jack dempsey vs ken norton...

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by shommel, Sep 8, 2012.



  1. yancey

    yancey Active Member Full Member

    1,487
    51
    Nov 28, 2007
    Norton was very good, but not truly great, imo.

    Dempsey would take him.
     
  2. HOUDINI

    HOUDINI Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,382
    1,457
    Aug 18, 2012
    Norton can't fight backing up. Dempsey overruns him for an early round ko.
     
  3. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,838
    3,274
    Sep 14, 2005
    Charles won 11 out of his last 13 heading into the Marciano fight. His most recent 2 fights prior to Marciano I fight was two brutal knockouts over Ring Magazine top 10 contenders. Charles had also brutally avenged a loss to rex layne in 52, and challenged nino valdes to a rematch in early 1954 which valdes DECLINED. Charles showed up at a rock solid 185lb, and all reports indicated Charles trained harder for the Marciano I fight than he had in years. Charles steep decline post Marciano I was due to Marciano figuratively ruining charles during there 15 round war, he took everything left out of Charles. Notice how Charles gained some weight after the first Marciano fight, a sign of a lack of condition.

    Watching Charles-Marciano I on film and then watching Gibbons vs Dempsey, Charles passed the eye test much better than gibbons.
     
  4. mcvey

    mcvey VIP Member Full Member

    95,101
    24,867
    Jun 2, 2006


    Three months prior to the Charles rematch, Layne had been brutally kod by Marciano,if Charles was diminished after Rocky so was Layne. Swings and roundabouts Suzie
     
  5. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,838
    3,274
    Sep 14, 2005
    GI,


    You still have refused to state why Dempsey and Jeffries opposition looks so much better than Marciano's? Please explain
     
  6. Kid Bacon

    Kid Bacon All-Time-Fat Full Member

    1,021
    786
    Nov 8, 2011

    No taking anything away from old jack, ... but is he really in the same league than Shavers or Foreman? :think
     
  7. HOUDINI

    HOUDINI Boxing Addict Full Member

    5,382
    1,457
    Aug 18, 2012
    Different kind of puncher....Dempsey was much more like Louis in this respect.
     
  8. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher VIP Member Full Member

    42,732
    241
    Jul 22, 2004
    LUFC is always fair, even if sometimes off on analysis and this really does show the massive disparity in quality of opposition

    Maybe there is an argument Dempsey is overall a better fighter, I'd disagree, but it could be made. But to argue Dempsey had better opposition is asinine


    1. Gibbons was also coming off losses (2 to Greb)
    2. Gibbons didn't fight a who's who off top contenders, Charles did
    3. Charles has losses that are either robberies or contentious, it's disingenuous to omit that fact
    4. Charles was clearly 2-3 levels above Gibbons in the first place
     
  9. Kid Bacon

    Kid Bacon All-Time-Fat Full Member

    1,021
    786
    Nov 8, 2011
    Yeah, more like that
     
  10. Seamus

    Seamus Proud Kulak Full Member

    53,896
    32,820
    Feb 11, 2005
    By all evidence, he was in the same league. The man hit with crazy leverage and fast-twitch strength.

    By the way, Dempsey was taller than Shavers, had similar reach, and was really only about 10 pounds lighter than a fit Shavers. So, there was not a great difference in size here if that's the argument.
     
  11. MRBILL

    MRBILL Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,116
    91
    Oct 9, 2008
    You know, if Norton came in warmed-up and ready to stick and move, he MIGHT last against Dempsey.... Christ, Norton by 1976 was a solid 217 pounds of mass muscle... However, his glass-jaw was his own worst enemy... Thus, seeing Dempsey get off first and land some hooks early on would prolly be Norton's downfall.... Norton just can't take a punch from a slugger...

    MR.BILL:hat
     
  12. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,838
    3,274
    Sep 14, 2005
    I thought I already explained, in CLEAR fashion, that the Charles of June 17th, 1954 was a far tougher out than the charles of 1955?

    Why?

    1. Marciano ruined him- This isn't a coincidence. Marciano has a history of ruining fighters. "Once you face Rocky, you were never the same again"- New York Times. Rocky took everything Charles had left in his tank during those gruelling 15 rounds. He gave Charles a terrible beating. Charles was never the same after that fight.

    2. Charles record coming into the marciano fight was impressive. 11-2 in his last 13, with back to back knockout victories over Ring Magazine top 10 fighters. Charles showed up at a lean 185lb, reports from charles training camp indicated he was in "The finest condition he had been in years. This was his last shot, and he knew it". Charles record post Marciano indicates he was not the same physically or mentally as a fighter post 1954.

    3. I thought Charles looked sensational on film in his 1954 first fight with Marciano. I think if you look at charles in his 1955 performances on film, he looks noticeably slower in his reflexes, and his condition has deteriorated.


    I would lump Charles like this


    1946-1949 Peak
    1950-1951 Near Prime, ATG fighter
    1952-1954 Past his prime but still a great dangerous fighter
    1955-Post Washed up, no longer a top 10 fighter
     
  13. SuzieQ49

    SuzieQ49 Officer Full Member

    36,838
    3,274
    Sep 14, 2005
    I give up, I am putting you on ignore
     
  14. MadcapMaxie

    MadcapMaxie Guest

    More cherry picking from Goodnight Irene.

    He said he was going to provide an explanation as why they were better never did. All he does is rip into others comments while not really providing any of his own. Easy to criticise.
     
  15. MRBILL

    MRBILL Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    21,116
    91
    Oct 9, 2008
    I second that emotion..... Goodnite Irene can kiss my ass with a straw from McD's...:deal

    SR.BILL:hat