Ken Norton is thrust into Rex Laynes position. He has to go through his entire resume. While I think Ken would come out with a better record overall. I think fighters like satterfield could pose a stumbling block. His resume would arguably be better excluding the Ali win. Well, thoughts?
Most likely Ken’s record ends up being better yes. But a lot of it would depend on how well he’d react to being as busy as Layne was so early on and whether the burnout factor would set in. I think Layne fought around 30 times within his first two years in the pros ?
That's true. Layne's first two years are probably some of the best two years a heavyweight had ever compiled. Good wins over high caliber opposition, A good mix of chin, power and heart, He's underrated imo. On the topic I think Ken would handily beat guys Like Lastarza. While Marciano might actually starch him early meaning he doesn't take such a vicious beating like layne did. Other guys like satterfield and walcott could pose problems as well.
Willie Pastrano Ezzard Charles Roland LaStarza Harry Kid Matthews Rocky Marciano Bob Satterfield Jersey Joe Walcott Tommy Jackson Bob Baker going by memory here, might've missed or added up some
Head to head, resumes don't mean much. Norton was an alpha specimen who was a gym rat and Layne was a lumpy doughboy who didn't like to train. Norton steamrolls all of Layne's opposition but for the rare off night.
He also beat Cesar Brion and Turkey Thompson. Thompson was pretty well finished by then I believe though.
Take away Ali from Norton… what’s he got? a shot Quarry? A “win” over Young and a loss to Garcia lol.
