Is Norton's resume comparable to Frazier's?

Im not hugging Quarry's nuts and never do. Quarry was what he was which was too much of a headcase to ever win a title but its a fact that when Quarry and Norton sparred in California on multiple occasions Quarry kicked the **** out of Norton including knocking him OUT. Its a fact that when Eilene Eaton and Don Chargin tried to match them on multiple occasions Norton wanted nothing to with that match and avoided Quarry like the plague. Its a fact that Norton ONLY accepted a match with Quarry after he was shot to pieces, bloated, and partying constantly. For some people to pretend like Norton beat the best version of Quarry, or that the Quarry victory is some feather in Nortons cap is patently ridiculous. For those same people to compare Norton's victory over Quarry with Frazier's first victory over him is ridiculous.

If its trying too hard to discredit Norton by simply laying bare his ACTUAL record then call me guilty. I think the results speak for themselves. Ive said time and again that Norton made his career off one fight and off one fighter that he posed a stylistic challenge for. Nothing more. I dont even throw Holmes in there because (and you can go back and check my previous posts on this subject) I dont think that fight was close or particularly hard to judge. Norton had a handful of good rounds but Holmes dominated the vast majority of rounds in that fight and was injured doing it. So yes, take away Norton's one win over Ali (and dont give me any bull**** about a robbery in their third fight, that fight was close and in no way a robbery. Young beat Ali AND NORTON more convincingly than Norton against Ali in their third fight) and Norton's accomplishments are ridiculously meager.

 

Thanks for the breakdown. This shows that the distance was somewhat wider than I first thought.

 

Quarry wasn't good enough to win the title. Beaten up by Frazier and hopelessly outclassed by Ali, and even second-tier paper-champ Jimmy Ellis outboxed him clearly enough.
Foreman probably would have decapitated him.

Sparring doesn't count much but if you want to put a lot into it: Provide dates of these sparring sessions if you want to claim them as factual events or reveal the context. Do you have footage or pics of Norton being KO'd ?
Contemporary/primary source accounts ?

In my opinion, Quarry is one of your favourites and you do tend to give him an easy ride, compared to guys you clearly seem to want to denigrate, for example Norton, Shavers or Chuvalo.
I'm not saying Quarry wasn't good. But he did quite dysmally against the division's top-tier.

Provide dates and figures for these offers that Norton turned down.
Not that it matters much.
Norton stepped up to the plate and fought Ali for a modest purse - and beat him. That's a more impressive way to break into the big time.

I agree.

I don't disagree with that.
But I think when people introduced talk about his modest amateur pedigree it comes across as irrelevant negativity.
Norton didn't even start boxing until he was 20 years old.

Norton did very well against Ali in ALL THREE FIGHTS.
Both the 'losses' were VERY CLOSE.
Muhammad Ali was one of the greatest heavyweights ever and I'm certain he was motivated to prove his superiority over the 'ordinary' Norton and prove the loss was just a fluke. But he could never do it.
So Norton deserves credit.
The same Ali made guys like Quarry, Ellis, Patterson look like children in comparison.

Fair play for singing Jimmy Young's praises, but another way of looking at it is that Norton did better against Young than Ali or Foreman did, and I don't think Young was "robbed" either. It was a close fight either way.

Going 15 rounds with 2 great world champions and NOT in survival mode is not "ridiculously meagre accomplishments".

Ken Norton was a reasonably accomplished contender and he proved a nightmare for perhaps the greatest heavyweight ever.

 

Depends on when exactly. Norton would have had a decent shot at a post Manila Frazier.

 

I think all very well considered and fair comment.

 

I never said Quarry was good enough to win a championship did I? But if Quarry was as bad as you paint him in his prime then he must have been pure dog **** when Norton actually got the ***** to fight him so why try to build Norton up using Quarry and then tear Quarry down?

I spend more time than should as it is trying to educate those who choose to ignore any such evidence to begin with. If you are so inclined you can find it. Its there. Otherwise you can continue on your merry way not believing it. It really doesnt matter to me and it doesnt change the fact that one of Norton's biggest name wins was next to worthless.

Now its your turn. Give me an example of me giving Quarry an easy ride. You can find several examples of me stating specifically that Quarry consistently under performed. I certainly dont think he was the greatest HW fighter to never win a championship as some have alleged.

See my comment above. And yes, he did, and lived off that LONE win for the rest of his career and the rest of his life. I give him full credit for taking advantage of a golden opportunity but again, beyond that one win his resume falls dramatically short. Was that one win better than any win on Quarry's record? No question about it. But its all about timing and context isnt it? Its a lot easier to take a golden opportunity with the abilty to get international recognition and a "small" purse (that just happened to be more than 6 times greater than any purse Norton had ever earned previously) than it is to gamble on a shot on local television against a contender who has already kicked your ass in sparring numerous times for MUCH less you tell me which way you. Its the same mentality that drives our sport today and of course which you often defend, this safety first mentality, dont match your guy against anyone who might beat him until you are ready to roll the dice and/or cash out. Sorry but I dont like that and never have and Norton's career was all about that. He was very carefully steered and his resume reflects that. I dont find that impressive at all.

Im not the one who started talking about his amateur pedigree. That was someone else trying to make excuses for him just like you are by using his "late" start as justification for why his resume is thin. Its a pathetic argument. The argument isnt about whether he MIGHT have done more had he started earlier its about his ACTUAL accomplishments compared to Fraziers and his ACTUAL accomplishments pale in comparison.

Who cares? So did Joe Frazier. Again, you are basing Norton's entire body of work on how he matched up stylistically with one fighter who was already fading when Norton got ahold of him.

So were both of Frazier's losses. Did Ali ever say he was close to dying about Norton? Because I dont remember that. The bottom line is that the best Norton could come up with against Ali was a SD win and beyond that his resume takes a dramatic nose dive in terms of both depth and accomplishments.

He did it twice.

This statement is comical because the amount of credit Norton actually gets for these fights is so out of proportion with his ability and accomplishments its ridiculous. The old axiom used to be that every fighter has a guy who, regardless of his limitations, can give you problems and just seems to be your boogaboo. That was Norton. Everyone has one but for some reason Ali is held in such a high regard that because Norton was able to get one SD over him he got upjumped into the HOF. And you have the nerve to pretend he doesnt get the credit he deserves for this fight? PLEASE!

Its interesting that you mention "the same Ali" because "the same Ali" that Norton beat had his hands full against a 37 year old Floyd Patterson that was outweighed by 30 pounds just six months before Norton took his lone fight in his series with Ali. The same Ali got booed for his workmanlike performance against Ellis who had been massacred by Frazier, just like Quarry did. Have you ever heard anyone pick Patterson to beat Frazier? So whats your point? Norton doesnt have those guys on his resume outside of Quarry's ghost. Nor does he have Chuvalo. You keep wanting to make this about Ali and Norton, or Norton and Quarry to avoid the obviously unflattering comparison to Frazier. Im not going to bite. The original post was question Frazier and Norton's accomplishments head to head and the point is Norton's pale in comparison.

Its funny how whenever Norton was in a close fight that he lost he was robbed but when he nicked one it was fair. See how that works? When did I say Norton beat Young easier than Ali? I said Young beat Norton more convincingly in their fight than Norton's supposed robbery against Ali in their third fight.

For a guy to get into the HOF because he lost two 15 round championship fights while "NOT in survival mode" is a ridiculously pathetic criteria for induction and a ridiculously pathetic statistic. Talk about damning Norton with feint praise.

Well thats a ringing endorsement for a "champion" and HOFer LOL.

Mark that down on his tombstone "This champion and HOFer was actually nothing more than a reasonably accomplished contender who proved a stylistic nightmare for a great HW champion"

So basically you agree with everything Ive said.

 

Yes, it has been well documented that Norton's handlers treated Ken as if he were made of china. It is also well known that Ken was always afraid of facing big punchers. Now, both Ken and Joe had a pasting from George Foreman, particularly Joe, who lost his title at the same time. Despite this, he agreed to fight Foreman AGAIN, three years later. Could anyone see Norton signing up to fight George again? I think not.

 

I am surprized this is being debated to be honest.

Yes their results against Ali are comparable, but the rest of their resumes are not.

Frazier was a great heavyweight champion, who arguably even had a short period of dominance, while Norton was a strong contender who just happened to have the right style to beat Ali.

 

I never did.
You must have me confused with someone else.
It was me who pointed out to Mendoza that Norton's win over Quarry is meaningless.

Well, shut up about the sparring and Norton chickening out and all that nonsense then. If you can't simply show concrete evidence, it's just hearsay.

By saying he "consistently underperformed" you're attempting to cover up the fact that he just wasn't as good as you would like to believe.
He performed at his level.
It's not an underperformance if it's what he consistently does.

The same can be said about George Foreman too. Perhaps more so. You still have to give credit where it's due.

I don't advocate "safety first" approach but safety must be something of a priority, surely ? What's the use in getting punched about too much and all used up before you've learned the craft ?

What's the point in having a manager at all if the name of the game is to fight anyone and everyone ?
That's what desperate fighters and managers do. If guys who are too stupid and brave to care about their health perhaps.

I didn't vote Ken Norton into the HOF.
Take that up with those who did.

Actually I agreed from the very beginning that Norton doesn't match Frazier in any way at all.
Mendoza is 100% wrong and in a minority of one with his opening post.

I merely pointed out that Norton was quite good and maybe people were going too far to discredit him.

You brought up Jerry Quarry and I called you on that.
Going on about some fight that never happened makes no sense, unless you're trying to boost Quarry at Norton's expense.

I'm happy to call all the close fights draws.

I think going the distance with Ali three times in close fights and going 15 rounds with PRIME Larry Holmes in a recognized classic is something to be proud of.

Maybe you're own personal achievements overshadow everything Ken Norton ever did, but from the point-of-view of us mere mortals Norton did something with his life.

He was Mandingo.
He boned prime Pam Grier on set - and a lot of other women.

THIS MAN WAS A VERITABLE STUD.
Put that on his tombstone.

 

No, not even close.

 

Very good breakdown, and extremely accuate.
I always was intrigued by the ratings month to month, Ring was usually unbiased and up to date, I always ask this question was the World Boxing Association the ratings everyone went by back in the day?, Newspapers were about 90 % when they advertised what fighter's were ranked!