How good was Ken Norton?

underrated. definitely better than guys like Oscar De La Hoya p4p

top 55-65 p4p all time and top 15-20 heavyweight all time. Definitely better than the bum Klitschkos.

Ken Norton aside from the Garcia loss when Ken just started his career never lost to 3 D-level fighters unlike Wladimir against Sanders Purity and Brewster. Shavers and Cooney losses were well past their prime, and much better than Sanders Purity or Brewster.

the only guys he lost to in or near his prime was George Foreman, a close fight against Holmes, and a slim victory by Muhammad Ali in the rematch. clearly not walk in the park opposition.

Easily beat Ali in fight one and three, beat Jimmy Young, Jerry Quarry.

much more impressive than beating Sam Peter or Chris Byrd.

Vitali on the other hand never fought anyone great, unless you count 38 year old shot past prime last fight of his career Lennox to be great. He was good at that point but far from great. And Vitali got stopped with the slimmest of leads on the scorecard, easily on his way to getting knocked out. Ken Norton would outbox every fighter in the heavyweight division today

 

I think his victories over Ali, Young and Quarry along with being a member of a strong cast in the 70's warrant a top 30 ranking.

Punchers would always pose a threat, but some of your boxer types or even boxer-punchers would have difficulty with Norton. I can See Gene Tunney, Ezzard Charles, Max Schmeling and Floyd Patterson as being potential victims.

I think he does fairly well and would certainly be a top rater, though I have reservations about him being "The champ." Klitschko for all his shortcomings needs to be the favorite.

Depends on who you're talking to and the nature of the discussion. He gets huge props for beating Ali and is well liked in a lot of circles. On the flip side, he is automatically dismissed as being an easy victim every time he's matched against a big hitter. His chin wasn't made of granite but I don't buy that it was glass either. It typically took a puncher of world class ability and more often, when he was past it to put him to sleep.

 

Good question it will be interesting to read the responses

 

I agree with Magoo's take on it.

Pure boxers and the right boxer-punchers could be beaten by Norton.

I think the weakness against sluggers is genuine, and it would've hurt him in the 90's and later where, if nothing else, there was no shortage of guys who could crack. Granted, they sacrificed speed, mobility, and conditioning to maximize the power aspect, but Norton's one of the fighters who would pay the price for it.

He'd have more success against the Povetkins, Byrds, and Holyfields than he does against the bigger punchers. Hard-hitting frontrunners would find success against him.

 

Totally overrated.

His name is made off of being a stylistically difficult opponent for Ali and nothing else. His fight with Holmes is overrated. Holmes easily won most of the rounds and did so with an injured arm. His win over Quarry came against a fat, shot, older Quarry after years of ducking Quarry in what would have been a natural West Coast attraction. His win over Young was a gift. He was lucky enough to be Frazier's sparring partner because Joe would have eaten him for breakfast. Look at the great talent in the division in the 1960s and 1970s and then look how few of those names appear on Norton's resume, then when you start figuring which of those guys beat him the resume starts getting more thin. The guy is the only HW champion to have never won a title fight. That pretty much sums up his legacy for me.

 

Being a hard puncher doesn't gurantee a win over Norton. He would lose to some but he would also give a few the Bobick treatment.

 

so is "4-division champ" Broner better than Sam Langford who never got a title shot?

dumb logic. its not about the belts its about who you beat

 

Arguably beating Ali 3 out of 3 times and taking Holmes to the wire makes you pretty damn good.

Allot is made out of him losing to 2 of the biggest punchers to ever lace them up. Not all 'punchers' beat him though, smaller guys he could well punish,

 

He was a magnificent fighter.

My concern regarding his legacy, is that he built it on being a specialist dealing with certain styles of opponent, while never really proving himself against others.

 

As for the last part of the question...overall, he is overrated because of the name value Ali carries. Matching up well stylistically against Ali has gotten Norton too much mileage as it relates to other possible H2H matchups, and as klompton pointed out, his resume is too thin for the era in which he fought in. I really can't refute any of the points he's backed up his post with.

 

Ken Norton was a very very good fighter. I consider him the 5th best of the 70`s behind the greats Ali, Frazier, Holmes and Foreman. Norton fought three excellent fights against Ali, clearly winning the first one and narrowly losing the second and the third which I felt he may have slightly won. He beat a number of good legit pros knocking them out for the most part. Took a prime Larry Holmes to his limits in one of the better heavyweight fights you`ll ever see. His short comings were for the most part all against punchers but I don`t exactly buy it that he couldn`t handle power punchers at all. The three guys he was knocked out by were arguably the three hardest hitters ever in the heavyweight division and the knock out lose to Cooney was well passed his prime. I would bet on Ken Norton against a number of good heavyweight punchers throughout history. In fact I feel Ken Norton is a good enough fighter to be a worthy challenger against any heavyweight throughout history. Personally I`d consider him amongst my top 20 heavyweights I feel hes about even with Michael Moorer. In todays heavyweight division he`d certainly one of the best out there but I don`t like his chances against the Klitschko`s I see them as a bad match up for him.

 

Could not fight a puncher who backed him up. He was in great muscular condition and had very good power for throwing a lot of arm punches but was a great athlete. He was the perfect foil for Ali but lost pretty badly to most of the guys that could back him up. He did have a good win over a completely shot Quarry who was a puncher but he did get shook. He gave Holmes a great battle and he was near the end but Larry was not yet prime. I think he would always give that type of fighter trouble because he could pressure an average puncher

 

He's one of those guys who will always look good against certain types while elite bangers will most likely always have his number. There's a lot of "gray area" involved with a fighter like Norton, and that's okay. He had his talents and made the very most of them. You have to respect that.


And one thing you have to say about him that I never see get mentioned......in this day and age of hand-picking opponents that are tailor-suited to one's style, wouldn't it be refreshing to have a fighter like Norton who would fight anybody? Despite the fact that he couldn't handle big punchers (technically, it was fighters that backed him up, but whatever), he fought THREE ATG punchers in Foreman, Shavers, and Cooney. He lost spectacularly in all three, but at least he had the huevos to fight guys he knew might trouble him. Kudos, Ken.

 

Helluva fighter, fought in the toughest era in the history of heavyweight boxing, beat Ali 2 out of 3- the first fight in 73 , san diego, and 76 yankee stadium, problem is he didn't get the verdict:verysad, i would rate him in the top 20 all time:deal..
If you would take the Norton of 1973 and put him in the ring with the Klitchko of today, it would be a very close fight, sure Klitchko is a lot bigger, but in a 15 round fight my money would be on Norton to kick his ass, because Klitchko would probably run out of gas..