Joseph Parker vs prime Ken Norton

Parker is a true 250 lb SHW

These 70s guys were 220 lb HWs - closer to today's Cruiserweights in size and power.

Delude yourself all you like.....

 

So tell me how was Cunningham who did nothing notable at Heavyweight and who was a Cruiserweight for most of his career. Able to drop the giant Fury heavily and be ahead on points ? How many skillful faster Heavyweights has Fury fought name them ?

You're just basing stuff on size in every argument but you're giving me no evidence of any of these bigger supposedly superior Heavyweights beating any elite smaller skillful Heavyweights to back up your claims.

But we do have evidence of Usyk handily beating Joshua based on skill and not size, and if you don't think fighters like Holmes, Ali, Tyson, couldn't beat Joshua just because they're smaller then I don't know what to tell you.

Cunningham for reference was only 210 pounds vs Fury and only has 13 stoppages in 30 wins so how he was able to compete so well against Fury ? Doesn't that destroy your logic ?

 

Today's SHWs beat good Cruiserweights all the time - who are trying to step up. They can't compete.

Almost all the 70s HWs you mention would be fighting at CW today - not HW.

Usyk is an absolute rarity.

Anyway - time to give up on this topic. What good is it?

 

Again you're not refuting any of my claims you keep bringing up the Cruiserweight argument or size. But don't give me any explanation on how someone like Cunningham at 210 pounds with less than 50 percent stoppage ratio, floored the giant Fury like a sack of potatoes and was ahead on points vs him ? That example alone shoots done your theory in flames as does Usyk who is thriving in this current era.

You also don't give me any evidence of someone like Fury beating an elite smaller skillful fighter give me one name ?

You make it sound like Usyk is the only non Super Heavyweight in history that had elite skills theres been plenty throughout history.

 

All true.
What most of these people are doing here is what they do for all of the half century ago "golden" era HWs.
They're judging Norton by 1970s standards and Parker by today's standards. Which is illogical nonsense. Judge them both by the same standard. Nope, can't do that, would ruin their nostalgia biases. This results in the current 7:2 Norton in the poll

In the 70s 220 lb HWs were very large - "Big" George Foreman, "The Black Hercules" Norton, etc. Sure, there were bigger HWs like clumsy Buster Mathis who was easily UD'd by CW Quarry. Mathis wouldn't even be a fringe HW contender in the early 2000s, never mind 2020s.

Norton has almost nothing on Joe - not even power. Parker comfortably UDs Norton, maybe stops him late.

 

Would Parker have such close fights with Ali or Holmes I very much doubt it, Norton was the 4th best fighter in the golden age of Heavyweight boxing.

Parker isn't even the 4th best Heavyweight now with Fury, AJ, Usyk and Whyte all ahead and even Joyce can be argued is ahead given he KO'd him last time they met

 

As I said it's a "You" problem not everyone obsesses over size or are impressed with giants like Fury who should've lost to 0-0 MMA fighter.

Or Zhang the 40 year old who threw 0 punches in round 12 and has no gas tank after 5 rounds, the same Zhang you picked over a prime Ali because he beat the ultra slow one dimensional Joe Joyce another "LOL" moment.

Or the obsese 6'0 Andy Ruiz but yet you call Buster Mathis at 6'3 230+ pounds "obese" funny how you always pick and choose your narrative when it comes to modern/past Heavyweights.

But yet let's ignore someone like Holyfield beating Super Heavyweight Bowe in their 2nd fight, or running Lewis ultra close in their 2nd fight whilst being on the wrong end of 30. Or getting robbed of a decision against 7'0 Valuev at almost 50 years old!!!!! yeah that's proof smaller skillful Heavyweights can't compete with Super Heavyweights......and before you use the "PED" argument wasn't Fury caught with PEDs ?

Not to mention Usyk thriving in this era or fighters like 210 pounds Cunningham being ahead on points vs Fury and flooring him heavily.

Thats the problem with your very flawed arguments you don't look at how fighters match up stylistically or look at quality of fighters, you just instantly make an assumption based on "size" or the "modern era being better" weak takes and arguments as always with no logic to back it up.

 

Golden rule No. 1: The big good man always beat the smaller good man. Golden rule No. 2: The newest generation of boxers is always better than the past. Of course there are a few exceptions. Many boxing fans live in a self constructed fantasy world in regard to boxers of the past.

 

Your "opinion" isn't a fact there's absolutely no evidence to back up that claim.

So you're telling me the current top 10 Heavyweights now are better than the likes Lewis, Holyfield, Bowe, Holmes, Foreman, Tyson.

Look at the top 10 Middleweights now Adames, Lara, Eubank Jr, you're telling me they are better than the likes of Hagler, Jones Jr, Toney, Monzon, just because they're modern ? absolute rubbish.

I'm tired of reading nonsense like this and then you get told you're "nostalgic" absolutely laughable. I can objectively see positives and negatives for both eras looking at how boxers match up stylistically, but posters like you just base everything on size and being "modern" ridiculous.

 

Yeah Hunter won against Bakolé

 

Sir, we are not talking about middleweights, cause middleweights have an upper weight limit. I in fact think Monzon could beat the current crop of todays top middleweights. When I say today's fighters are superior, I am talking IN GENERAL - there are always exceptions, of course. If we concentrate on the original subject, Norton vs Parker, I repeat, I don't think even a 220 pound in prime Norton could beat out a prime 243 pound Parker, as I believe Parker is just bigger, stronger and punches harder over 12 rounds. They might be equally skilled and you have to look at styles. Norton didn't have the style, size and chin to put much pressure on a (compared to Norton) skilled world class behemoth as Parker. Please do remember, that Parker actually won a world title, Norton didn't. I would give Holmes and Berbick a better chance vs Parker, but Norton? Just not good enough and didn't have the chin to compete vs 240 to 260 skilled superheavyweights. Norton vs Parker would be like a strong lightheavyweight vs a fullblown heavy.

 

What drugs are you on? Parker is easily 4th after beating Wilder and Zhang.

People have rose tinted glasses when it comes to the 70s and 80s, which is why these threads are rather pointless. HWs today are much bigger and stronger than they were 50 years ago.

 

Bigger and stronger doesn’t automatically mean better boxers a prime Ali would be favourite over all Heavies this generation aside from maybe Fury

If you read my message I said I’d place Whyte ahead of Parker given he beat him and put up a better fight against AJ while Parker literally just gave up his belt

Also it wasn’t too long ago that Joyce smashed up Parker and people were claiming him to be washed up now he gets a win over hype job Wilder and scrapes a win over 300 lb slow as a sloth Zhang who didn’t even throw a punch for half the fight and he’s some world beater

 

Nortons big problem here is his lack of chin against big punchers, which Parker would pretty much be classified as going by how much smaller the average 70's HW was. As far as Nortons skill advantage goes, Foreman and Shavers both proved you can be less skilled than him, yet demolish him quickly if you pack a big punch.

Norton gets cracked early on IMO.