That's the problem with Kenny though. How about this scenario--If you were his manager Biron, would you have taken big money for Kenny in 77/78/79 to take his act on the road and fight 2 hitters in Knoetze and Coetzee? How about a Mercado? That fight would have sold in Vegas/southern California back then. Kenny does real well against certain styles. And he still doesn't win them all and can definately be very competitive. Just like Golata, in some ways. Put him in with a hitter and his defensive flaws surface enough to cause him to lose. That just isn't the case against the boxer types is all. Not to pick on Norton, same logic can be applied to a plodder. Put him in with a boxer and good legs and the constant movement causes losses. Find a guy to stand and trade and the plodding is not as big of factor. but the big loss for Norton was that foreman blowout. There was a fair amount of poeple liking Kenny to upset the guy in Caracas that night. After the bout, he was put in the category of Joe Roman in a rematch. But with Ali around and a young Foreman and older Frazier still around, Kenny in his prime was still regarded as a big step below the elite.
I see Norton having little problem with Kallie Knoetze, who was a big (massive?) hitter but awfully unpolished. Coetzee, the Coetzee that beat Spinks? Yeah, that would have been an interesting fight. One thing with the Foreman fight (well, two things really) is that I don't understand why it's such a big knock on Kenny to lose to Foreman, yet a past-his-best but still formidable Frazier almost gets a pass for losing in arguably more devastating fashion? And if we apply the letter of the law, I feel Ken should have been given a few extra seconds to recover after George hit him with a blatant late shot as Ken sagged against the ropes and the ref came between them. Foreman would have beaten Ken anyway, but it's worth noting in any event.
Perhaps I'm in the minority, but I seem to remember Norton doing well in the first round against Foreman. He actually started off looking like he was doing some of the right things. EDIT: Yeah I just reviewed the first round of that fight. Ken definitely had a better first round than a lot of George's opponents. Not sure if he won the round , but it was close. He landed the jab frequently and even some hooks and crosses. Foreman had him momentarily stunned for a second. Norton kept his left arm low all the time, which made him open to some of those Foreman rights, but still not a bad first round at all.
Well, if Norton hadn't fought Duane Bobick we might be putting him on a list of hard-punching second-raters who Norton was wise to avoid too.
They knew he didnt have to avoid Bobick because Bobick was a sucker for Norton's best punch, the right hand, and when hit with it went down like a sack of wet cornmeal. Ken Norton sparred with Ron Lyle just a month or so after Lyle knocked out Bobick in devastating fashion in the amateurs, leaving him a puddle on the floor for over five minutes. Its not a stretch to suggest they discussed the fight. This fight and Bobicks loss to Stevenson were both televised and illustrated quite well that he wasnt made for guys with a good right hand.
Right. And how bad Bobick looked in his bout before the Norton bout against Young Sanford. That guy was not on the boxing radar aside from his manager. Still, incredibly enough, it was a step up in competition compared to the other fighters Duane was fighting. So we had a Bobick not looking very good going in against an older Norton. But there certainly was not that big of a backing for Bobick going in. It was by far the best opponent he had faced since the Stevenson fight. What most folks liked about him was the Futch connection. but he was not held in all that high of esteem and certainly was going to be a guy in big trouble when he starting fighting a diet of top 10 guys. But going into the Norton fight, the guy's recent form was pretty much on par with the form Biggs showed against Bey going into the Tyson fight.
Overrated by some, underrated by others. No matter who won, he had close fights with Ali x3, Young, and Holmes. He stopped Quarry who wasn't at his best but I really think the result would have been similar even if Quarry was at his best. He has some good KO wins over a few decent but far from great fighters. His KO loss to Foreman was no worse than Frazier's... it was bad, they both got the shlt beat out of them by Foreman. His KO loss to Garcia was before he peaked. He came in overconfident in front of his fans and paid for it. He did later avenge the loss by KO but really shouldn't have lost to Garcia anyway. His other KO losses were at the end of his career. Very brutal knockouts that may or may not have happened vs. a prime Norton... I guess that's the big question with Norton. A fight with his friend Joe Frazier would have been great. They had some good gym battles. A fight with Ron Lyle may have been great as well. Big unanswered questions.
The big thing for Ken was what top conditioning he got himself into for his bouts. He was always in top shape. How many guys the last 30 years could have used that type of pre-fight dedication? for every fight and be in top shape fight after fight. And what a tricky oddball type of jab he had. Nobody else in the sport threw a jab like that. It came from a strange place and was stiff and he had those long arms. He'd get full extension on it and throw it straight down the pipe. And once that jab landed, watch out for those follow up bodyshots. I always wondered why they never developed a straight right hand for him though. It was only that wide looping punch with that long arch. Real real wide. Even his right hands to the body were wide arching shots. Hard and powerful, but they did get more effective as the bout went on. Most heavies lose effectiveness with thier rights as bouts go on. Here's a guy that got better. He just did not do things by the boxing book.
If you were alive and followed the sport at the time, everyone knew that Norton was on the downside of his career and the other guy was on the way up. Kenny looked real bad against Zanon and Middleton. Old. Bad reflexes and the footwork--which was never a strongsuit--was much worse. Plus Kenny was making movies and had other interest outside of boxing. The other guy sure didn't. The only 2 guys Norton had fought with good form in previous years were Young and Ali #3. Not easy fights and distance bouts so never an A+ reslut against top notch competition. A young challenger with a jab and mobility was going to be a tough match for an old Norton. Most folks really did not jump on the Holmes bandwagon until he dominated Shavers. Then they saw just what a good boxer the guy was and how he could use those legs circling a ring for 10 rounds. So a lot of people were looking at a changing of the guard going into the fight. I sure was. The other huge caveat--to me anyway--was 1 guy was promoted by DKP and the other guy was an independant.
He could win that fight. If Larry only had a nice left hook to throw off that jab--like Liston and Wlad. He doesn't. That's the shot that would work on Kenny. Without it, it just makes it a real real tough fight for Larry. That's the funny thing about boxing and how certain styles bother even the best of heavies. I have questions about Norton in recent times trying to deal with a ton of southpaws. I think his footwork is going to be a big problem dealing with lefties. he'd drop some decisions because he wouldn't figure them out as easily as they figure him out and he could drop a close decision here or there against the Byrd/Thompson/Ibragimov type guys.
Even if Ken Norton would have the edge over a peak Larry Holmes, which I don't concede, I don't think that Norton came close to matching Holmes' record when facing other top heavyweights. As a result, I feel that Holmes was better fighter than Norton by a huge margin. - Chuck Johnston