Ken Norton v Tony Galento

Losing to george foreman is not an indication of weakness to a style, it's indication of a greater man triumphing over you.

Losing to Shavers could well be, but earnie hits much much harder than tony imo.

Honestly it seems like you're completely dismissing tony's career here.

He never really proved himself a capable world level fighter, not at the level we're talking here anyway.

His best run was 38-39 and he didn't beat anyone remotely near norton's class there. He generated a lot of hype but that's more to do with his connections than anything else.

It is a very credible victory for Louis because, by hook or by crook, tony found himself his number one contender so credit to Joe for taking him out as he did.

But there is no reason to believe Norton could not beat galento as godoy did for instance.

Judging Norton's chin on the basis of two losses to foreman (ATG level) and Shavers (maybe hardest puncher in history, but who can really tell?) is just as bad as judging galento's skin on his two losses to Gainer and Gallagher.

Galento's best performance has to be against Ettore and by all accounts it was brilliant and he battered him around the ring for fun and chances are, even had he been disqualified against nova, there'd have still been huge calls for louis to face galento based on that beating. but consider he'd already been battered by louis and reztlaff and was struggling to beat an (albeit atg) light heavyweight.

Had Norton beaten ettore in the way galento did, but in norton's era, it would be dismissed as norton beating a battle weary cruiserweight and that's the god's honest truth.

When people claim that there are those middle aged poster's who view the 70's through rose tinted glasses (bear in mind i'm only 24 and never saw the 70's) there is atleast the appreciation that we're talking about an era housing ali, frazier and foreman 3 top 10 locks. an era that was so strong it's almost forgotten the second half was ruled by norton and larry.

The 30's was a glorious era because the best consistently fought each other in a way that no other era has replicated, but let's not get so over board here that we're going to favour a barroom brawler over an elite level heavyweight.

I'm not going to go as far as to say galento was just the butterbean of the 30's, but he was certainly a flash in the pan who rode the coattails of his mob legend. Norton thoroughly outclasses him at every juncture and it honestly wouldn't surprise me to find that once them two are in the ring, galento resembles butterbena, that being a fat circus act prancing around whilst having the **** kicked out of him.

 

I think Magna makes a very good point when he says people put a bit too much emphasis on a puncher beating someone with a weak chin and even if Norton does get tagged it's not immediatley game over. Some things to consider tho
-Norton get's intimidated by punchers and Galento is a very intimidating dude with a big punch, much rougher and more in your face than Shavers, Foreman and Cooney. Not as skilled as any of the 3 but he has a very unique style that Norton might not be able to adapt to
-Galento isn't getting KO'd in this fight, the only way he knows is forward and he isn't going to be backed up at any point in this fight. Norton has nothing to keep him off him so he's going to have to be countering, on the backfoot all night
-Norton is, IMO, more all round skilled than ANYBODY Galento faced and that goes for Louis too
-Galento was prone to getting cut and with Norton's big reach advantage and Galento's complete lack of defense Norton could get the TKO
-Assuming this is a 15 round fight thats a LOOOOONG time and for Norton not being hit by some massive shots on atleast a few occasions would be miraculous, this can be extended to Galento not getting a serious cut

 

I have to pull you up on a couple of points here:

1. Galento's resume-he did a lot more than simply beat Ettore. He beat a series of highly rated and touted contendrs, including Leroy Haynes, Nathan Mann and Lou Nova, and in two cases beat them at the most critical juncture of their careers. Haynes and Nova were both being lined up for Louis, when they took the fateful fight against Galento. I could g further.

2. Galento's mob conection-I see no evidence of this whatsooever, and everything I have seen points in the opposite direction. This is a guy who never held down a manager, and seems generaly to have lacked any sort of organising force behind his career.

3. Galento's powe-right up there with the hardest punchers of the era. He brutalized some of the best chins around at the time. I can only directly compare him to other fighters from the same period, but I would say that he was the hardest hitter around apart from Baer and Shepard.

In summary, you are selling Galento far short by calling him a bar room brawler. He was a dangerous contender who looked like a bar room brawler, and that is what made him dangerous.

 

I agree with this analysis completely, and I believe your video evidence proves it. Galento doesn't attack in the way Ken is attacked when he is being taken out. He was also past his best against Cooney, and Cooney, while not great, is an incredibly hard puncher, easily a heavier hitter than Galento, and big and very strong.

I just don't see what others are seeing, Norton is so much better, and Galento is crude even in his best footage.

 

Clearly neither side of the argument sees what the other is seeing!

One side sees the fact that Norton beat Ali, and his glorious resume.

The other side is thinking about stylistic dynamics a bit more, and if they don't strongly favour Glento, they at least see that this is up for grabs.

 

I think that Galento, like many fighters who look wild on film, was also deceptive.

His style was crude and agresive, but he also knew a bit of slight of hand. He might not have lasted long against Louis, but he managed to hit him with shots that he didn't see coming twice.

That should make you verry woried as Nortons manager.

Would you perhaps like to take the fight with Bob Pastor instead?

 

I'm sure there was a method to his madness, as there usually is with fighters.

Yes, Galento's punches came from awkward angles and were likely difficult to see comming, however Norton was hardly easy to hit and he wasn't the type to be taken out with 1 punch. It took several huge punches from Foreman, Shavers, and Cooney to take him out. I've never seen his fight with Garcia, so I can't really comment on that.

But what I saw from Foreman, Shavers, and Cooney is that they hit him hard, followed up, and Ken froze up and was taken out with hard, properly placed punches. Foreman saw the uppercut was landing and he took Ken out with a series of big uppercuts. Shavers varied his attack with left hooks, straight rights, and right uppercuts. He used them to move Ken into the proper direction to land his other punches. Cooney lowered Ken's hands with a series of hard lefts to the body and then he turned a hook over off of an uppercut and the hook devastated Norton.

I have a very strong feeling that even if Galento managed to tag Norton with a very hard punch that hurt Ken, he lacked the skills needed to finish Ken off. Wildly swinging with telegraphed punches and smothering is not going to work when trying to knock Norton out; setting up the hard punches and maintaining the proper distance is what will take Ken out.

I've never seen the Galento-Pastor fight and did not manage to find it in a quick youtube search, so I can't really analyze or comment on it.

 

Not only that, but in addition to Norton being well past it for those fights, what in the hell does galento have in common with a 6'7" fighter, brought up in the 70's and 80's, with an amateur pedigree and one of the hardest punches of all time? Its ridiciulous.

 

The only things Cooney and Galento have in common is that their left hook was their most dangerous weapon (Cooney's was more dangerous than Galento's), they were both heavyweights (Cooney was bigger), and they were both aggressive.

After that the similarities pretty much stop.

 

What stylistic dynamics?

Galento is almost pure brawler. He had very little in the way of actual skill and technique. He hit hard, was tough as nails and mean and dirty as a snake.

He attacks are wild, incomplete, and his footwork is atrocious. He smothers his own punches, and rarely lands the multiple shots in combo he would need to actually break Norton.

One left hook followed by a clumsy assault, and low blow and or a thumb is not going to beat Norton.

He clearly won a ton of fights because he was more man than a guy and could take a boxing match to the streets, but I have yet to see footage where he demonstrates that he can wipe Norton out. He's not the accurate, brutal two fisted destroyer Foreman is, he's not the hitter that Shavers is, and he and Cooney are in completely different zones as far as the danger they present goes.

Decking Louis is alright, I suppose, but it doesnt sew this up for me. Louis was being Louis, having success, fell asleep at the wheel and got clipped with a good shot. He gets up in seconds, dusts himself off, and hammers the hell out of Tony. Norton, I'd say, was actually harder to hit than Louis, who put himself in the kitchen with his feet planted to get off those gatling gun combos.

 

I agree 100%.

 

It is not so much what Foreman, Shavers and Cooney did to Norton, as what Norton never did to a top end puncher.

If he had beaten even a Mac Foster type fighter it would strengthen his argument.

I don't draw any more stylistic inferences from the Cooney loss, than I draw from Cooney beating Jimmy Young, but I think the Shavers loss is more than pertinent.