Norton disses the Louis era

NE 1 really think it do tho?

 

Surely Kenny didn’t say that. Maybe they accidentally quoted some nondescript named Joe Norton or a Bob Norton? Otherwise, back it right up Kenny.

 

"My era was better than any other era. We were the toughest and the most skilled, blah blah blah!"

 

Is Norton seriously making a size queen statement here? As we all know, size is the least consideration when measuring up boxers.

 

In his defence, he himself had the luxury of fighting in the last era where rules of physics did not exist: a 220lbs guy who liked to dehydrate was actually the physically strongest boxer ever born. The guy to topple him was hit nearly 40% of the time career-wide, but actually possessed the greatest footwork ever caught on film. These absolute titans were beyond the puny physical realm...

 

The 70's guys had more solid frames.

Bone was denser back then.

Muscle put on lifting weights is not functional strength.

They had mugger strength back then.

Have you ever heard of tyre iron Johnson?

 

Norton was correct.

 

Norton was cooked for Shavers and Norton. We won't bring up Marciano and Louis fans don't bring up Shavers and Cooney. Just because Foreman got Kenny out of there in two rounds doesn't mean Louis does. He's the bigger man. He wasn't the bigger man against George. That being said an athlete denigrating his predecessors doesn't sit well with me.

 

If Norton thought Povetkin was tough, wait until he meets Joe Louis. More chance of him failing to finish the first round than seeing the end of the fight.

 

Am i missing something? Louis, Norton, and Povetkin represent different eras.

 

I made a thread recently that was a little tongue and cheek, about Norton losing to Povetkin in every single universe I was just making another joke about it

 

Ah. I don't believe Louis knocks out a peak Norton in the same destructive manner as Foreman did.

 

Louis kos Chinny Kenny.

 

On this thread I just read that 70s fans need to make 70s fighter bigger than what they were.

???

As much as I’ve read, many don’t actually endeavour to do same.

That sentiment also conveniently ignores the fact that many fans of the so called SHWs actually do attempt to inflate the size of their “bigger and better” monoliths, including skimming over the “impossible to ignore” fat compositions of their bodies.

Re height. Tyson Fury 6’9”? Lol. Try 6’7”….and only just.

Just 1/2” taller than 6’6 1/2” Buddy Baer who never looked fat - and Buddy’s listed height of 6’6 1/2” holds up to varied visual comparisons - while Fury’s alleged 6’9”’fails miserably against all other eligible comparisons.

Usyk the same size as Foreman?

In order to make the point, there are those who are happy to quote Foreman’s lower weights during his first career - but for Olek, they conveniently quote his highest career weight of 223 1/2 lbs or so, at age 37/38 for “equitable”
comparison.

Usyk is also more like 6’2” to 6’2 1/2” at best but is often rubber stamped as being 6’3” to fudge the stats for the sake of biased argument.

Foreman was about 6’3 1/2” - plenty of comparisons to support that conclusion - not least being his clear 1” height advantage over Ali.

Doe everyone swallow hook, line and sinker Dubois’ alleged height of 6’5”?

That is an absolutely laughable
claim. Dubois, as reliably compared, is about 6’3 1/2” tops.

I also read someone claim that Bakole is taller than Jack O’Halloran.

???

As far as the stats reflect, they are exactly the same heigh 6’6” - and O’Halloran was another guy whose height was reliably upheld via multiple comparisons and a fighter who never looked fat - rather, he appeared heavily built naturally and quite muscular.

Also, it is not an unreasonable argument to suggest that, beyond a certain size threshold, there are increasingly and overall net losses in terms of the obvious disadvantages that naturally come with greater size……

….And yes, the aforementioned conclusion does align itself with the laws of physics.