Ken Norton - Top 15-20 Heavyweight?

I sit here and wonder if I've read anything dumber. Maybe I should read your next post.

 

Louis
Ali,
Marciano,
Johnson,
Dempsey,, Not sure there, We talking about one of the all time greats here, The top guy from the 20's, sure he didnt clean out his era, But Jack Johnson didnt either, Over all I rank Dempsey over Norton mostly on what a kinda of a icon he was to the sport.
Jeff,, Beat all the best white fighters, did beat a shot Peter Jackson,
And retire, the will he show vs Johnson must be taking into accout. Jeff was also the top dog in his era.
Sullvain(Not taking head to head into accout, historic impact, and what they mean in there era), John L was the first heavyweight champ, and the MAN, Though he hide behide the color bar, he did give a lot to boxing, changing it from the barekucks to the gloves. I have to give John Sullivan credit for that.
Fitz??, Pound for pound perhaps, I was thowing him out there, though I do rank Fitz over Norton myself. One of the few men to flatten Tom Sharkey.
Gene Tunney ?, As with Norton's win over Ali, Tunney has 2 with Dempsey. That and beating number 2 contender Greb.
Max Schemling, , Beat Joe Louis, So like Norton, has that win, but unlike Norton, has wins over legends like Walker. Schemling was also the guy that put Walker in his place.
Max Baer, , I think Baer's power would be too much imo.
Ezzard charles, Hell no, Charles easy outshines Norton imo.
Joe Walcott, When Walcott finally got things togetor, he was a hard task to over come, drop Louis, and Marciano and ko Charles, I pretty sure that nabs him over Norton imo.
Patterson, Took over the reins after Marciano retire, sure didnt defend against the best, but his post title wins are better than Norton's wins, outside of Ali imo.
Liston
Foreman
Frazier,
Holmes,
Tom Sharkey, Rugged contender, got blow out by Fitz, and give heavyweight champ Jeff 2 struggles in great battles.
Peter Jackson?????? Peter Jackson is one of the all time greats, fought Corbett to a 61 round draw, and was out right duck by Sullivan. Norton would be lucky to even lick Jackson's boots imo.
Tyson
Bowe???
Holyfiled.
Lewis
The Kilt brothers(Who at the time are ahead of Kenny imo)
Spinks perhaps?
Sam Langford,, Come on now, Langford is a heavyweight great. He did more than Norton.
Harry Wills, top contender for 7 years, plus and didnt get a title shot. Wills was a good fighter, I would put Harry over Norton imo.

Sure perhaps cases can be made for Noton over a few of em, but for the MOST part no imo.

 

Well i agree that at cruiser byrd could have been an atg but no way does he make the cut at heavy? Tua an atgatsch . He might have been a great puncher but no way a great fighter and to me is far from a future HOF. He might have posed problems for Norton style wise,but as an all around fighter hes not as great as Norton.

 

You must be:rastasome good sh*t ha:huhDo you really think Mccalls resume is worthy of a top 20 ranking:-( Or that his resume compares to Nortonatsch You have even atated that 3 of those fighters werent all that so why even mention them. Not to mention Wilson(journeyman) Gomez(bottom tier contender in weak era) Akinwande(got to be kidding me) and he lost to the other guys even to brunoatsch HIs only big win was over Lewis!

 

(1)
mccall broke down because he was on crack.
golotta broke down because of tyson's punching and despite tyson was on marijuana. this is a tko for tyson and even a more respected one at that.
(2)
and marion wilson didn't tko lewis and the guys mccall stopped.
(3)
i also never said here yet that mccall is a top20 hw , just a better heavy than norton that's all.
norton is not a top 20 hw either.
(4) and many other guys could achieve AT LEAST what norton achieved against ali.
ali is another saint here albeit not as much as louis.

 

Dempsey - no I dont rank Norton over him, but his resume lacks quality wins, and I can't see anyone that Dempsey beat giving Norton too much problems.

Jeffries - I'm not sure I rank Norton ahead of him or not, I don't really rank his era and I also think Norton would look like a god if only had to fight the top white fighters of his era.

Sullivan -same with the above pretty much

Fitz - was a flash in the pan

Tunney - I certainly rank Norton over Tunney. Ali was supposedly nearer his prime than Dempsey and greater to start with. Tunney hasnt really done anything outside of 2 Dempsey wins. Norton has 3 Ali fights, Holmes fight, Young, Quarry, Bobick, Garcia. Norton wouldnt have problems with a MW like Greb

Schmelling - Louis win was great but he could replicate the feat Norton pretty much could. I wouldnt mention the Walker win so much as was a blown up MW but the Sharkey, Stribbling, Uzcudun. Schmelling too seems to have a weakness to punchers. Overall Nortons body of work is a little better though

Charles/Walcott - I rank Charles/Walcott over Norton but think its very close. Norton has the best win, Charles/Walcott beat(got jobbed) against a past it Louis. Charles/Walcott have a little more depth to their HW resumes, with Old Louis, Elmer Ray, Harold Johnson, Maxim, Bivins, Layne (Charles only) and beating each other. All have devastating KO losses.

Patterson - again his resume probably has more depth, but he wasnt ever competitive with an Ali/Holmes type figure in his career, which hurts him a little. Patterson also has devastating KO losses to punchers. I think this is pretty close

Sharkey - so we're agreed he certainly achieved less than Kenny

Peter Jackson - again I dont rate this era too highly and I think if Norton beats Ali he certainly beats Corbett. I'd pick Norton to beat Jack Johnson too actually

Langford/Wills - I probably rank both above Norton they were pretty dominant but I think its a weaker less developed era and Norton may well beat them both

I think I had Norton around 20-22 last time I made a list

 

So i see your making excuses for Mccall cuz he was on Crack? Is that your excuse for the Crackish comments you make?:nut

 

When you think about the era that Norton fought in,you realise how good he was. Most of us agree that the 70's were a special time for heavyweights. There are only three out of that decade whom I'd rank ahead of Ken. Muhammad Ali,George Foreman and Joe Frazier. I'd even rate Ken ahead of Larry Holmes,just about,as Holmes only came into prominence at the end of that decade. Overall,I'd rank Larry ahead of Ken,but not on the basis of 1970-79.

 

1. I don't think any from Walcott/Schmelling/Patterson have beat a murderous puncher, maybe with the exception of Walcott but Louis was past it, as was Elmer Ray (who wasnt that big a puncher), then you have Layne/Charles/. Schmelling beat Louis but was also blasted out by him and a good few others, Patterson beat Johannsen but he isnt in the punching echelons of Shavers/Foreman.

Norton did at least beat gatekeeper punchers like Stander, Kirkman,Bobbick and avenged his Garcia ko loss. Holmes and Ali are underrated in the punch department and going 54 rounds with them shows some sort of chin

The thing about Norton is he was nearly 36 against Shavers, nearly 38 against Cooney. Foreman-Holmes he was mighty impressive.

If Norton got the luck in all his close fights his record could well read 44-2 up until Shavers, beating every man he faced bar Foreman and bare in mind he beat some decent fringe contender types to get all his shots. Obviously he didnt but its something to ponder

2. In terms of fights against the elite Nortons record is only 3-5 but should probably be 4-4 or even 5-3 (Ali x3, Foreman, Shavers, Young, Quarry), Young is 3-1-3 and should be 4-3 or even 6-1 against (Ali, Foreman, Lylex2, Shaversx2, Norton). So its close but the thing is Young seemed to sneak and spoil to try and edge fights

3. The Stribbling win is certainly impressive and up there, the others I'd say decent but less so Uzcudun for instance had 4 losses in the 2 years before, Risko seems to have a journeymen records albeit with decent wins along the way. Hamas seems to have a brief short career peaking at going 1-1 with a past prime Schmelling. Sharkey was obviously a massive win though (and robbery win by all accounts)

4. Walcott certainly earned his title shot like few others, but he did pick up allot of losses on his way to the title. I'm also sure Norton would be quite happy fighting 180-190lb contenders

There is certainly a good case for Walcott/Schmelling to be above Norton but I also think there is a case for him to be above them, especially with the red hot era he competed in

 

******.

i'd have Norton between 15-25 probably. Above Corbett for sure.

 

We could do a case by case basis. I see a lot of people ranking Walcott over Norton. A comparison might look like this:

Norton, 6'3", 220 lbs, with a sizable punch (ko % of 66). Broke Ali's jaw and outpointed him, lost a split decision in the rematch, and a disputed unanimous decision in the rubbermatch. Stopped Jerry Quarry, knocked out Jose Luis Garcia (who held an earlier win over him), and stopped Duane Bobick in the first round. Defeated Jimmy Young on a split decision, lost a split decision to Larry Holmes. Norton suffered an earlier knockout defeat to Garcia, was stopped inside of two by Foreman for the title, and lost two inside the distance fights later in his career at the hands of Earnie Shavers and Gerry Cooney. Norton finished with a record of 42-7-1 and was recognized as the WBC champion.

Walcott, 6'0", 195 lbs, with a decent left hook (ko % of 45). His big win was a seventh round knockout over Ezzard Charles in their third fight. Walcott has lost the first two. He won a disputed decision over Charles in their fourth match. Walcott is perhaps most well known for having given Joe Louis problems in their first title fight. Louis knocked out Walcott in the rematch. Walcott is also well known for his knockout loss to Marciano. He gave Marciano fits. He was knocked out in the first round of their rematch. Walcott also defeated Joey Maxim by split and majority decision; he lost to a unanimous decision to Maxim. Walcott held a split decision win over Jimmy Bivins and a majority decision over Elmer Ray, whom held a split decision win over Walcott. Walcott lost a decision to Rex Layne, was knocked out by Abe Simon, Al Ettore, and Tiger Jack Fox (in addition to Louis and Marciano). Walcott retired with a record of 51-18-2. He was recognized as world champion with one successful title defense.

Norton's performances came against much better heavyweights. He always gave Ali a run for his money. He gave Holmes a run for his money. He beat Young who was hot at the time. Three of Norton's knockout losses came at the hands of monster punchers, and two of those were late in his career. With the exception of Garcia, Norton only lost to the best heavyweights around him. Walcott lost to a lot of mediocre heavyweights and light heavyweights. It's not close, in my mind. Wherever you rank Norton, it has to be higher than Walcott. A lot higher.

 

There is not much about what you are saying that I can object to but I would like to provide a bit of historical context on a few points.