Ken Norton Circa 1973 Versus Michael Spinks Circa 1985

I’m going with Ken Norton to win. Bad styles match for Michael Spinks. Not sure what the exact outcome is though.

 

I lean towards Kenny. Ken Norton was a nightmare against boxer types that weren't devastating punchers. At heavyweight, I'm not sure that Spinks had the punching power to hold off Norton. But....Norton was stopped by the 180 something pound Garcia who wasn't exactly a Rocky Marciano in terms of punching power at that weight. So Michael Spinks could perhaps do it, but I wouldn't bank on it.

Now, if you could shrink Kenny down to 175, I would pick Spinks by KO. But at heavyweight, Norton wins a decision.

 

Ken too strong for Spinks. Michael did n't have the power at heavyweight to hold off then stop his naturally bigger opponent.

Norton stops his man within six rounds.

 

This Notion that Norton is kryptonite for boxers is overblown, Young could’ve got the decision on another day, yes he could take away the jab well, but Spinks was much more than a jab, with Norton cross armed defence, Spinks would throw unorthodox punches, lead uppercuts straight through that guard, lead hooks and stop him, other than the jab, Spinks had more to his game than Holmes technically, and I’m talking about prime Holmes, and the thing is, that was Norton’s strength, taking away the jab, but Spinks had much more than a jab.
Spinks gets underrated massively because of the Tyson fight, lots of greats have lost in the first round, people underrate Spinks’ ability at heavyweight because his reign was short and he lost in 1 round to Tyson, that was a bad style matchup and his ankle was washed up, but I believe on his best day, he’d give most heavyweights trouble, even a peak Ali, he’d give him trouble stylistically.

 

Idk he went twice w Holmes and a bigger Cooney. I think I still lean towards Norton though. I don’t think size is a factor at all.

 

Norton stops Spinks late while slightly up on the cards.

 

While I wouldn't go anywhere near as far as you, I absolutely agree that this whole "Norton is poison for boxers lolz" is overblown. Yes he troubled Ali, Holmes, and Young, but the same is true vice versa.

I'm not even sure I'd favor him over the likes of Eddie Machen.

 

I’ve spoken my piece about Norton disappointing me so many times in real time when I was a massive fan. I’m thinking he would disappoint me here too although I don’t feel strongly enough to bet on it.

 

I don’t need to read to know somebody is going to comment he was a buzzsaw for “boxers” Look at his record with them… he cut it close with all of them and arguably lost to a SHOT Ali.
Norton convincingly beat an out of shape Ali, lost very obviously to Holmes, cut it razor thin with Young and Ali beat him when it mattered the most. Hercules ain’t an “ATG”

 

Cooney was totally washed up and rusty and Holmes was post-prime when they fought. Also,Norton hit harder than Holmes.

 

Have to agree here. Cooney was also an addict at the time. Cooney actually looked far better years later against Foreman and even stated he was in much better shape for that fight.

 

Norton ko's Spinks ,probably mid fight.

 

Norton could maybe stop him, he definitely beats him.