Ken Norton (1975) vs. Mike 'Hercules' Weaver (1982) who wins this intriguing matchup?

Weaver's chin was probably weaker than Norton's, and he was probably a slowe starter.
He did probably beat a few bigger punchers than Norton beat though, but he lost to a few lighter punchers too. Add the fact that they both had the "Hercules" physique, it's recipe for a great fight. Too guys who can hit hard, both a bit vulnerable, and look like warriors, yeah, I'd buy a ticket.

 

i'd go with kenny norton,his boxing skills would get him through this fight i think

 

I say Norton stops him late. He's bigger, faster, and takes the better punch.:good

 

I pick a prime Norton over a prime Weaver by decision. Ken was more versatile than Weaver and he would have piled up enough points with his jab, hooks and overhand rights to win comfortably on the cards.

Weaver was very strong, and conceivably he would have troubled Norton in the later rounds of the fight. That's when Weaver typically turned on the pressure in his bouts. However Norton was a very powerful puncher himself and I believe his strong jab and power shots would have kept Weaver at bay even in the late rounds.

There is the small possibility that Norton might have knocked Weaver out in the opening rounds, too. This is because Weaver was a notoriously slow starter...Ken might have caught him cold.

Overall, though, I pick Norton by decision. It would be a competitive fight but Norton would have too much class for Weaver.

Sardu:

I wrote a long analysis of on your Norton vs. Lyle thread...I'm not sure you read it.

 

Ken would beat Mike simply on the fact that that version of Norton had more in the tank than the version of Weaver did.Norton wins 10 out of 15 to take a unanimous decision.

 

Both superb physical specimens. Ken's better overall boxing sees him through to a clear decision victory.

 

This content is protected

 

What a seductive combination of colors...now I have to read what you've typed, if I can.