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

The other problem is do we give Norton those Ali and Holmes wins which he officially lost? I personally don't.

They were close fights and not robberies IMO like say a Lewis Holyfield 1 so not sure how much you can complain.

 

He's underrated because he has a great case for beating Ali 3 times. Frazier is considered great without achieving this. Norton's resume outside of Ali isn't great, there's decent wins but not great. But then he has the Holmes fight where he wasn't far off beating another great.

 

And he would still lose to Chisora and Gassiev

 

I could see Norton being labeled overrated if he was consistently showing up in people's top 10 alltime rankings. I haven't seen anyone rate in up there. Somewhere in the top 20 I think is reasonable.

 

Eddie Futch who trained him claimed Norton was not a very good boxer. He got into the sport with a late start. He was a great athlete with top conditioning but a basic boxer with some fundamentals. Futch trained him how to beat Ali the same way he trained Frazier to beat him. Norton had a lot of heart and stamina, basic boxing skills, but was not an ATG or great fighter.

 

Maybe top 15-20 in the history of the sport? The only dynamite puncher I can see him beating is Wilder because he's predictable.
We know Norton gave pure hell to Ali in three different fights. He also gave hell to Holmes when his career was winding down.
So he'd probably beat most of the great stylist or fighters not having devastating power in history, or at the least , give them hell while losing, like Johnson, Tunney, Patterson, Mathis Sr. Ellis, Witherspoon, Holyfield, Fury, and Usyk with his awkwardness, and jab.
Conversely , fighters like Louis, Liston, Frazier, Tyson, Ruddock, Bruno, Bowe, Lewis, perhaps the Kleichko Brothers, maybe Joshua ( If he landed 1st, because if Norton got his jab working, and if he got past five or six rounds, Joshua would fold)
Would ko Norton early.
Powerful punchers would be able to force Norton to retreat, and that weird awkward stance he had was a serious issue when he was forced to go backwards. He couldn't get his jab on track, and he just seemed to have no answers once he was forced off his spot.
So yes he's top 20 in history, he'd beat quite a few boxers who were not devastating punchers in history.
Most educated boxing fans have him ranked about right.

 

Top 20.seems extremely generous for a guy who never at any point established himself as the best in the world and who has such a thin resume.

Maybe when he retired in 1981 but certainly not now

 

Of course Norton was a great fighter. What is wrong with some of you people?

 

Lets see your top 20 amigo.

 

H2H or legacy wise?

Legacy wise in no particular order
Fitzsimmons
Jeffries
Johnson
Langford
Dempsey
Louis
Charles
Marciano
Patterson
Liston
Ali
Frazier
Foreman
Holmes
Tyson
Holyfield
Lewis
Wlad
Vitali
Fury
Usyk

For sure. Then Schmelling, Baer, Wills, Witherspoon, Walcott, Bowe all have a potential argument. Potentially Peter Jackson as well. Even if you give him every benefit of the doubt it seems like a difficult argument.

 

I think Norton is an excellent boxer with an unfortunate chin.

Just goes to show how much opinions actually influence ratings.

If he'd gotten the wins against Ali, Ali would not be #1 on many people's lists.

 

Consider Norton holds a win over #1 officially. 2 wins in many people view.

 

Styles make fights.

 

Out of interest, how do you justify Fury being in there ahead of Joshua?

Joshua has an Olympic gold medal to go with a rather similar record. And now that we can say for sure that Wilder was nothing more than a can crushing hypejob then professionally there’s nothing between them really.