Joseph Parker vs prime Ken Norton

Norton was insanely skilled. His main issue was with big punchers, which Parker is not.

 

Norton smashes his head in.

 

Well, he does? Then I find it strange, that he didn't kill Ali, LeDeoux, Cobb, Foreman and José Garcia... Not to mention 6 feet 210 pound Shavers...

 

Ken Norton was only 6' 2.5"

Parker is 6'4" behemoth

All Norton's advantages vanish at that point

 

Boxrec has Norton listed as 6'3, Wikipedia has Norton listed as 6'3.

Norton also weighed 220 pounds vs Holmes which was one of his best performances, weighed 218 pounds vs Ali in their 3rd fight which is considered one of his best performance, and again weighed 218 pounds vs Quarry which is considered one of his best performances.

Norton is 6'3 with an 80 inch reach and on average between 215-220. That's a pretty well sized Heavyweight considering Usyk is of similar size now with a slightly shorter reach and is thriving in this current era.

Whilst Norton might be found wanting against some of the big hitters of this era, against a guy like Parker who has mediocre power and is not an aggressive fighter Norton should match up pretty well against him.

 

He beat Ali twice,, Parker? what's he? he got blown away by Joyce , and as time has shown that is looking worse and worse.
Parker would have been eaten alive in the 70's and early 80's

 

My mistake: [url]http://www.cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/knorton.htm[/url]

 

Some claim hes 6'3 some claim hes 6'2.75 but does it really matter ? Its a quarter of an inch it makes no difference realistically.

The fact is Ken Norton is a well sized Heavyweight and style wise matches up well with Parker, which is what should be analysing rather than than the fickle matter of a quarter of an inch.

Usyk who has a smaller reach than Norton by 2 inches and weighed 221 pounds in the first meeting vs Joshua handily beat Joshua who's considerably bigger.

Whilst I'm not saying Norton could replicate Usyk's performance, it shows a Heavyweight who's a similar size to alot of 70s/80s Heavyweights. Can thrive in this era based on skills and not just size which people make a bit too much of deal of.

 

Let's just agree Norton was a short 6'3. He was a big HW in his era - a small one today. Usyk is an exceptionally great fighter - he easily beats Ken every day and twice on Sunday.

Might be found wanting? Parker has mediocre power facing today's SHWs. What would Norton's overrated "power" be today? Answer, pretty mediocre. There are at least 10 current top HWs that would stop or comfortably UD the chinny, foot dragging Norton.

Parker is one of them. That Ali went life and death w/ Ken doesn't change that.
Current voting (28:7) is a bit more reasonable but still ridiculous. Members nostalgia fumes for half century ago HWs was worse 10+ years ago. Improvement has been steady but slow.

 

He's 6'3 based on Wikipedia and Boxrec is Usyk also classed as a short 6'3 aswell ? because he's a flat 6'3 ? or does that only apply to Norton to fit your narrative ?

As for "Usyk beating Norton every day and twice on Sunday" yes of course you'd have that opinion, because you think every Heavyweight in the modern era or who is bigger automatically wins. We've had discussions before like this regarding Heavyweights and it's a very tiresome discussion with your biased takes.

Norton was effective against Holmes, Ali, who are rated amongst the top 5 Heavyweights of all time correct ? they both hit harder than Usyk and can take body punches better aswell as having the same durability in the chin department. You honestly think the light hitting Usyk would have an easy time against a prime Norton who thrived against boxers ? Norton's pressure and body punching would give Usyk fits.

Would Usyk be the favourite ? yes. Is it a certainty or would it be easy for Usyk ? absolutely not.

Yes might be found wanting what part of that sentence didn't you understand ? i already stated Norton would struggle against some of the bigger hitters around now did i not ? i don't know why you felt the need to repeat what i already said.

But Parker is not a big hitter and is not an aggressive fighter hence style wise Norton matches up better against Parker as i already said.

Norton's power overrated ? he had 33 stoppages in 42 wins he certainly had more power in his overhand right than Parker, to me it sounds like a "You" problem because you can't objectively judge any fighters from the past without being biased.

It's nothing to do with "Nostalgia" as i said it's more a "You" problem you can't debate objectively on older fighters hence it's a waste of time even trying to reason with you in a debate.

Me on the other hand i can see the positives and negatives of both eras hence i debate objectively. I already stated Norton would struggle against some of the bigger hitters now, but i think style wise he matches up better against boxers like Parker, Usyk, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that statement at all.

 

Usyk is 6'3 and 220 lbs. Usyk is absolutely a cruiserweight

 

Yes people need to make up their mind if Norton is a "Cruiserweight" at 215-220 then so is Usyk. What it proves is that skill and ability can overcome size and size isn't everything.

Me personally i rate it in 3 stages Cruiserweight/Heavyweight/Super Heavyweight i'd class Norton as a Heavyweight but not a Super Heavyweight obviously which are fighters like Joshua for example.

 

I think of it this way. If Norton was competing in the current era, he may well have a very successful stint at Heavyweight. But he absolutely would have started at cruiserweight.

 

That was the HW era

This is the SHW era

Totally different

 

Just some reflections on Norton's size. He was at or close to 6 foot three, a height which many believe is ideal for a heavyweight. His weight could be considered low by today's standards, but prime Norton was very ripped and had very low body fat (which is obviously not true of many of today's heavies). I have great respect for Parker, but the idea that Norton is somehow too small to beat him is ludicrous to me.