Bob Satterfield vs. Ken Norton

satterfield by ko, norton freezes like a deer

 

Ditto. Satterfield gets Norton out early.

 

Both men were rather inconsistant, but Satterfield was probably more so than Norton. Additionally, Bob never fought at 200 Lbs, while Ken fought some of the best 200+ pound fighters in history and even beat one of them. I also don't understand this logic that a previous poster mentioned about Norton "freezing". Ken Norton was not the type of fighter to just stop dead in his tracks in the heat of battle. Sure, he was stopped or Ko'd on occasion, but most of those losses came either past his prime, against big punchers or both.

I make no convictions about who would win here, but I don't think that its beyond the realm of possibilty that Norton could win. In fact, he should probably be favored.

 

Tough call. Both good hitters, both weak chins. Norton the better boxer, but Satterfield the bomber, and if you bombed Norton, he usually didn't respond very well. He is the much bigger man though. Tough call. It really could go either way, there is nothing that seperates either for me in terms of styles. I think I'll say Satterfield by KO.

 

Good points.

Only when you say that Norton didn't respond well when being bombed, keep in mind that the guys who bombed him were Foreman, Shavers, Cooney, and Garcia. The first three were concensus all time great hitters, while the last fought Norton in the prospect phases of his career. Satterfield was either KO'd or decisioned by worse men, not just in the early or latter stages, but at all points of his career.

 

I think I'll go against the majority opinion of the outcome of this fight and say Norton by UD or late TKO. This whole Norton doesn't respond well to punchers has gotten out of hand. The punchers were Foreman, Shavers, and Cooney, three of the hardest hitters of all time, and he fought two when he was past it.

 

I'm not sure if i would define the Norton chin as "weak". He took countless shots from Holmes and Ali and tho not huge hitters they still stopped people with similar artillery to what Norton endured.

Eddie Futch says he just froze against big punchers, i don't see this as necessarily a weak chin especially when looking at the rest of his career.

 

I think this is the sort of match where either guy could easily be taken out early. I would expect them to split a series.

 

Norton's chin was fine as Ali, Holmes, Stander, and Quarry. So was it really that bad?

Norton chin was suspect Vs Foreman or Shavers. Yes, but I'd like to see others take those shots, and get up / do well.

Satterfield was certifiably chinny many non-power punchers-- guys who don't hit as hard or harder than Holmes or Quarry.

Let's review:

Satterfield was Ko'd by Parkshay in 1
Ko'd byFoxworth in 1
Ko'd by Bardoui in 2
Ko'd by Moore in 3
Ko'd by Hall in 4
Ko'd by Layne in 8
Ko'd by Henry in 1
Ko'd by H. Johnson in 2
Ko'd by Charles in 2
Ko'd by Marshall in 2
Ko'd by Hollman in 8
Ko'd by Carter in 5

Satterfield went down a good amount of times on other fights too.

I think Norton hits as hard as or harder than most on this list. Odd's are Norton out boxes a smaller / skinny / chinny Satterfield, and puts him away early. Sattefield was not much for defense. He was a gun slinger. I love wathcing him go, win, lose or draw.

I would give Satterfield a punchers chance. Satterfield has a low career KO% of 44.30%. Even if you take out all of his losses ( 25 losses, 13 via KO ) , Satterfeild’s Ko % is only a decent 64.81%

 

Looks like a good fight to put some dollars on Bob Satterfield, as soon as Bob tests the chin, Ken goes into the frozen deer in the headlight mode, Ken cant back up vs a puncher...Bob did not have the best whiskers either but Ken can not trade with this guy

 

Satterfield is a good example of the need to be careful in examining won-lot percentages or knockout percentages of old time fighters. Everyone, and I mean everyone, who fought him considered him a paralizing puncher. What drags down his ko percentage is that he fought brutal competition. He turned pro in March, 1945. By that November he was in against 1944 top ten rated Bob Garner. By 1946 he was fighting Holman Williams and Jake LaMotta and he was outweighed by LaMotta. Over his career he fought, by my count, at least 37 rated fighters and a glance at the records of his opposition shows that most had strong records whether rated or not.

As for small and skinny--I find skinny amusing. He was built. As for small for a heavyweight, he fought 5 men who weighed more than 200 lbs--Bob Baker, Cleveland Williams, John Holman, Nino Valdes, and Dale Hall. Baker & Valdes were #1 contenders. Holman and Williams top 5 heavyweights at their peaks. Hall a sturdy journeyman. He went 6-1 with five knockouts against this competition, ko'ing Baker, Holman (2), Williams, and Hall, and giving Valdes a one-sided lacing. His only loss was in a third fight with Holman. Williams was green, but Baker, Holman, and Valdes were at their very peaks when Satterfield got them.

I still pick Satterfield in this one. He is a nightmare opponent for Norton, and as the record shows, Satterfield may be even more dangerous as he is a smaller man with a very big punch, like Dempsey and Langford and Marciano, and so probably quicker than the larger Norton.

 

Basicaly Satterfield would be a serious threat to anybody whose whiskers were questionable and a lot of people whose whiskers were thought to be prety well proven.

If I were Nortons manager I would cross the street when I saw him coming.

 

You put it right. He ranks up there compared to anyone. Your best chance against him was to get to him before he got to you and to be elusive, and smaller, quicker men proved able to do that better than the bigger heavyweights.