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

In what sport? Bodybuilding? Basketball?

 

I went with the option “ about right and great. “ I can understand why people wouldn’t think he’s great as he was kind of the low guy of the bunch in the seventies. But he beat Muhammad Ali and pushed him to the edge in two other fights. Beat Jimmy young and Jerry quarry and gave a prime Holmes fits. Dude was pretty great to me

 

The opinions are so varied on Norton it's almost impossible to say exactly how he is rated. There's a significant Ali hater faction of casuals that sit on one end of the spectrum and there's some that get a touch excited era wise, tho they are far fewer and less extreme than the previously mentioned.

For me he's so awkward to nail down quality wise too. At the very worst he's very good. Personally i think he sits somewhere between very good and great. I don't get triggered by anyone wanting to put him in the lower tier of great because if he got the decision over Ali (3rd fight, controversial) or Holmes (extremely close split decision, 1 point difference on all cards, AP scored Norton by a point, some others did too) i think that would tip him over into the bottom rung of "great".

So it's a fine line. Plenty of people go by their own opinion of who won bouts and rate accordingly over and above the official verdict, so there would quite likely be some slipping into "great" based on that. I wouldn't argue with it.

 

If Norton fought in any other era, he would be considered an All Time Great.

 

Not great and rated just right. He folded against every big puncher he faced, and folded quickly. He had Ali’s number, but Holmes beat him clear in my book and Young could have gotten the nod over him too.
He looked the part, and he was very good just not great.

 

Id favor Usyk based on his cruiserweight cv alone

 

Hi Buddy.
Yours is a sensible and thought out post as to where we put/rate Norton, I have Ali as the No 1, so if a fighter beats him once, twice in some members eyes, and runs him close a third time, then that fighter has to be great, or if not pretty damn good, as to the beating Quarry , well not really, Jerry was a shell of his former self, I have only watched it once, too distressing.
stay safe mr magoo, chat soon.
Mike

 

I like to tell the truth.

 

Overrated and not great, he had a style that was akward and confusing for boxer types like Ali and Holmes, but was chinny and puncher's walked right thru him. He was handed the belt he had and never won it.

 

Who's the second best victim of Norton? A pilled out, bad back Quarry at the end of the line?

 

Wouldn't call him a great fighter. He beat a great fighter once, and he beat a very good fighter once. With those as your top wins, you need a long, dominant championship run to rate as a great fighter. Instead Norton's retroactive title win was one of the most dubious reigns of all time. Maybe he deserved to beat Ali more than once and maybe he deserved to beat Holmes, but he didn't do enough to remove any doubt and take fate out of the equation.

He's in the hall of fame, and I don't believe that his career really merited that, but I can't call him overrated, certainly not here. I've never seen a Norton fanboy. I can't even imagine what that would be like. I have seen plenty of people take him down a peg, more than he deserves, really. Saying stuff like the Holmes fight wasn't that competitive or that Norton wasn't that good, just lucky to match well with Ali. He was one of the best heavies in the world for about ten years. That's enough to rate as a really good fighter.

Put me down for the rare combo of underrated and not great.

 

The majority vote of about right and not great is probably closest to were I am.

 

Norton still has a far better resume than Bellew, Chisora, Gassiev, and Hunter.

 

Young is better