How does Ken Norton Fare Against Joe Louis's Opppnents?

Probably beats most but it’s not as simple as that. Would Nortons style age as well as Louis over the course of 15 years?

Norton was a good puncher, sure, but he wasn’t a Louis level puncher. Louis ended up with a lot of early round ko’s because of his power.

Norton would likely take longer to stop Louis’s opponents, which means he would need to fight more rounds, and hence there would be more wear and tear. This additional wear and tear could lead to a decline in performance.

Louis maintained a high level for 15 years. His skills declined during ww2 and yet he still maintained himself decently.

could Norton’s energetic style age that well? I doubt it

 

I don't think Norton definitely loses to any of Louis' title reign opponents. I think he could be argued against in a select few and has some potential for an unlucky KO loss opportunity vs. Max Baer and potentially Galento. Walcott would be interesting and Marciano could also KO him. Norton, for me, has a very old school favorable style. Norton would be a big and broad heavyweight for the time and he would also be one of the most technical. His pawing/catching style would be more effective because he would be going against less impactful and smaller punchers. His jab would be more effective as he would have a considerable reach advantage in many fights and would never fight someone near the physical dimensions of a Foreman, Ali, Holmes, or Cooney. I don't think Maxie nor Two Ton pack a wallop like Earnie Shavers, either. Norton is also underratedly durable when he's in the flow of a fight and was able to give and take reasonably well in the majority of his noteworthy contests.

Norton vs. Marciano would be a hell of a war for what it's worth, and I think the Rock would go through a lot to find Norton. Joe Louis would have a better chance, but I think that's another tough fight if Louis doesn't figure Norton out early. Ken is a matchup nightmare for smaller, less impactful fighters and becomes a lot more controllable when you're punching down onto him or you're bringing more power and equal reach.

 

On a 1 off fight, he might beat any of them. Doing it for years on end, that's another story. Not to be funny, but Norton was vulnerable to big punchers and Tony Galento was a big puncher. Galento could be a fly in the ointment. Walcott and Norton would be a great fight.

 

I also picked Galento to be a possible banana peel. Say what you will of him, but the man could crack. Max Baer is another one for Norton to watch out for.

 

Baer sadly killed 2 men in the ring, he is close to Shavers in power for sure.

 

"I don't think Maxie nor Two Ton pack a wallop like Earnie Shavers"

Arguing from Shavers, or Cooney, to me is not very persuasive, as Norton did not get out of the first round with either of them.

 

Shavers had a 79" reach is on the short list for hardest punchers ever. Max was good but a level down in all time punching. I think Baer and Galento were both windmillers who would have a harder time getting past Norton's unorthodox guard and forearms as a result. Both could drop people but neither were Shavers. As far as Cooney, he is the size of a basketball player and could punch like a mule kick. He punched down on Norton in a way none of Louis' opponents would be able to and Norton was on the slide anyway

 

He beats all of them except Marciano and maybe Walcott.

He beats Conn easily, he beats Charles, if Charles was 10-15lbs bigger naturally, he’d probably beat Norton though.

I’m sorry @InMemoryofJakeLamotta but I believe he beats Galento, but may get caught off guard and get rocked early though I give him that, but I believe he outlasts him. He was certainly awkward to deal with when fresh, you wouldn’t know what angles the punches were coming from, which could certainly work against a passive defence like Norton’s if he blocks wrong and predicts the wrong angle of punch, which is certainly possible as Galento threw from all angles.

Marciano I believe shatters the jaw of Norton at some point, relentless pressure, Norton didn’t have the backfoot boxing to outbox him and stay away, but he also didn’t have the chin to stand up to Marciano, and Marciano wouldn’t gas like Galento.

Walcott is close to a 50/50, he could walk him onto a mean uppercut, he was sneaky and deceptive, but Norton could also walk him down and outwork him and maybe take him out late if Walcott can’t gain his respect.

 

Cooney "could punch down on Norton in a way none of Louis' opponents would be able to"

Buddy Baer was taller and heavier than Cooney and had a big punch.

My point is Norton in his own time was very vulnerable to big punchers and for me bringing up Shavers is a very weak argument. Norton did not even get out of the first round with Shavers. So comparing Shavers to Baer is not the point. Norton was gone the instant Shavers hit him. So this is no evidence at all that Norton could stand up to either Baer, for example.

 

I'd favor Norton against all of Louis's opponents as individuals. But theres like 20 fights where the dog has a substantial chance of winning and Norton will pick up losses here.

 

Gerry Cooney would probably clear a fair few on this list. Do you think Buddy hits as hard as Gerry? Personally, I doubt it.

I also don't see the dimensions that Galento and Baer have in common with Shavers except punching hard anyway. Shavers would probably beat them both.

My main issue with the criticism of Norton is that we're talking about a guy who peaked from 1973 to 1976 taking two devastating losses in 1979 and 1981 after he was already shopworn including an epic 1978 banger with Holmes that seemed to be regarded as Norton's last ride. And those devastating losses are heavily referenced but not necessarily great data points as it doesn't fully reflect the Norton in this hypothetical.

I don't think Norton would struggle with anyone on the list except Marciano, Walcott and maybe Baer or Galento.

 

Buddy Baer vs Cooney

Baer 53 KO's in 65 fights for an .815 percentage. Cooney 24 KO's in 31 fights for a .774 percentage. Cooney on paper looks more impressive because of the "names" Ken Norton, Ron Lyle, and Jimmy Young. But Norton and Lyle were in their last fights. Norton had gone back but was still a decent scalp. Lyle by this time was a name from the past. Young was still decent, but had lost 4 of his 7 and was stopped on cuts. So I think the names misleading. Baer beat more good men over the years, but for the most part, not men of quite the stature of those Cooney defeated, but he got most of them in prime.

I think both of these fighters are overrated. Cooney the more so. I rate them on about the same level.

 

Schmeling was a solid technician who would give Norton a tussle, and he's not been mentioned yet.

 

I definitely agree with you about Ken and JJW. Would be a great technical battle.