Ezzard Charles vs. Ken Norton

ali was aboxer just like chales and muhammad was better than charles in every department h2h, norton did pretty well against boxers(stylist), charles did not have the punch to stop norton, and he could not avoid kenny for the complete fight, norton by ud

 

Wrong...Charles was faster, more mobile than Norton and could punch harder than Ali...he was rugged as hell as he proved vs Marciano the first time...and would win a close decision over Norton. He would outbox and outhit Norton to earn the points win over 15.

 

Charles beats him every day of the weak. Charles was a guy who beat joe louis for christ sakes when louis was still good. Norton beat a washed up ali coming off a long lay off who couldnt fight like he use to.

 

pfp yes... but h2h?:rofl:rofl

 

I mentioned Charle's ruggedness vs Marciano....but that wasn't even Ezz at his best....at his peak as a heavy, which was about 1950, hell yes he beats Norton h2h.....and I have plenty of respect for Norton...but Charles was a GREAT fighter.

 

Charles was much stronger than he gets credit for and his power at HW is underrated. Charles may not have been a one shot show stopper but he at least rocked most of the fighters he faced. He rocked Walcott several times and dropped him but people only talk about the time Walcott dropped and stopped him. He stopped Archie Moore, LLoyd Marshall, Rex Layne, Bob Satterfield, and others. He hurt Marciano, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim, Joe Louis, and others. Charles was quick and accurate, he had good footwork and was elusive, he was an all around great fighter.

Norton was big and strong but Charles was much better.

 

Ken was great at fighting boxers and if he could back you up he built momentum so if Charles chose to box like Ali did it would be a long night but the Charles of Marciano,Wallace and Satterfield showed he could fight in the pocket and bang from the outside, once Ezz caught or hurt Ken and saw the difference of him backing up he would be ringwise enough to catch on. Ezz could box but he could crack when he wanted...IMO the 1954 version beats Norton by a stop and the earlier version that fought Joe Louis could box brilliantly without taking as much risk

 

Providing Norton can back Charles up often enough,he takes a close decision in a very good fight.

 

I'm a big fan of both (both likely in my top 15 favourites if I had such a list) but if we are talking the best Ez at HW I pick him on points. I think Ez was clever enough, mobile enough and with enough variety, with enough snap on his shots to outmanoeuvre Ken in a close and pretty good fight, which would probably be competitive and exciting enough to go again.

 

it was not what i meant, you said that CHARLES DID HIT HARDER THAN ALI AND IT IS A COMPLETE JOKE IF YOU ARE TALKING H2H

 

Ezzard Charles should win this, probably on points. Norton was cagey but Charles just had more quality.
I don't think Charles made the same technical mistakes that gave Norton such opportunities against Ali to get his jab off and establish his unusual rhythm.

 

Norton

 

Charles. Norton just could never get it done.