s not a balls-to-the-wall attacker. He’s pretty basic in fact.

He was not explosive or quick-twitch. He had no lateral movement of which to speak and not much head movement. He certainly wasn’t swift of foot and kind of plodded in one step at a time. Sure, there were times when he had people hurt or when he was just way better that maybe he pounced a bit, but that wasn’t what he did against top opposition. He was much more of a wear-you-down guy than a big puncher who was likely to strike out of nowhere and end it.

Quarry was a couple inches shorter and maybe 15 pounds lighter, but he was strong as an ox and much more durable. You never saw him succumb and submit the way Povetkin did against Wlad and basically give up on trying — far more determined imo.

Bobick was similar in foot speed and really in offense, but even less explosive than Povetkin. Also fought kind of boxy, often square-shouldered. But he liked to wear guys down. There are similarities.

Now @Journeyman92 those and Ron Stander are the three whom I see that Norton fought who I can most liken to Povetkin in style and stature (as far as build).

For starters, I take issue with the idea that Quarry was completely shot at the point he fought Norton. Past his best? For sure. Toast? No. He had lost exactly twice in his previous 20 fights — to Joe Frazier and Muhammad Ali. In that span he sparked Earnie Shavers (15 months earlier) in one and beat Ron Lyle (2 years earlier). The Norton fight was a world title eliminator, which shows he was considered one of the top contenders around at this stage.

Stander had lost more than he won since getting chopped up by Joe Frazier is a surprisingly competitive fight and was no more than a journeyman (he is not as good as Povetkin nor am I saying he was, but his style and build are similar — if Povetkin fought Norton, his camp surely would have gained more from studying this film than, say, Ali). But in the fights since Frazier, he had been stopped but once so he was durable, and Norton busted him up and chopped him down. One fight later, Stander would venture to South Africa to fight a young prospect named Gerrie Coetzee and be stopped on his stool in eight, so the big-punching Coetzee didn’t take him out the way Norton did.

I don’t think we have to see Norton against an exact prime duplicate of Povetkin to learn how he might fight him and how he might fare. The Bobick fight really doesn’t show much that can apply here because he was short and I think Duane kind of short-circuited on the big stage. But we can learn from the Quarry and Stander fights — we see Norton stand his ground and use the jab effectively (Eddie Chambers was a short, pudgy guy and gave Povetkin trouble with his, also standing his ground through significant portions of the fight). We see Ken being able to push these guys around (I don’t think Povetkin manhandles Norton, sorry). We see Ken use the uppercut to great effect (an important weapon I’d think against Povetkin) and we see him shift his weight to either side and dig vicious body shots.

I’d expect to see all of this from Ken, and I’d expect him to be effective with all of these. No way, imo, does Alexander match the jab of a man who out-jabbed Muhammad Ali and largely took away Ali’s jab.

If someone wants to say Povetkin is quick-handed (I don’t see him as particularly so), well he ain’t Ali and Ken had no problem with Ali’s speed.

If you want to say ‘well George Foreman backed him up and Earnie Shavers did it and Gerry Cooney did it, and Ken couldn’t fight off the back foot,’ my answer is L-O-****ing-L … Povetkin is not as strong as Foreman nor is he as aggressive and balls-out as Earnie was against Ken. And Norton was simply not at that stage of his career able to stand his ground against a 6-foot-7 power puncher like Cooney … and, again, Povetkin isn’t as imposing as Cooney.

As for Ken’s chin, he lost once by KO to a non-lethal puncher when he was still pretty green (avenged in dominating fashion) and he was steamrolled by Foreman and Shavers — arguably the two hardest punchers of all time, or at least in that stratosphere — and Cooney was also a big, big puncher (and Ken wasn’t anywhere near prime) … so I ask what does that have to do with Povetkin? In what universe does his power rank up there with those three, especially Foreman and Shavers? Povetkin was NOT an overwhelming power puncher. Go ask the cruiserweight Huck who took whatever he had to offer.

Now, I turn the tables to those who want to say Norton never fought anyone like Povetkin (I gave two very pertinent examples stylistically above in Quarry and Stander) … who the hell did Alexander fight that resembles Norton in any way? The only one who has a jab that ranks with Norton’s off the top of my head is Wlad, and we saw how that worked out. The only one who was likely as strong is probably also Wlad. And I don’t think he faced anyone who was near the body puncher that Norton was. Much less he never beat anyone with Ken’s mental toughness (he wasn’t the least intimidated nor mentally messed with by Ali, the master of the dark arts of mental warfare, and the Holmes fight also shows Ken’s ability to dig deep).

If your people at the top of your game are hiding you from top contenders (while you hold some form of a world belt) and instead finding washed-up 40-year-olds, a cruiserweight and a Swedish fish … that tells me everything of their estimation of Povetkin.

My theory, which is backed up by some reality is they knew Alexander’s chin was suspect. Now you want to talk about Ken’s chin … Povetkin was knocked down I think 10 times in his last 14 fights. That’s the point of his career, starting with Wlad, that the kid gloves are off and he’s fighting against top opposition more or less every time out. And his chin certainly didn’t stand up to that test.

I think Ken finds Povetkin’s chin wanting and he’s more of a threat as a puncher (especially after thumping that belly for a few rounds to break him down) to get the job done here.

 

Respectfully, while I see the comparisons you're drawing, suggesting Alexander Povetkin is stylistically similar to Jerry Quarry, Bobick, or Stander significantly misrepresents him. Povetkin and Quarry, in particular, are quite different. Povetkin was a larger man (6'2" to Quarry's 6'0", and naturally heavier), a more concussive puncher and far more of a technically skilled, educated pressure fighter developed through an Olympic gold-medal-winning amateur background. Quarry, while a very good fighter, was more of a counter-puncher who could lead, rather than the relentless, grinding offensive force Povetkin consistently was, who excelled at going forward, working hard and breaking down his opponents.

Povetkin wasn't just a "boxy, hunched-over plodder", he was a skilled operator with a high work rate and a truly dangerous left hook, a punch that historically gave Ken Norton problems. You rightly point out Norton struggled when forced onto the back foot by powerful opponents, and while Povetkin might not have had the singular, concussive power of a Foreman, he did have relentless, intelligent aggression and effective bodywork which would absolutely have put Norton in that same uncomfortable retreating position.

Regarding chins and power, it's quite a statement to say Povetkin had a questionable chin, especially when compared to Norton's. Povetkin consistently faced some of the hardest punchers in the heavyweight division, Klitschko, Joshua, Whyte, Price etc and was only definitively stopped twice mostly when he was past his physical best. He absorbed tremendous punishment in the Wladimir Klitschko fight, going the distance despite multiple knockdowns, and showed incredible resilience throughout his career such as when he get off the canvas to KO Whyte in their first encounter, something Norton never showed. Norton was stopped decisively by George Foreman, Earnie Shavers, and Gerry Cooney. Povetkin certainly carried the power, particularly in that signature left hook, to trouble Norton, who was far from invulnerable himself.

And when we ask who each fought that resembles the other, while Norton didn't face an exact Povetkin clone, it's also true that Norton never encountered someone with Povetkin's specific blend of Olympic background, compact pressure, and potent left hook from a sophisticated, European-style amateur foundation. Finally, dismissing Povetkin's resume as just "soft touches" overlooks quality wins against former world champions like Chris Byrd and Ruslan Chagaev, and strong, ranked contenders such as Carlos Takam, Mike Perez, and Dillian Whyte. Povetkin's ability to apply consistent, educated pressure, his potent offense, and Norton's known vulnerabilities when backing up, all point to a stylistically very difficult fight for Ken.

 

By your standards, then, no two fighters resemble each other. I didn’t say he was a clone, I said he stylistically and in body type resembled Quarry and Stander.

Two inches is negligible in saying they resemble each other. Hold your fingers two inches apart and tell me why that means they don’t resemble each other. A few pounds (probably the result of a steady supply of steroids, so Quarry probably carries the same weight if he was a drug cheat of Povetkin’s proportions) is also not a major difference — you’re acting like Povetkin was 6-toot-6 and 250 pounds rather than an often hunched-over 6-2 and mid-220s. Ken fought bigger men than Povetkin, so I don’t see why this matters.

I don’t think there was anything sophisticated about Povetkin’s attack. He walked straight in to Wlad and did not punch. He fought older, and lesser, versions of guys like Byrd and Rahman and such. He was not relentless — Joe Frazier was relentless, Povetkin was measured in his aggression and certainly not a master at cutting off the ring or a guy who forced action at some kind of high pace.

Surely with his massive size and sophisticated, relentless, Olympic-honed aggression, and with the added advantages of ‘science’ (i.e. PEDs), he’d run a cruiserweight like Huck right out of the ring, right? Oh, he went life and death with him.

I don’t think him being an Olympic fighter makes him more sophisticated. George Foreman was an Olympic gold medalist and so was Leon Spinks, but neither of them are sophisticated. Being from Europe doesn’t make him some kind of guy using Harvard-level calculus and physics — his biggest advantage from being in the Russian Olympic system was in getting away with his PED use as long as he did (that same program, you might realize, was literally banned from Olympic competition because of the systematic cheating from top to bottom). In that, I agree he was sophisticated.

Again I ask, if he was all you say he was, why was he fighting such suspect opposition as WBA regular champ? And why couldn’t all of this European sophistication and relentless, smart aggression win him one freaking round against Wlad?

I think he’s pedestrian. You think he’s special. We disagree.

 

Excellent info and very true, Hercules had that much more muscle volume than Kenny.

Remember Jumbo Cummings also. Built like a brick outhouse. Spent time in prison where he lifted seriously.

He was one of those heavily muscled guys that could actually punch very hard but the flip/bottom side was that he would gas badly due to that same heavy muscle.

 

It seems you're setting a standard where even significant differences in physique and boxing foundation are brushed aside as "negligible." When we talk about Quarry and Povetkin, it's not just a couple of inches. Quarry was essentially a modern-day cruiserweight fighting in an era before that division formally offered a home for men his size. Povetkin, at 220-230lbs, was a solid, natural heavyweight who, in the 70s, would have been among the more physically imposing fighters of the time. To suggest Povetkin only carried that extra weight due to PEDs is speculative and doesn't change the on-paper reality of their size difference or the era-specific context. He was without a doubt a bigger man.

Your dismissal of Povetkin's "sophistication" seems to hinge heavily on the Wladimir Klitschko fight. But Wladimir's unique combination of size, reach, and a highly effective (if often criticized) defensive style, presented a puzzle that very few heavyweights of that era could solve. Many highly skilled fighters looked ordinary against him. Povetkin's sophistication wasn't about flashy combinations but about the methodical, technically grounded pressure he learned through an Olympic gold-medal winning amateur career, a system that emphasized fundamentals and breaking opponents down, which he did to numerous other world-class fighters.

Regarding the Marco Huck fight, yes it was a difficult night. However its was a clear off night for Povetkin as many great fighters have when fighting opponents their underestimate. He was reportedly going through a period of transition with his training team, switching trainers around that time, and by many accounts, wasn't prepared for that fight who he probably overlooked. To hold one such performance, where he still got the win, against him so strongly, especially when it appears to be an outlier in his career, feels like focusing on a single data point rather than the broader career. Many great champions have had nights where they looked vulnerable or were pushed to the limit by unexpected opposition.

And while some of his WBA regular defenses were against less-than-stellar names, to characterize his entire opposition outside of Klitschko as "suspect" ignores solid wins over Ruslan Chagaev, Carlos Takam, Dillian Whyte, Eddie Chambers, Larry Donald, David Price, Hughie Fury. Admittedly he doesn't have any great wins but he does have a number of solid wins and overall way more good wins then Norton even if Norton has the best overall win.

Ultimately, calling Povetkin "pedestrian" seems to disregard his solid fundamental skills, his consistent top-ten ranking for over a decade, and a solid resume of wins. He was a resilient, powerful, and technically proficient heavyweight who achieved a great deal in the sport, even if he didn't reach the absolute pinnacle dominated by Klitschko and has all the right attributes to beat Norton. But we can agree to disagree

 

If you don’t see any similarities between Quarry and Povetkin, I don’t know what to tell you.

Again, I did not say they were clones or exact replicas. I said they had stylistic and build similarities. Yes one was two inches taller and 15 pounds ish bigger. He was not six inches taller and 40 pounds heavier.

James Tillis and Tyrell Biggs are not Muhammad Ali. They had stylistic similarities and similarities in build.

Name two fighters who you think are similar and I can find relatively minor differences and tell you they’re nothing alike, but I’d be wrong if they have similar builds and styles. One can watch film of Fighter A against Fighter C who resembles Fighter B and make some conclusions about what Fighter A did against C that might work against B.

Povetkin obviously had a strong amateur background. But even you point out that did him no good against some opposition — you dismiss it as ‘an off night’ and ‘the other guy was really good,’ but there’s nothing to suggest that Huck might always give Povetkin problems, and other fighters (without the kind of ‘world-class pedigree’ that you cite for Povetkin at least won some rounds vs Wlad … Alexander did not.

Would not some superior pedigreed fighter at least try to throw punches when he got close to the taller man if he’s the sophisticated pressure-fighting machine you seem to think he was? Yet Povetkin was completely neutered vs Klitschko (ignore the times they are in clinches, focus on what Alexander does and does not do when he’s in range before the clinch — namely, he did not punch much at all). If he’s what you say he is, would he not have at least made some kind of adjustments and found at least spots of success?

Now, answer my question that I have raised a few times — who did Povetkin fight who resembles Norton? What do you see against whoever this opponent is that makes you think he’d have a path to success vs Ken?

To me, when you start citing Hughie Fury (a featherfisted, reluctant guy with no resume of success against top opposition to speak of) and David Price (a guy who was run out of the ring, twice, against the first decent opponent he faced and who crumbled the first time he got hit against anyone of any consequence whatsoever) as quality wins … that’s a stretch. Larry Donald? That’s his last career fight and it was after a 2-year layoff and 3 years removed from his last victory.

Norton beat Muhammad Ali. Povetkin beat washed Larry Donald and ‘Shades of Ali’ Hughie, lol. You’re grasping at straws, but at least do the following for me:

1) Name two fighters (who aren’t brothers if you’re going to go Klitschko) who you think have similar builds and stylistic similarities.

2) Tell me which of Alexander’s opponents you think most resembles Norton and what you see in his fight against that opponent would apply to Norton, and why. (Find me someone more similar to Norton than Quarry is to Povetkin.)

 

The core of my argument isn't about finding an exact clone for either fighter, but about whether Povetkin possessed the specific tools and attributes that historically troubled Ken Norton. My argument is yes, Povetkin's consistent forward pressure, his power (especially the left hook), and his ability to fight on the front foot are all elements Norton struggled with. Norton was at his best moving forward, and when forced back or met with sustained aggression and power, he was vulnerable. This isn't about Povetkin being a "clone" of anyone Norton lost to, but about Povetkin embodying the type of fighter and style that Norton found most difficult.

You're focused on Povetkin's performance against Wladimir Klitschko as a benchmark for his sophistication. Wlad was a unique puzzle a massive, dominant champion with a style designed to neutralize offensive fighters. Very few solved him or were even able to win a round against him. That Povetkin couldn't isn't a definitive statement on his inability to adapt against other, differently styled top fighters. His longevity and consistent top-10 ranking would show that he was able to find success against a wide range of opposition, even if it didn't translate against the specific problem Wlad presented.

As for an opponent Povetkin faced who resembles Norton, it's tough because Norton was unique. However, if we look for someone who brought relentless orthodox pressure and physical strength, Carlos Takam is probably the most similar. Povetkin weathered Takam's aggressive, front-foot style, broke him down systematically, and finished him. This showed Povetkin could handle a physically imposing, forward-pressing fighter and impose his own will. While Takam isn't Norton, it demonstrates Povetkin's capacity against that type of determined aggression. You might argue Quarry is more similar to Povetkin than Takam is to Norton, but my point is that Povetkin beat a fighter who presented attributes similar to Norton's strengths (pressure, physicality), which is more telling for this specific fantasy matchup.

Regarding wins like Fury or Price I'm not holding them up as Ali-level victories. They are part of a broader professional resume, showing he could handle different challenges, from awkward movers to big but vulnerable punchers. They paint a picture of a seasoned professional who faced varied opposition and had success against numerous styles of boxers, something Norton himself did not do.

To your first challenge, for two fighters with similar builds and stylistic similarities, consider Joe Frazier and Dwight Muhammad Qawi. Both short for their divisions, relied on pressure, bobing and weaving, inside work, incredible toughness, and powerful hooks. Obvious differences existed, but the stylistic and build parallels are strong.

Ultimately, the debate isn't about finding perfect analogues, but about analyzing how the known strengths and weaknesses of Povetkin and Norton would interact. I believe Povetkin's consistent pressure, power, and left hook are precisely the elements that would exploit Norton's vulnerabilities.

 

Povetkin ICES Ken Norton. He’s a front foot pressure fighter and Ken Norton folded against big punching pressure fighters. Case in point - Foreman, Shavers and Cooney. It wasn’t just that Ken got knocked out - no shame losing to those three they are all monster punchers. But Ken couldn’t last a combined 4 rounds against all three.
Now take Povetkin a big puncher himself, admittedly I would place him 4th among the aforementioned group but I would say he is a bigger puncher than anyone not named those 3 that Ken fought. And here’s the evidence, the one punch KO of a red hot Whyte, (ring rated 1 contender at the time) the one round blow out of top 10 ring rated contender Mike the Rebel Perez. Or the brutal Ko of so many big guys of the modern era, Price 6’8 255 pounds, Charr, stopping Wach. Etc.
Povetkin’s precise punching and dangerous power while moving forward puts Kenny to bed.

 

We have entered Bizarro World.

You say Jerry Quarry and Alexander Povetkin are not similar in build or style because, as you have frequently cited, Quarry is 2 inches shorter, about 15 pounds lighter and doesn’t have a sophisticated pedigree based on an Olympic pedigree. Also, Povetkin you say is a relentlessly aggressive fighter and Quarry is a counterpuncher.

So I ask for two fighters who are similar and you give me Joe Frazier and Dwight Muhammad Qawi. Frazier is at least 30 pounds heavier than Qawi (by modern standards they are three divisions apart), Joe is 5 1/2 inches taller, Frazier has an Olympic gold pedigree while Qawi has zero amateur experience of any real note and learned how to box in prison. Furthermore, Joe really is a truly relentlessly aggressive fighter while Qawi moved in cautiously and was essentially a counterpuncher — Joe had a great left hook and no right hand, while DMQ was a two-fisted fighter and his right was better than his left as a power weapon.

And Povetkin is simply not some aggressive fighter who backs everyone up. Watch Marco Huck wading in and Alexander giving ground. Eddie Chambers even was able to stand right in front of him rather than being backed up. And these two aren’t nearly as strong or imposing as Ken Norton. Povetkin will go forward and throw a couple of punches and when the opponent throws back, he immediately skips back a step — Norton would not be forced to be on the back foot against the Alexander Povetkin we usually see on film.

Povetkin is also nowhere near the level of puncher who overwhelmed Norton like Foreman (nobody backed him up period) or Shavers (who came out kamikaze style against Norton winging bombs, which isn’t how Povetkin fights).

I honestly have to wonder if you’ve really watched Povetkin. He simply isn’t the aggressive, keep-the-opponent-on-the-back-foot-and-force-him-to-back-up guy you describe. Again, look at Chambers and Huck. It’s mostly in the middle of the ring (although Huck had him on the run a few times and he was a cruiser) and not Alexander being some kind of tank who keeps rolling forward (which he has to be if he’s going to keep Norton on the back foot).

 

Honestly, I’m still not totally clear on what kind of comparison you’re actually looking for. Are you asking for someone who’s a carbon copy of Norton, or just someone with a few similar traits? If it’s the latter, then it’s interesting you brushed past the Carlos Takam example. Takam was a strong, aggressive, durable heavyweight who brought constant pressure, exactly the kind of style Norton excelled with, and Povetkin handled him with a late stoppage after a tough, physical fight, while you can't say the same for Norton

If we’re talking about what matters in a fantasy matchup, it’s not just about who looks similar on paper, but how their styles and strengths interact in the ring. Povetkin’s steady pressure and ability to break down tough opponents is what sets him apart from Quarry, and it’s also what makes him a real threat to Norton. I get that you see some overlap, but the way Povetkin actually fought and the way he dealt with guys like Takam shows he brings a different kind of challenge that Norton hasn't shown he can deal with. End of the day that's the main difference here Povetkin has shown he can deal with fighters similar to Norton but Norton has never shown he can deal with fighters similar to Povetkin

 

I don’t see any similarities at all between Takam and Norton, which is why I didn’t say anything about it.

Quarry is so much closer to Povetkin than Takam is to Norton it’s not even funny. Maybe you haven’t watched a lot of Norton. He would hold ground, work the jab and go to the body.

If you dismiss Quarry as having any resemblance to Povetkin and then turn around and equate Norton to Takam, again, we’re in Bizarro World.

Ken Norton outboxed and out-jabbed Muhammad Ali. Takam had nowhere near the boxing ability of Ken Norton.

Povetkin wasn’t a pressure fighter. I’ve outlined that. He was a center-of-the-ring guy — two steps forward, two steps back. He did not keep opponents on the back foot.

Takam fought on the front foot for the entire fight. Povetkin stayed in the pocket pretty good, but he did not force him to the back foot.

Norton didn’t fight well on the back foot, but that’s not the same as being a guy who is always coming forward and loses if you don’t let him do that (that much more describes Frazier).

Nobody beat Norton the way you describe Povetkin breaking people down. And he didn’t break down guys like Eddie Chambers or Marco Huck, who were far from imposing or strongmen. So I don’t see it.

We’re getting nowhere. Thanks for the discussion but I don’t think we can take it any farther.

 

I am not sure if it's Norton per se or just the fact people are extremely big on the 1970s heavyweight era compared to most others so they rate the fighters who fought in that era higher.

 

Just to clarify, I’m not saying Takam and Norton are the same fighter obviously, Norton had a higher skill level and a different approach, especially with his jab and defense. My point was just that, out of Povetkin’s opponents, Takam shares more stylistic and physical similarities to Norton than anyone Norton beat resembles Povetkin. Of course, there are differences, but that’s the closest parallel available from Povetkin’s resume.

In the end, I think we just see the matchup from different angles, and that’s what makes these debates interesting. Appreciate the thoughtful exchange and your knowledge thanks for the discussion!

 

Norton liked to fight right up close and so did Povetkin. One has about 20 pounds on the other, hit harder, and a much better chin. Yeah, I think I'll take Povetkin.

Norton was a fine fighter but his chin was iffy against big hitters and Povetkin is a big hitter with a wide arsenal of punches.

Mentioning winning the the Huck fight by the skin of his teeth as some kind of blot is 'meh' as an argument. First off, Huck was as big as Norton on fight night, clocking in at 209 pounds. Secondly, Huck is no cupcake at all. He's renowned as a rough, tough fighter who has a good chin, good power and can go aggressively all night. An ex-cruiser champion.

If people want to play the "yabbut he lost to" game, Norton has a much worse blot on his record, having been knocked the F out by 188lb Jose Luis Garcia in the 8th of their first meeting. Let's be clear that Garcia is absolutely nowhere in terms of boxing greatness, unlike Huck.