Ken Norton v. Rocky Marciano

:good

Rocky Marciano is the most overrated fighter in history.

 

Rocky is the most overrated heavyweight champion and was also a great fighter. Too many simply cannot separate the two.

 

No, not at all. Savold had just beaten top five-ranked British champ Bruce Woodcock for the BBBC version of the championship in his last fight, and was ranked in the top five himself as a result. He had been ranked on and off for a solid decade, and beaten guys like Lou Nova, Lee Oma and Joe Baksi. Far from a world-beater, yes, and with an ugly record, but a legitimate contender nevertheless- and he had only been stopped once in the last 10 years, that coming against Violent Ray. This is a fairly impressive knockout.

SuzieQ never claimed that Louis was close to his best post-Charles- that is a mischaracterization of the position, and a weak strawman. The greatest fighter and puncher of all time (or close to it) does not need to be close to his best in order to still be a very good fighter and puncher.

Actually, he said that he felt zero power from Louis' right hand, which is not surprising, since Louis had chronically injured and broken the right hand during his comeback and was probably not committing to the shot. Marciano described Louis' left hand as having been like a sledgehammer in the face.

 

Rocky Marciano was great and owned KO power in his fists, but R.M. never fought a dude the size of Ken Norton...... Norton took apart Jerry Quarry pretty easy in 1975, and Quarry was actually a tad bigger than Marciano.... GO FIGURE!!

MR.BILL:huh

 

Yes, i take back what i said. He was a great fighter no doubt even though i'm not impressed with his style.

But like you said he's a tad overrated by some people.

 

I dont think he is.

I think that a significant element underrate him on this site for the same reason that the press at the time did.

Answer = awkward unorthodox style.

 

You are a verry fine poster but Marciano is one fighter that I think you have got wrong.

 

Quarry was not much bigger than Marciano and the two had virtually nothing in common. Quarry was a boxer who's best attribute was his counter punching ability, while Marciano was a swarmer who liked to get up close and slug on the inside. Norton had the tendency to eat up fighters like Quarry, while often falling to hard punchers.

Now, I agree with most that Norton's questionable chin would be a problem against a great puncher like the Rock. My hesitation however, lies with the fact that we never actually saw how Norton faired when placed against a swarmer, and one who was significantly smaller in size at that.. He was Ko'd mainly by large, hard hitting fighters who were as big or bigger than he was, fought differently than Marciano did, and on most occasions, when Norton was past his best, or before it.

Norton was Ko'd or stopped on exactly 4 occasions in his career. The first came against a 6'4" prospect, when Ken had some 16 fights under his belt. He would later avenge this loss with a KO, once his career got underway. His losses to Shavers and Cooney came very late when he was between 37-38 years of age. His only prime KO loss was against a peak George Foreman, who in my book would have mopped the floor with Marciano anyway, so the comparison is moot..

The only tool that we really have to work with, was the fact that people in the Frazier-Norton camp, claimed that when these two sparred, Frazier would ordinarily get the better of the two. Given that Frazier and Marciano had similarities in their styles, we might have something to go by, but this still leaves a few problems. First of all, these were sparring sessions between two fighters who knew each other very well, and not actual fights between two men who were unfamiliar with each other. Secondly, there are some who will point out that Frazier was quite a bit faster, a tad bigger, and maybe even an overall better fighter than Marciano was. Third, having the experience of having sparred for years with Joe, would this give Ken an advantage when dealing with swarmers over Marciano, who had never really fought a guy like Norton???

I give the edge to Marciano based on legacy, but I'm not about to get carried away with the whole " Norton had no chin " thing, as virtually none of the men who KO'd Norton had anything in common with Marciano, and only one of them stopped Ken in his true prime...

 

Marciano for me

 

Agreed, but the track records shows that

A) Marciano is a great hitter, with one of the highest stoppage percentages ever

B) Norton basically folded against everyone who could punch that he faced. Some of them were when he was past his best, but he didn't prove he could beat one during his prime. And most champions, when they lose past their best, often still make a fight out of it rather than being stopped in 30 something seconds...

 

Yes, but in my whole post I clearly made some disitinct and in depth reasons why Rocky had nothing in common with Cooney, Shavers or Foreman. Two of those men rival each other as the #1 hardest puncher of all time by the way... Again, I agree that the Rock should be favored, but this nonsense of people constantly claiming that any fighter who could crack has an automatic "W" over Norton, needs to stop..

 

Norton is a physical wonder on film, who beat some guy named Ali by out boxing him...twice. Norton almost beat prime Holmes too. Want more? Ok, he out boxed a prime Jimmy Young. Can you name two better heavyweight boxers than Ali or Holmes? I’m not sure if I could, so clearly Norton had plenty of skills.

I'm not much of a pound for pound guy at heavyweight. And for some reasons, things that matter at heavyweight such as the ability to take a punch and size are not included in general pound for pound discussions.

I think Norton was a better heavy than Charles was, and much better than LaSataza who might have beaten Marciano in the first fight, and was certainly up on the cards until running out of gas, which co-insides with Marciano landing hard foul punches on the break and low.

Marciano vs Norton might hinge on how Norton views Marciano. While Marcaino was hard as nails, he might not be able to intimidate Norton in the early to mid rounds, and that would be key.

 

The guys who gave Marciano problems had much better lateral movement and backward movement than Norton. Norton did not move well except perhaps in a straight line forward. Neither Ali, Holmes, nor Young had the power to move him back. Norton did not do well with the punchers who could move him back. I don't think the forward plodding Norton is going to be able to keep distance with Marciano and in close Marciano's shorter arms would probably prove an advantage. Norton is bigger, but I take Marciano. I think his style is all wrong for Norton.

By the way, the 6' 4" prospect, Jose Luis Garcia, who stopped Norton only weighed 188 lbs for the fight. He was about the same weight as Marciano and certainly not at the same level as a puncher.

 

Have you seen this fight?

 

1. He didn't really "outbox" Ali, so much as he pressured him and neutralized his gameplan; did Frazier also "outbox" Ali? Did Marciano "outbox" Charles?
2. Ali was an utter shell for the third Norton fight, and fighting with a broken jaw in the first- albeit one that Norton broke, which is a credit to him, but a bit flukish nevertheless.
3. The third Ali-Norton fight was very close, and could be scored either way depending upon one's criteria; for example, whether one prefers Ali's outside work and more frequent head shots, or Norton's body work up close. Ali was given the official decision, and having reviewed the film, I believe a fair case could be made for either man.

Norton did almost beat Holmes. The Young fight was a heavily-disputed split decision. I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get at, here. Ali, Holmes and Young are virtual stylistic polar opposites of Marciano. Compared with Ali, Holmes and Young, guys like Foreman and Shavers look like the virtual spitting image of a Marciano, which is still not to say they're very close matches. Aside from providing general evidence that one is a good fighter, being competitive with Ali, Holmes and Young does not greatly bolster a case for beating Marciano.

If you're saying all this to enforce your previously-stated claim that Norton was "BETTER and bigger" than Charles, then you're trying to beat down a rhinoceros with a fly swatter. Norton managed to pull out one decision over Ali. That's fine. But Charles resoundingly defeated Charley Burley, Jimmy Bivins, Archie Moore, Lloyd Marshall, Joey Maxim, Jersey Joe Walcott, Joe Louis and about everyone in between. Norton's win over Ali is possibly the best single win between the two men, but you'd have to go through 15 or more of Charles' wins before you came to Norton's #2. Charles was one of the most skilled and accomplished fighters in the history of the sport; about half the members of this forum rank him in the top five, according to the last poll held on the topic. Norton would not even make the top 100. You could make a case that Norton was better at heavyweight BECAUSE he was bigger, but this would make your sentence redundant.

Let me first point out that you're well in the minority here- Charles is found in nearly any heavyweight top 20, while Norton is quite seldom held there. Now, I will explain why this consensus is valid:
Charles showed the ability to cope with and defeat high-level opponents of virtually any style. He beat monstrous punchers, slick boxers, boxer-punchers, pressure fighters, the works. He dominated the heavyweight division for four years, was world champion and remained a top three heavyweight for three years after losing his title. Norton, on the other hand, showed the ability to make very close fights with elite fighters of a certain style (slick boxers), but never beat an elite fighter of any other style, showed a serious weakness in handling at least one certain style (aggressive fighters/punchers), and has a very shallow resume, largely due to the fact that he wasn't able to consistently maintain himself at the elite level.

1. Marciano was green for the first fight, and still nearly had LaStarza- who I believe was considerably more durable than Norton- out.
2. LaStarza was a slick, defensive, retreating boxer. Norton was an aggressive guy with a defense that was hard for slick boxers to penetrate, but had a fairly weak chin and seemed inept/intimidated in attempting to defend himself against offensive power punchers, something like a Floyd Patterson.