Would Gerry Cooney have been as successful against a peak Norton?

I think he’d have an excellent chance of beating any version of Norton. Would it always end in 54 seconds ? Maybe not. But despite how good he was, I would always see him being on the defensive against Cooney and that wouldn’t be an ideal situation for him to be in

 

Highly likely. I know Norton was *way* past his peak against Cooney, but Gerry would always have Norton's number, in my opinion. If you watch their fight, Norton's knees buckle at every Cooney left hook that lands, whether to the body or the head. Norton was just extremely vulnerable to power shots and Gerry being a fast starter with a killer instinct would spell disaster for Kenny.

 

Even a prime Kenny gets stopped I think.
Cooney was one of those guys would always be a danger against anyone who's chin wasn't solid enough.

 

I like Norton a lot and don't like Cooney at all, but my sense is this is not an optimal matchup for any version of Norton. If Norton survives and gets him to the later rounds, maybe.

 

Anytime a fighter beats a washed up version of a great, people ALWAYS assume they'd lose in their prime as well. These discussions are hardly ever interesting.

 

Kenny had problems with big punchers...

 

That’s an excellent point.

For spectators, even when they know the context, the vision of a fighter being so comprehensively beaten like that is hard to shake off psychologically - but you do always need to stand back to make fair assessment when considering prime vs prime scenarios.

I know people have presented excellent, objective arguments for why Tyson might beat Holmes, both at peak.

However, for some other people, I think they have difficulty in appropriately weighting the complexion and outcome of Tyson vs Holmes within its due context - thereby factoring that fight far too heavily in their prime vs prime forecasts.

 

It's pretty easy in this case to assess prime Norton vs. Cooney because Norton has never succeeded against an elite puncher. The only elite puncher he faced in his "prime" was Foreman who wiped the floor with him, and post-prime he got blown out twice versus Shavers and Cooney. There's really no evidence to support Norton is capable of handling elite power at any time during his career.

 

Norton had just beaten Tex Cobb 6-7 months before and looked OK....how anyone could know how degraded Norton was from a 54 second blowout by a legitimate KO puncher is beyond me....but Norton did not have the ability to get away from bombers prime or not....he dragged his foot behind him and moved forward....he was also a big heavyweight in his era so overpowering smaller men did not require him to develop good footwork especially evading fighters.

 

It would make no difference. Norton never had a great chin to begin with even in prime. He simply can't survive against a genuine puncher and its been proven 3 times.

 

Very fair points but Ken was still just 3 months shy of turning 38 - although, as at the time of the fight, he was believed to be 35.

At near 38, it’s not unreasonable to assume a notable degradation in Norton’s skill and resilience.

I think the Cobb fight reflected obvious deteriorations even though Ken still performed somewhat viably.

The Cobb fight also came after a 15 month layoff for Ken, the layoff starting after the LeDoux fight when it was even more apparent that Ken was well past his salad days.

However, it is true that Norton doesn’t have proof of surviving an elite puncher in his hey day. Also, trying to box when backed up was an issue for him even back then.

Still, I think Foreman beat a clearly better version of Norton than either Shavers or Cooney did - the latter pair beating a slower and even less mobile version of Ken.

In balance, here’s a Times article re the fight (see below) in which trainer Slayton states that Ken was in good shape - IMO, while perhaps true, within the context, Slayton was trying to give Cooney due credit and suggest that the older Norton wasn’t simply fodder.

There were also features to Cooney’s game (not least being speed) that Norton said he underestimated. Ken was a class act and made no excuses - even though Gerry was feeding off some of the older guard “name” fighters - including Ken himself.

Would anyone necessarily presume that a younger version of Lyle would necessarily go out the same way the 39 yo version did when he faced Cooney?

Just 3 fights and about 10 months prior, Ron had already been rolled by Lyn Ball in just 2 rounds.

[url]https://www.nytimes.com/1981/05/12/sports/cooney-conquers-norton-in-round-1.html[/url]

 

Since your question asks 'as successful' then no it's highly unlikely that he beats a peak Norton in the same manner.

 

Kenny's problem was really about anybody who could make him back up. Which I guess entails big punchers.

 

Copying an earlier post of mine. I've always thought Norton's confidence was never quite the same against punchers after the Foreman bout. He froze up, and never fought his fight particularly against Shavers when he tried about three different strategies within a round. Against Foreman, he didn't have this weakness. He stuck to his preferred style, and while not exactly setting the world on fire, had much more success in the first round against a far better puncher than either Shavers or Cooney so I personally can't see that version, getting knocked out in the first round as he did when he met them.