Is Norton underrated, overrated, or about right? And is he great?

Overlooked, but correctly rated as a great by the more knowledgeable fans who do know him.

 

Norton was a good, solid fighter, but I wouldn't classify him as a great fighter. His legacy is bolstered by his fights against Muhammad Ali (who always had difficulty with Norton's style.) Aside from that he has an OK career resume, but not a standout one. And he couldn't handle big punchers (e.g. Foreman, Shavers, Cooney)

 

As a fan, who believes he'd proven greatness as an overall athlete, who could've been plunked into a lot of sports and been HIGHLY formidable, I think he'd be best classified as a borderline great or minor great fighter, but he's closer to not great and rated about right than being like an ATG, to be mentioned with guys like Holyfield (who he may've put on an all-time classic with, in a time machine) and Louis. He's more Schmeling than Louis, more Douglas than Tyson, more Michael Moorer than...train derailed. Goodnight.

 

I honestly don't think he was that good.
He was the Buster Douglas of his era where he was the kryptonite of the heavyweight champion at the time, and didn't do much beyond that.

 

I think he's rated about right. Very good but not an alltime great. He beat Ali 2 out of 3 imo. Many people felt the same way.

He lost to Holmes close in a great fight.
No shame in losing to a prime Holmes. He fought a great fight. He edged Jimmy Young when Jimmy was boxing at a high level.
Kenny was a great athlete. Unique style, hell against boxers that don't have big power. He can frustrate even a very skilled boxer.

 

Very good answers.

 

Norton was a legit badass in his era. Most Boxing folks know what he was. Classic battles with Ali and Holmes prove how very good he was. Not an ATG but a truth machine that made those ATG'S.

 

He was great in the A-team ! joking aside he was really good imo

 

Ken Norton is one of the more overrated heavyweights. His reputation leans a lot on having a difficult style for outboxers who fight on the back foot, which skews how people evaluate him overall. He was a good fighter, but not a great one, and his actual resume is relatively thin compared to others ranked around him.

A lot of his standing comes from beating Muhammad Ali, but that says more about the pedestal Ali is placed on than it does about Norton’s true level. People treat that win as definitive proof of greatness while ignoring the broader context of his career.

Head-to-head, Norton would lose to a number of fighters who are often ranked below him. His style created specific problems for certain opponents, but that doesn’t translate into being a consistently superior fighter across the board. His ranking is inflated because of stylistic matchups and the weight given to the Ali win, rather than a deep or dominant body of work.

 

Norton would beat Usyk 10-2.

 

Near great but way overrated because for some strange reason he was the one human being born of a woman who was absolute kryptonite for the GOAT. I will go there and say Smokin’ Joe was less problematic stylistically for Ali than Norton, Ali physically beat the crap out of Frazier in two of the three fights but the reason they were so memorable is that Frazier those nights was a hate-propelled machine impervious to the damage he suffered who kept moving forward. Norton was not that but Ali didn’t have an easy moment in 39 rounds with him.

 

I agree with this

 

Oddly I thought about starting this thread earlier.

Norton basked in the light of Ali and the reflection cast an aura around him that wasn't from his own invention. Overrated.

 

You like to stir the pot - don't you?