James Toney vs. Ken Norton

Where in the hell did you learn the definition of journeyman? I suppose you also refer to a Mercedez Benz as a taxi cab. I try my best to respect the opinions of other posters even when I strongly disagree, but seeing such a misuse of the term journeyman has absolutely no basis whatsoever and clearly reflects the ineptitude of this poster...

 

I agree that Norton is given too much credit for the Ali fights. In the first fight he got an ill-conditioned, overweight and overconfident Ali whose jaw he broke as early as the seond round. Yet, all he managed was a hard fought decision. He lost the second Ali fight clearly. It may have been close but Norton clearly lost. I believe that sometimes even Norton concedes that he lost that one. In the third fight Norton got an old and fading Ali. Yet, all he managed was a close fight whose result could be a good subject of debate as to who really won depending on how you looked at the fight. Anyway, as Senya said, the officials saw it as 2 for Ali and 1 for Norton.

Norton put in a tremendous effort against Holmes. But the fact is, he lost the decision.

Also, he might have been lucky against guys like Jimmy Young.

Having said that, I do believe that he would have beaten James Toney by decision.

 

Definition?
Merriam-Webster
an experienced reliable worker, athlete, or performer especially as distinguished from one who is brilliant or colorful

Free online dictionary
An experienced and competent but undistinguished worker


Norton was hurt and staggered several times by old voerweight wild-swinging Quarry, was staggered once by Stephens, was staggered once or twice by Young.
Dug up my scorecard.
Norton: 4,6,7,12
Young: 1,2,3,5,8,9,10,11,13,14!
draw: 15

 

These definitions do not entirely pertain to boxing in the typical fashion that the term is used to describe fighters. A journeyman boxer is usually a fighter who is better than a club fighter or tomato can, but does not quite fit the bill as a contender or world class entity. Men like Jesse Ferguson, Bert Cooper, and Chuck Wepner were all viewed as journeyman and at times even fringe contenders. Norton surpassed all of these men in his accomplishments. He was a top rate contender for the better part of 5 years between 1974-1979. He has a victory over a man who is commonly regarded as the greatest fighter of all time, as well as a number of wins over other rated contenders. He held a title at one point, and is viewed by some as an all time great heavyweight competitor. Now you may not agree with his ratings in the 70's, or may call his acquistion of a world title tainted, but the fact stands that he was all of these things. Norton was in no way shape or form a journeyman.

 

Norton was experienced and competent, but was not distinguished, brilliant, colorful or anything of that kind. Just as the definition says. He is nowhere even close to being all-time great.

 

I dont think Norton would be trying to keep Toney away in this one ,I see him as the agressor here,as Toney lacked a big punch at heavy Norton would be forcing the fight,the harder hitter and stronger man,he would have some problems with Toney,s marvellous defensive moves and would eat a lot of counters ,but his overall agression and punch rate would see him take a decision I feel.

 

Only if it's same kind of decision as in Young-Norton, where Young was catching him with crosses to the head time after time, and Norton had no clue how to protect himself against it.

 

Serious mismatch. Burger King vs Hercules?

Norton UD 15-0 or 14-1, simply based on the fact that he knows how to move his feet.

 

Perhaps not, but he wasn't a journeyman either. His acheivements went way beyond anything that warrants receiving the label.

 

I think Toney (in HW) is overrated by some. What exactly did he do? Knocked old man Evander, won with overhyped Guinn and outboxed crude Sam Peter. On the other hand, he lost to Rahman, wasn't able to fight Ruiz without steroids and then was himself outboxed by Peter.

I think Norton gets clear UD most of the time.

 

Norton UD

 

Toney had the tools but for me he was often a nearly man ,he lacked dedication,,never impressed me at heavyweight,or since his fight with Jirov ,in which he was masterful.Prime Norton,s problem was punchers ,since Toney isnt at Heavyweight,I think its reasonable to assume Kenny outworkes him.

 

What achievements? He is officially 4-6-1 in fights against ranked opponents. 4 wins being over over-the-hill injured Ali, overweight over-the-hill Jerry Quarry, nobody with padded record Duane Bobick and a outrageous robbery of Jimmy Young. Achievements... Ha-ha-ha!

 

Norton looked awful against Young, his problem wasn't just punchers. Skillful defensive counter-puncher Jimmy Young was landing a lot of clean punches to the head, only receiving punches to the body in return (Norton landed very few clean punches to the head, and his jab wasn't working most of the time). Although he's more of a mover than Toney, but the approach is the same, time Norton throwing something, and nail him with a right cross to the head. If he gets into a crouch, start throwing uppercuts. If he gets into crab defense, he is throwing few punches, try overhand hooks to the sides of the head. Toney is a master of right crosses and overhand punches in general.

 

Im not actually a fan of Norton,s,I think his rep is a little inflated due to his trilogy with Ali,but I dont see Toney stopping him,and at heavy, Toney looked to rest quite a bit Norton ,in his prime could go a hard 15,thats why I see him taking a dec ,talent wise Toney is a class above him ,but weight wise Norton is at least a class ,maybe two above him prime for prime.Young made a lot of fighters look silly ,I saw him against John Gardner the British and European Champ,a flabby Young made Gardner look foolish,he might have done the same to Toney.