Is Norton's resume comparable to Frazier's?

Lol, using the Zanon fight as proof that Quarry had anything left in the tank for Norton. He was abysmal in both fights. He supposedly trained on cocaine, boize, and blondes for Norton and if he didnt he might as well have for how limited he was.

 

Has anyone remembered that Norton lost against Joe Garcia early on in his career? (Round 5?) He avenged it a few years later iirc, which is fair enough, but I don't see Frazier losing to Garcia at the same time scale in his career. I know Joe has had fewer fights, but they stand up a bit better like for like than Ken's, and as much as I admired Frazier, I never considered him to be an ATG. Just my opinion.

 

His first round KO of Bobick is more of a highlight than the close win over Young, I'd say.

 

Nah, he just exposed Bobick

Bobick proved to be a complete bust.

 

Ali, Frazier, Foreman and Holmes all rank clear above Ken Norton.

Ken Norton's probably around the same mark as Jimmy Ellis.
I'd rate them both above Shavers, even though he blasted them out in 1 round apiece (they were past their primes).
I suppose Quarry would be on the same level too (he KO'd Shavers in 1 to be fair !). And Jimmy Young certainly.
Basically we're talking about the second-tier of the era really.

 

I don't think it's comparable really since Frazier was much better managed early in his career and had top amateur pedigree before that. Norton was living hand to mouth more or less during his early pro years and didn't have nearly such good amateur career.

 

Bobick's resume looks better after his loss to Norton than Young's does.

 

Comparing Joe and Ken's 70s output there's not that much in it. As has been said,though,you cannot imagine Joe losing to the likes of Jose Luis Garcia.

 

Lorenzo Zanon was giving the completely washed up Jerry Quarry a beating until his very fragile chin let him down again, resulting in a very deceptive knockout victory for Quarry. In other words, saying Quarry had something left based on his victory over Zanon is far from the truth.

- Chuck Johnston

 

But that goes back to quality. Frazier won the Olympics and was an underdog going in. Norton wasnt even selected for the Pan Am games and with good reason, he certainly wouldnt have won the Olympics or even have been selected to represent the USA with George Foreman on the team. Anyone wanna guess how that box off goes? After winning the Olympics Frazier was dead broke as well and started out as hard scrabble as a fighter can. So why disqualify their early accomplishments? Norton was training in the same gyms with and around top fighters and he was getting fights with and winning fights against the same tomatoe cans that everyone else worked their way up. Ken's problem was that he was careful steared, certainly more protectively than Frazier, especially after getting creamed by Garcia. There had been several offers to fight Jerry Quarry in different venues in California and Norton wanted nothing to do with him. He knew what would have happened, it had been done to him sparring more than once. Norton knew and so did his manager who had worked with Jerry in the past. Like I said earlier, Norton hit the jackpot with his fight with Ali. And lived off that one win for the rest of his career. Joe actually fought his way up the ranks so to pretend that Frazier somehow how had it easier than Norton is patently ridiculous. Frazier's path to victory was a damn sight harder than Norton ever came close to in his entire career. I cant think of a single heavyweight before, and not many after, who had a softer road to a "title" than Ken Norton and who did less with it once they got it.

 

It wouldnt if hed fought anyone with a pulse.

 

Hey Mendoza.

I see you are trying to put down Ali.

Have you thought your method through? You are putting down ali by putting down frazier by bigging up Norton.

but ali beat both twice... so if you are bigging up Norton, then you are also bigging up ali since he topped the man as much as he did frazier..


Nice one mate. kliturd self destructs once again.

 

Norton had about half the number of amateur fights that Frazier had.

And Frazier was sponsored by the Cloverlay businessmen, managed by Durham and training full time from the start. Norton had nothing like that. He was actually struggling to get money for food.

He was a late bloomer with an early loss. I don't penalize him more for that more than I do Johnson and Walcott for their early losses.

And you go on like Norton lucked out against Ali. He showed in the rematch, against a top shape Ali, that he really was just as difficult opponent for Ali as Frazier was.

 

LeDoux was probably a better win than any Young had after losing to Norton.

 

I am sorry but they are not even remotely similar.

You are just citing a list of names, without providing any context.

Quarry, Ellis, Bonavena, Bugner, were all serious current contenders in the division when Frazier beat them.

Of the people you list that Norton actually beat, Quarry was nowhere at the time, Young lost a controversial decision, and Bobick and Cobb were particularly good at their best.

The pattern that emerges is that Frazier was a bona fide all-time great, while Norton might simply have been a guy who had a style to trouble Ali.