Joe Bugner vs. Ken Norton

Norton UD. He had faster hands, and Bugner just did not hit that hard or risk as much as he needed to win.

 

Bugner is an interesting fighter but a poor match up in Norton ... Ken by decision ...

 

I think Ken wins this one by a Decision...he was to fast i think to lose

 

I think Norton would win a decision by a wide margin. I say this because he was the stronger, more aggressive, and harder hitting fighter. Bugner tended to go into a defensive shell when confronted by guys like Norton.

Mendoza: I disagree with your judgment that Norton had faster hands than Bugner. If anything, the prime Bugner (1971-1975) probably had quicker hands than Norton. Watch Bugner's earlier fights, such as the Frazier and first Ali fights, to get a good idea of Bugner's hand speed.

Bugner's later fights, especially from 1980 onward, so a much slowed down version of the fighter he once was. Those films are not good examples of Bugner's true speed and athletic talent.

Still, a prime Norton would have been too much for a prime Bugner.

 

I have to go with Kenny here. But Bugner's jab could well cause him trouble. It was one of the best of his era.

 

Bugner was a negative, zero-risk, very, very average fighter. Kenny was levels above him in terms of offense, defence, skill and will. Norton wide UD.

 

Bugner was regarded as having one of the best defenses of his era in the heavyweight division. He was probably a better defensive fighter than Norton.

 

If defence consists of hugging then he did a stellar job at it. :tong

 

Norton wins this ,Bugner's lack of power means that Norton can come forward with impunity,U DEC.

 

I just watche'd this fight with that Ken Norton character, man. Man...I've been underestimating him. His jab was fabulous, his hand speed and combo punching were both tip-top, and he had good power, defense and footwork, too. Just an incredibly well-rounded fighter. Too bad about his chin, he was only ever beaten on points by Larry Holmes and Ali, both close fights. He'd be hell for anyone without the punch to blast him out. Oh, yeah, Joe Bugner. I dig his last name, reminds me of a mini-van name. I think Ken Norton could beat a mini-van, even if Joe Bugner was driving it, because I hear he's not a very good driver, yo.

 

That sums it up pretty well. The determining factor in this match-up would be style. Nortons' "pressure with good defense-style" was poison to boxers, as shown against Ali, Young and Holmes, and Bugner while having the technical know-how wasn't as good as the aforementioned three. Nortons' big weakness was lack of lateral movement, but as long as he could move forward, and I can´t see Bugner hindering him there was no problem.
Another factor would be mentality. As mentioned Bugner never had the do or die attitude needed in tough fights.
In the Frazier and Ali fights he basically fared as well as could be expected though being overly cautious in the title fight with Ali, but the fight that best showed his lack of mentality was the Lyle fight.
If he had won that one it would have been a golden opportunity as the those great 70's heavies were beginning to disappear from the scene.
And he should have won it as Lyle was slightly past it and could be outboxed, but he just let Lyle take it away from him. If he couldn't overcome that version of Lyle, no way he beats Norton.

Bugner at his best had a very good blend of skills, speed and durability plus extraordinary physical equipment.
In a way his case is somewhat similar to Foremans. When in the 70's they had the the athletic ability to achieve greatness their respective mentalities restricted them.
When in the 80's and 90's they were past their peaks, they showed more of the mentality and maturity that was lacking earlier on.
They just never could put it together all at once.
A case of youth being wasted on the young.

 

Good post and nice quote. It's not too often Oscar Wilde is quoted on boxing forums, I would guess.

 

Norton by UD