Bob Fitzsimmons vs Ken Norton

Or late for that matter.

Fitz could be getting the worse of the fight for a number of rounds, and he would still be constantly trying to set up a trap.

 

Fitz was an all time great. Norton had a draw with LeDoux - and it was a gift. Foreman, Shavers destroyed him, and ****ey almost killed him, in what? 65 seconds? Ken was ok with guys who were not out to fight, just box. Heck, Norton got a split decision with arm puncher Cobb. Fitz would stop the over-rated Norton.

 

I am not sure that it needs to be early.

Fitz gave Jeffries everything he could handle and took plenty himself. I think he has earned the right to fight a Ken Norton, whose althletic prowess, outside the chin has to be as close to Jeffries as it gets. I think Fitz earned the right to fight a fighter of these characteristics on level terms and be well in the fight right throughout. Put another way, no matter what happens, Fitz will land at least some big shots throughout the fight.

Norton was a very good fighter, but in all honesty, what big hitters did he have success against. I am happy to be proved wrong, but muhammed ali and Ron Stander are probably the two best arent they? I do think Ali is underated, but it is unlikely that he hit as hard as fitz despite him being the bigger fighter.

Ken's best chance is stylistically. Fitz had a unique style which is against the fundamentals (in all areas). If you believe the evolution theory then he must win, but then again, if you believe that then all of these matchups are irrellevant. In fact, if you believe it, you cant really have a fighter active before the 90s as a top 10 ATG fighter. Possibly the 2000s even. I dont hthink this is realistic.

All in all, if this fight is to make any sense, we need to assume the Fitzsimmons, who was a huge puncher in his own era is still a huge puncher in Kens era. He might not hit as hard as Foreman or Shavers, but he needs to be considered very close to their level, or the fights dont make sense. Once you assume this, it is hard to see how Norton has proved he can go the distance, although the Ali fights are interesting pointers when he showed he could beat and frustrate and ATG fighter by sticking to his gameplan.

I think i take the opposite view to the majority, in that Norton's best chance is early rather than late. He needs to jump all over Fitz (who could be knocked down and troubled a bit by big hitters and fast starters even if he always did seem to comeback and ko them). If Norton is careful enough, he can land some big shots and wear down Fitz, but he will need to be 100% committed to leaving no opening and maintaining his defence. As the fight goes on, the bigger man will naturally wear out more, unless he is able to continually land and hurt fitz. I dont think it will happen but this is his best chance (outside the evolution theory holding true).

Fitz KO 7 for mine.

 

As Ava Gardner said of Frank Sinatra, "He may be a 95 pound weakling, but 90 pounds of it is c o c k."

 

There's a lot of sense in your argument. My thing is not just the size disparity, Fitz was accustomed to that, but his achilles heel was a susceptibility to jabs, one of Nortons best weapons.