Dempsey vs Norton

16 fights are still not much, it was a bad night, it happens... And yes, no doubt in my mind that Norton had at least similar power, superior in my mind... His record speaks, he stopped bigger, heavier and more athletic boxers...

 

Norton had nothing better than Dempsey except his jab.
Norton who couldnt move backwards gets KO'd early.

 

Kitrkman was a journeyman. Quarry was shot. Garcia stopped Ken. Lovell's best fight was against Rocky Balboa. Bobick was a plodder who froze and got stopped early, completely unproven when he fought Norton. He was also proven to never defeat any form of creditable contender other than the on and off Mike Weaver who fought without training back in the early part of his career ..

 

How do you account for the fact that the Ring has Dempsey at number 7 p4p greatest punchers and Norton does not crack the top 100?:think

 

Propaganda and hype probably? Those lists are complete jokes, complete fantasy without logic, facts and common sense...

Norton actually had a better ko record against bigger and more advanced guys, Dempsey's record wasn't impressive at all, and he was a light-heavy fighting other small "heavyweight" contenders...

Norton was bigger, heavier, faster, more athletic, technically superior, Dempsey has a remote puncher's chance, in my opinion...

 

Please.

And Pearl S Buck won a Nobel Prize for Literature.

 

Exactly which big athletic boxers did Norton stop, who were legitimately world class?

Shoot!

 

Jack Dempsey won the title from a guy the size of Vitally Klitschko.

Norton never beat anybody that size, who was within a country mile of being world class.

The size of opposition argument is not your friend here, and you should do your research before deploying it!

 

How do you account for the fact that Dempsey is routinely in top ten heavies of all time lists and Norton is never mentioned or considered? More propaganda and hype?:think
I just love this term," more athletic",as if if means anything


Norton was faster than Dempsey ? Well what do you know! Dempsey was called the giant killer because he beat small heavyweight contenders? Again thanks for the insight.:good

 

Well you never will ,but you might get a small trophy for your fictional works.
The White Slaver & The Wh*re.
The Draft Dodger & The Frenchy.
The Pimp & The Prostitute.

 

Which prime world class boxers of any stamp did he stop? This athletic guy who had superior power to Dempsey?

 

Norton was a good puncher .. he had a terrific jab and a nasty overhand right .. he could hit .. I just don't think he was on par w Dempsey who was 15 pounds lighter but faster and a harder two handed puncher ...

 

Norton was a good puncher,Dempsey a great one.
With a much better chin.

 

The LeDoux fight wasn't a loss, but a draw, but that's not really the point. You are quite right, there is a difference in degree in relevance but I think we are both in agreement that neither Dempsey or Norton were prime in these instances?

 

As I have said before McV I respect your knowledge but you are moving the goalposts and being selective as you are (occasionally) wont to do when you don't have an answer which fits your argument/agenda.

I'm losing the will to live on this one...