Supposing the judges voted Norton's way ?

That could well be. But Norton didn't seem to have the instincts of Quarry when slugging it out with a big puncher. I think that's why he always let them get off first, despite being superior technically. Quarrry relished the chance to go toe to toe with a slugger, no matter how big a puncher, while Norton became too defensive. And a split second hesitation is all that it takes in those situations.

 

Hi Bokaj,
Thanks for the welcome, and for the response.

Good point about Norton starting late.

Agree that Kenny was in his physical prime vs Foreman, but how about this for an alternative take on that fight? I think Norton was unlucky enough to fight arguably the best Foreman ever that night - full of confidence after the win over Frazier, but before the aura of invincibility was devastatingly removed by Ali. Norton seems to be stigmatised more than Smokin' Joe for an almost identical loss to Foreman - probably because it is considered by many that the Shavers & Cooney losses seemed to underline the "Norton doesn't like punchers" argument.

But this brings me to my point, and where I have to disagree with you with all respect about Norton's prime. Ken himself said that after Ali 3 he lost an edge, never ran the extra mile, sparred the extra round etc - in short wasn't the same fighter, although still an outstanding fighter as the Holmes fight proved (I think Yankee Stadium broke his heart...perhaps even subconsciously). I think the Holmes fight was Norton's last great fight (and I think that was proof that he was a great fighter - non-great fighters don't stage fights like that against a prime atg imo)...I think that was the kind of fight, at Ken's age, where it takes a lot out of you. If you look at the LeDoux fight, the first after Shavers, Ken is clearly no longer the fighter of even the Holmes fight, he was clearly on the downslide. Then the gruelling Cobb fight...by thje time of the Cooney fight...he was totally washed up.

In summary, I feel that Ken's decline started, motivation-wise, after Ali 3, and physically after the Holmes fight.

 

I agree with you.

And perhaps it was just his misfortune to meet a peaking Foreman, and Shavers and Cooney when he was past his prime. We will never know for sure. But the fact remains that he only met three big puncher and they annihilated him, and that he was also KO'd earlier by a pretty average fighter. This makes bad reading concerning how he coped against punchers. That Futch, his trainer, said that he tensed up against them is even more indication of this.

 

It only takes one round of sparring to find out just how true this is.

 

In his second reign Ali never rematched Foreman. As great a fight as it was in Frazier, Ali was defending his title against a man the previous champion had dismissed with ease. The credentials of Wepner, dunn, coopman and Evangelista were truly appalling. Ali had real struggles with Lyle and shavers who had been exposed before getting to the title and Young and Norton both had a good argument that they really won in their challenges. It’s a poor reign which ever way you look at it.

This is why I can’t be too sympathetic towards Kenny. in Yankee stadium he faced a tired champion with just pride left who he had previously beaten. It was a gimmie. The fight should not have been close! I think ken was intimidated by the 15 round limit, he should have pressed the old champion much more.

 

Contrary to Dempsey he beat (or had beat) all the top contenders, though.

 

could not agree more!! ali is way higher than dempsey.

 

Hi Bokaj,
Good conversing with you!:good

I wouldn't say Foreman, Shavers & Cooney were big punchers, I would say that they were exceptional punchers, arguably 3 of the top ten heavyweight punchers of all time. I also don't think they were the only big punchers he fought either - Quarry could punch (although at the end of the road, he could still probably crack) & Holmes could crack a lot harder than people tend to give him credit for (wasn't he circa 27-0 with 20KOs when he fought Norton).

As for the early career loss to Garcia, this was avenged, so Norton wasn't too tense to step back in with a man who had previously KO'd him.

Norton was also a sparring partner for Frazier as a young man - Frazier could punch and I doubt Joe took it easy in the gym - if Ken was tense about facing punchers, why take the work sparring with Frazier? Legend has it, and from Smokin' Joe's own mouth, that Ken gave as good as he got ( but believe me I do understand that sparring is different from competition!).

But there again, who am I though to argue with the great Eddie Futch?

One other point, if Norton was tense about facing punchers, why take the bouts against Shavers and Cooney? Obviously he had to fight Foreman to get a title shot.

 

You make valid points and the easy answer is that there aren't any truly satisfactory answers to them. Like many things in boxing they will remain part mystery.

As you say, Norton took the best of both Ali and Holmes. And both of them could really hurt a man when they sat down on their punches. Especially Ali has cracked some legendary chins, but couldn't crack Norton's even though he hit him with some good shots in both the second and the third fight. Norton took these shots as you would expect someone with his fantastic physique to do, but against Foreman et al it was different.

My theory is that Norton's problems with the huge punchers were part stylistical (he didn't fight well backing up), but mostly physchological. Extremely powerful and physical fighters seemed to intimidate him. Neither Quarry nor Frazier really fits into this category (he was bigger and stronger than both), but Foreman of course does and so do Shavers and (but perhaps to a lesser extent) Cooney. When faced with guys like these he tended to "keep backing up, keep backing up and then stumble" to use his own words.

As for why Kenny took on Shavers and Cooney, it is worth noting that he didn't recognize himself in Futch's description about how he tensed up against fighters, but were still (like the galant guy he is) prepared to take his word for it.

 

Bokaj,
Thanks for taking the time to reply again.

You make good points, too and as you say, like many things in boxing this issue remains part mystery. I just feel that Kenny Norton gets downgraded unfairly by many fans, because of the Shavers & Cooney losses, when going to one of my earlier points (it seems a long time ago!!) these losses occurred when, imo, he was well past his sell by date. I suppose it's easier for some to remember and quicker to watch spectacular highlight reel kayos than delve deeper and look at the bigger picture, i.e a great heavyweight in arguably the greatest heavyweight era who more than held his own against 2 of the heavyweight atgs in Ali & Holmes.

I suppose it doesn't help Norton's status that he is the answer to the trivia question "who is the only heavyweight champion never to win a title fight?". But for me, that's not correct, I thought he deserved the decision over Ali in Yankee Stadium...judging by Ali's body language at the final bell...so did Ali.

 

As I said, it's always hard to know for sure. But the fact that Norton's loss to Foreman seems to be so clearly mirrored in his losses to the other two huge punchers he met will always give the impression that he wasn't suited for punchers.