Just How Great a Heavyweight Was Ken Norton?

He would've lost to every one of them, old timer.

 

I totally get where you're coming from, Dubblechin. But, nope, I didn't miss him. Here's why:

Quarry announced his retirement following the second Ali fight and was not ranked by anyone (Ring, BI, WBA, WBC, as stated) for a few months. Boxing Illustrated rated him again in December after (I'm guessing) he announced he was returning to boxing. World Boxing joined Boxing Illustrated and ranked him after his win over Neumann in January, while Ring, the WBA, and the WBC ranked him following his win over Lyle in February.

It's kind of interesting - Quarry announces his retirement and everybody (organizations, boxing mags) who did rankings took his announcement seriously and dropped him. Conversely, when George Foreman retired in early 1977, World / International Boxing kept him in their rankings until September 1978, writing in late 1977 or early 1978, "28-year-old former champions don't retire and stay retired."

When I compile my "consensus rankings", I don't factor in my personal opinion or knowledge of what was to come. I strictly look at the published rankings from a given month and average them out. Thus, Foreman's name shows up through September 1978, while Quarry's name is absent for several months during the second half of 1972.

 

Neither the version of Joshua that lost to Ruiz, or the version of Ruiz that beat Joshua would beat prime Norton. And Wilder only has a small puncher's chance.

 

And a clean Bert Cooper would rule the division.

 

Full credit to Norton. He outboxed and mastered one of the greatest heavyweights in history. 2 out of 3. (Being gracious) truthfully 3 out of 3. Regardless of boxing politics that robbed him.
Any true Ali fan agrees 100% with the above

 

It's not debatable for you as long as you stay brainwashed by Ali's talking points and excuses that Angelo and Ali fed you. Your not supposed to drink all the Kool Aid save some for somebody else.

 

Ali is God. He won the 3rd Norton fight without scoring punches don't you know? He's got stoodges repeating the bull**** he fed them 40 years as gospel

 

Thanks for explaining.

 

Doesn't matter whether he was in his prime or not. If he was the greatest in 67 and slipped some I'm sure 80-85% is still a formidable opponent? This isn't complicated. People's imaginations about what Ali would have done are not useful.
Maybe 1959 Sonny Liston crushes 65 Ali like a grape. Can't prove it. What happened in the ring is what we measure.

 

ETM has not a clue.

The best Ali was during his first reign. No one debates this except the know nothings. (You).

Pre-suspension Ali was an active hwt champion in his physical athletic prime as a fighter. His endurance, speed, timing were all prime as he was in his physical prime with multiple successive defenses under his belt.

This fighter POST a FOUR YEAR suspension where he had no real bouts whatsoever could not have been as good as he had not fought for four years. When you rest you rust.

Are you honestly believing that any fighter off four years about to enter their thirties is going to be as good as that same fighter as an active worlds hwt champion in his mid 20’s?

 

Jerry went from #2 in the HW ratings to #5, After his match with Muhammad Ali the second time.
Funny Floyd Patterson & Oscar Bonavena could stay in the ratings, years after not fighting any body, fore they did not announce their retirement, like Quarry did. Of couuse it would be a lil hard to understand Oscar anyway, wether he "retired' or not lol.

 

Ali was no joke from Norton 2 through Frazier 3 aside from a couple of bouts where he came to the table in not the best of shape. Frazier 3 was where Ali proved he was an ATG to all historians.

 

I think they had a fairly strong hunch after Zaire!