Ken Norton vs Vitali Klitschko

burden of nostalgia would make him quit

 

If you don't punch hard enough to discourage him, Norton is a tough night's work for anyone. Holmes and Ali hit him with everything, but he kept coming forward. It was only true powderkeg punchers like Foreman and Shavers who put fear into him. The Garcia loss was very early on and can be discounted, especially considering he didn't have an extensive amateur background.

Vitali probably didn't have the one-punch power to blow Norton away. Lewis and Sanders weren't renowned for durability, but both took flush shots from a prime Vitali without going down. Mediocrities like Bean and Sullivan took Vitali into the later rounds, and the only notable quick wins are Hide (far worse chin than Norton), Solis (hardly a clean KO) and Johnson (terrible shape).

Another variable is how Norton copes with someone as big as Vitali. He was obviously intimidated by punchers; it's possible that the sheer size of Vitali would have an effect on him.

Overall though, I think Vitali builds up enough of a lead early to withstand a late rally from Norton. It's probably a better match-up for Wlad to be honest.

 

Good fight imo

 

Nice breakdown, but I totally disagree with your contention that Norton was intimidated by Foreman or Shavers. Nobody "put fear" in Ken Norton.

The reason Norton was quickly demolished by every major puncher he faced -- Foreman, Shavers, and Cooney -- is because he lacked the fleet-footedness necessary to avoid their bombs. Norton was always a flat-footed fighter. Critics said he fought as if he "always had one foot stuck in a bucket."

Hence, Norton was a stationary target for big, strong, powerful bombers. Very few heavyweights in history could have taken those brutal shots from Foreman, Shavers, and Cooney and remained on their feet. To beat those guys, a fighter had to move a little. Norton couldn't do that.

 

I think Norton would win on points, 8-4 / 9-3. I'd favour him against Wlad as well.

Ken was a much better all-round fighter than Vitali & his cross-armed defense was set up to block straight shots.

Ken wouldnt be a stationary target & I dont think Vitali has the variety, the speed or the ability to get the upper hand in this fight.

I dont think Vitali would land enough to wear Norton down in the 2nd half & Ken wins in convincing fashion.

 

Vitali vs Norton would have been an excellent fight. Very competitive. But ultimately, Vitali would have won, either by decision, or by late rounds stoppage.

Vitali's tremendous durability would have served him well in this fight. I could imagine Vitali standing up to a few of Norton's massive overhand rights and sweeping left hooks, and coming back to batter Ken with clever, well placed counters to the head and body.

Overall, I believe that Vitali was the better, smarter boxer. I say this even in spite of the fact that Vitali is rather mechanical, and is in no way comparable to fluid boxers like Holmes or Ali. Overall, Vitali would have used his height, reach, mastery of timing and distance, and awkward punching angles to get the better of Norton. Again, that Vitali could resist Norton's swarming pressure is a key factor in determining the outcome.

Klitschko's vast superiority in weight would have served him well here, too.

 

I think Norton vs Vlad is more of a "pick em" fight. I say this because Vlad lacks Vitali's durability. For this reason Norton's swarming, awkward attack -- punctuated by powerful overhand rights and big left hooks -- might have succeeded against Vlad.

Ultimately, I think Vlad would probably have knocked Norton out. However, Norton had the tools to upset Vlad, so I could see this possibly going either way. Maybe 65/35 (out of 100) in Vlad's favor.

But no way Norton handles Vitali.

 

I think Ken wins by close decision.

 

Obviously impossible to prove or disprove, but my perception from the Foreman fight in particular was that Norton was more tentative than he was against Ali or Holmes. Admittedly, it's hard to look too confident when you're getting clubbed all over the ring

Leaving aside the mental aspects, I think it was proven that Norton was not as effective on the back foot as he was coming forward. Agreed that there were definitely underlying technical issues to that.

 

One of the reasons Norton got knocked out by those guys is they all threw great hooks &/or uppercuts. The main weakness in Ken's guard was against those shots & he had a lot more success against guys who liked to stay behind a jab, like Ali & Holmes.

I think Ken would do well against the brothers, Witherspoon too imo

 

I agree with what you say in your second paragraph. This weakness meant that Norton was vulnerable to being overpowered by bigger, stronger, brutal punching foes.

Incidentally, have you read that Norton is advising Chazz Witherspoon about how to fight Seth Mitchell? Norton, apparently, is telling Witherspoon to take the fight to Mitchell, and to beat him down.

I find Norton's advice to be jaw-dropping and incomprehensible, given that Norton himself was unable to put that very strategy to work against punchers. And of course, Chazz doesn't have the physical or tactical tools to make that same approach work against a brute like Mitchell.

 

Interesting point. That's something for me to think about...I hadn't really considered it. Both K Bros. rely heavily on the jab.

I have always thought Witherspoon would have been a very dangerous fight for Vlad. This is another one where Vlad's advantage is only 65/35 out of 100. Big potential for an upset.