Words fail me. I don't know what's worse,the racist generalisations,the lack of boxing insight or the disgraceful denigration of two all-time great fighters. Whatever this fool deserves immediate banning as he contributes absolutely nothing to this forum and just tries to stir up dissent and petty hatreds.
Norton was a better and bigger version of Charles. He would also be the best puncher Marciano ever fought, if we omit the old Joe Louis who had but 4 ko's in his last 10 fights. Rocky would need to be sharp to win this one. If he shows up like he did vs Cockell, LaStarza II, or Moore, I'd lean slightly toward Norton. However, if Rocky shows up like his did vs Louis, Layne or Walcott, I think he'd TKO Norton in the mid to late rounds. At their best, I'd take Rocky.
I think of the Norton that destroyed Quarry and I ses that Norton as way too big and too good at using a jack hammer jack and an 79" reach to bust Marciano up. Rocky would have to catch him early. The longer it went the more damage Rocky would absorb from a much bigger, stronger, harder hitting guy than he ever fought ... http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=csTax_C0yjs
If Norton would have fought Quarry two years earlier, I feel the fight would have been the other way around.
maybe the 1954 rocky marciano but surely the 1951-1952 slugger version of rocky would need only 1-2 rounds to decapitate kenny norton?
I don't think hes as fast or as powerful as Foreman/Shavers and doesnt have the reach advantages, its not a knock on him, I also don't view him as the fastest starter
No way you have 5 star boxing knowledge my man. Norton and charles fought nothing alike, but film of a prime ezzard have u seen? norton was a unorthodox shell defense countepuncher while charles was a very orthodox classic stick and move boxer with aggresivness. The fact you say ken norton is better is laughable, no historian would agree with you here I disagree, first of all kenny norton was not a puncher, nor did he hardly ever knockout down world class men. in fact i dont think he ever knocked down a world class heavyweight. Walcott and Louis were much better punchers than ken norton. Louis rates # 1 on ring magazine all time punchers list and despite being 37, the old saying is "power is the last thing to leave a fighter"....I still think louis in 1950 was still the more dangerous puncher than norton. see the savold and valentino fights. Walcott rated # 66 on ring magazine top 100 punchers of all time list was certainly a harder puncher than ken norton, all historians would agree with me. walcott has shown much more punching power on film than norton has and knocked down/out durable world class fighters while kenny norton never did.
question to the forum are we talking about the 1951-1952 slugger version of rocky? or the 1954-1955 volume punching marciano? cause i favor the slugger version of rocky to beat up kenny easily, while the volume punching version of rocky struggles.
Im glad u agree with me though that rocky marciano was at his best in 1951-1952. so why do you always bring up his fights in 1954-55 if that wasnt rocky at his best?