I lived through those eras and I know both fighters much better than you do. No chance do I bet on Norton not to be stopped in this fight.
This is a very enjoyable thread on an intriguing match-up, am enjoying the debate the thread has generated. If I may SAY so, TBI, welcome to the board, you make some great points. As said, this is an intriguing match-up, both have well documented strengths and weaknesses; Williams was a banger but unproven as such at top level; anecdotal evidence from sparring sessions is one thing, but why was this not converted into KO wins when mixing with elite competition? There may be mental reasons for this - one thing to knock out guys in the gym, another in a competitive situation - maybe Williams had a block in actual competition? Which leads me to Norton; Ken is one of my all time favourite fighters but I'm not going to be biased in my assessment here - I do believe he quite possibly had a mental block with regard to punchers, but having said that, he did a lot of spaaring with Frazier as a tyro pro so that would not seem to bear that out. Regarding his KO defeats, Garcia was when he was a relative novice and looks like Ken took him lightly; I largely discount Shavers & especially ****ey, Norton was motivationally never the same after Ali 3 & physically not the same after Holmes. If Norton was lary of punchers, why take the last 2 fights? I also don't buy Norton being chinny, Ali barely made a dent in him but was able to stop the perceived durable types like Lyle & Foreman - how was Ali able to stop those guys and not Nortn if Ken was chinny? Holmes KO % as champ was high & he couldn't stop Norton. When assessing this fight I think we have to take both guys on trust - Williams, though a proven banger at a lower level was not able to convert this tto kayoes at elite level; Norton's record against HUGE punchers was not good; Williams' advantages in height and rwach could be significant. Although Norton was far more proven at top level, for me this is a pick-em match; if I was Norton's management I would view this as a match I don't need... I really don't know...
You would lose your money then. I agree with what you say about Ali Frazier. It was a great fight. Ali's career gets hijacked by writers from outside of boxing and they try and reinvent the wheel. I get that. The case of Williams is another case entirely. All that the people of the day said about Williams was he was a great puncher etc etc. I agree. He hit hard. But good fighters always got past him. That's an actual fact not a 're invention". Everybody worth anything got past him without getting knocked out. It's an actual fact. Nothing new about that. So People can still say Williams was dangerous puncher. That's fine. So was Louis Monaco if you were not too careful. Is Monaco knocking out Norton? after all he knocked out buster Douglas. Of Ken Norton he did have a reputation for being hurt at the highest possible level. But that is a different matter entirely. There's so much more that can be said for Norton. He beat Muhammad Ali for goodness sake. Was a genuine elite level contender.
Monaco was a bum. Williams was an aggressive KO punching animal in the ring. These type fighters always intimidate and then destroy Ken Norton. No trainer who lived through that time would pick Norton.
Norton beat Ali who was possibly in the worst shape of his career. Granted he gave Ali three tough fights but this is meaningless in terms of this bout. Ali was no puncher. Williams as per elite top hwts that were in the ring with him was a terrific KO puncher. Norton does not beat terrific KO punchers.
You keep saying this but it's not true. Trainers of that day raved about how hard Williams hit, I don't believe they ever said they pick him over Norton. Why would they say that? Based on what? Based on Foreman? A totally different fighter. What I will accept is if you were training Norton perhaps you would navigate around Williams just in case. Because the guy could hit and nobody needs an accident. There would be easier opponents ..but plenty better ones. but I doubt Eddie Dutch, Duck Sadler, Angelo Dundee or Gil Clancy could not have devised a very plausible game plan for Ken to beat the greatest ATG one punch KO artist without a significant KO win. Why not?
when? I've seen the filmed fights he was in. He had a bit of a go against Liston, shot his bolt and was brutalized himself. The two Liston Fights. The Daniels fight. The Terrell fight. The Todd Herring fight. The Ali fight. The chuvalo fight. Now Williams was a scaryy looking, heavy handed handfull I will admit but in Which of the above fights was Williams the "one punch KO artist", "aggressive KO punching animal in the ring"?
Williams is widely considered as a brutal KO puncher by fighters who were in the ring with him and experts. This is why all the trainers you listed would laugh at you when you try to diminish Williams ko power. All these experts are telling you Williams was devastating and you a non expert who knows nothing of either of these men aside from looking at records wants to convince them otherwise? You must be joking! Were you even aware Norton was intimidated by punchers? Were you aware Norton was considered chinny? Williams was considered one of the top 100 hardest punchers in boxing history. You don't get Considered that highly if you don't punch very hard. Norton could not handle KO punchers. Every boxing trainer of note knew this back in the 70's. You don't obviously so try to learn something new.
What makes you think I'm not an expert? I've known all about Norton and Williams. I've been following boxing for 30 years, have a collection of books, autographs, photos, I have boxed competitively myself, judged officially and have been involved with boxing most of my life! You disagree with me, and have decided that old time trainers would back you up. I don't think they necessarily would. Boxing is not rocket science so I wouldn't attempt to insult or diminish another posters knowledge on here. Especially one like myself who is sticking with facts and bringing lots of examples to support his view.
A brutal KO puncher whose record is completely lacking in brutal KOs at world level... Like touting someone as an amazing sprinter when he flaked in every gold medal race he was in.
Ring rates him as one of the hardest punchers in boxing history. That's much more than needed to ko Ken Norton a man who could not handle huge punchers.
My comments illustrate facts to support my views. Before you tube we all collected tapes. Lots of us collected magazines, records books and autobiographies. And we were always more interested in eras that came before. but since the wider internet even more footage and information has become available. Some but not all of what became boxing folklore became established opinion but with so much extra access some things don't stand up and should not have at the time. Henry Cooper getting extra time after that Knock down, Johnson shielding eyes, Billy Conn winning so many rounds supposedly easily then making the "mistake" of going for a knockout all made it into established opinion when it turns out it was not "quite" as simple watching film. Williams was a great puncher. He has become a legend. I get that. But being a great puncher does not win all fights. Williams record AND ON FILM proves this.
Looking at records and then making judgements is your downfall. Looking at records won't tell you insiders felt Norton had a glass jaw. Looking at records won't tell you experts of that time understood Nortons style was not compatible with doing well vs huge punchers, looking at records won't tell you that Williams was a feared fighter in terms of his punching power. Looking at records won't tell you that Liston, Terrell, Foreman and Ali all attested to Williams power. Dig a little deeper. Don't take the lazy way out.
Experts and insiders will also tell you that if you have a fearsome puncher who failed to KO or even knock down any of the top fighters he fought, his power his probably a tad overrated.