Ken Norton vs Evander Holyfield

Who exactly did Holyfield beat easily in his prime ? He was having tough battles vs ancient versions of Foreman, Holmes. And was getting badly rocked by B class contenders like Stewart, Cooper. A prime Holyfield lost between 4 or 5 rounds vs a 42 year old Holmes, Norton slightly past his prime fought on even terms with a near peak Holmes.

So I'm not seeing the logic behind "Holyfield beating Norton convincingly on points".

 

Norton vs Holyfield is quite the fascinating and classic clash of styles. Both fighters possessed immense conditioning and unyielding determination. However, Norton's tactical discipline, unorthodox defense, and precise jab could well tip the scales in his favor.

Both Norton and Holyfield had distinct qualities that more or less defined them in their respective eras. Holyfield - the relentlessness warrior, with a high work rate, combination punching, and adaptability. Norton, on the other hand - perhaps the more unorthodox practitioner. His awkward cross-arm defense and a jab that disrupted even the best fighters' rhythm made him a problematic proposition in the ring.

Holyfield excelled at pushing opponents into uncomfortable exchanges, while Norton thrived on dictating the pace with his jab and forcing his adversaries into his kind of fight. Their respective strengths make this a close-run affair with intriguing dynamics.

The fight likely begins with Norton establishing his jab early. As demonstrated in his trilogy with Muhammad Ali, Norton had an uncanny ability to disrupt even the most skilled boxers with his constant, powerful jab. Against Holyfield, a fighter who often relied on rhythm and timing to land combinations, this would be a critical weapon for Norton.

Both fighters were supremely conditioned, and I'd say that neither would have an upper-hand in stamina. However, Norton's physical strength and raw power would likely give him an advantage in controlling the exchanges. Norton's ability to smother Holyfield in clinches or use his strength to push him off would help him limit and avoid prolonged infighting.

Holyfield would likely struggle in the early rounds to find his range. Norton's jab, paired with his reasonable mobility, would keep Holyfield from launching sustained attacks. Unlike George Foreman, whose plodding footwork allowed Holyfield to reposition to create angles and counter, a prime Norton's ability to move a bit more freely and stay balanced would frustrate Holyfield's attempts to make openings.

As the fight progressed, Holyfield would begin to adapt. He had a high ring IQ, and would recognize the need to vary his attacks and a good few of his successes would likely be to Norton's body. I think Norton, his KO defeats aside, was perhaps quite vulnerable to body punches over the course, and Holyfield's ability to throw crisp hooks and uppercuts to the midsection could start to pay dividends.

The exchanges would become more competitive in the middle rounds. Holyfield's combinations would find occasional success, especially with hooks around the guard and uppercuts through the middle. Norton, however, would continue to land his jab and mix in punishing right hands, keeping Holyfield honest and unable to fully seize momentum.

Because I can't really separate them in terms of their physical conditioning, I can see this bout becoming one of attrition. Holyfield's relentless pace and ability to push through fatigue would likely give him an edge in landing cleaner shots late. He might steal a couple of the final rounds by flurrying and outworking Norton.

Norton, however, would not fade easily. His natural size and strength advantage would allow him to hold his ground, continuing to fire his jab and land hard right hands when Holyfield attempted to close the distance. Holyfield's bodywork might slow Norton slightly, but Norton's toughness and resilience would ensure that he remained competitive until the final bell. It's also worth noting that Norton himself was a vicious body puncher.

In my opinion, given Norton's jab and defense, he would have a bit of a sway in his favor. Holyfield's adaptability and sheer determination would keep the fight close, but Norton's ability to control the tempo with his jab and thwart Holyfield's rhythm would provide him an edge in the majority of the early and middle rounds. Holyfield's adjustments and late-round rallies might narrow the gap, but they wouldn't be enough to overcome Norton's consistency.

Norton W UD (115-113).

 

,,,and I doubt Holyfield can consistently back up Norton. Plus Kenny hits harder than Evander and has the better jab.
Norton by UD,,

 

I think Evander would ultimately run Norton over and pummel him into submission...............round 8-9ish.

Evander was more durable, better in combination, better at punching in-between opponents shots, had a better left hook, IMO a better cross and Evander in addition to recovery and fighting better when hurt simply had more gas in the tank, even when he was old as hell.

And I've seen the arguments that Norton could stand up to Evander's power because of Ali and Holmes and I get it, Evander is a smaller guy and not natural HW. But Holmes was fighting injured and I still have no doubt Evander was a harder hitter than Ali. Also, Evander fired his shots off in combination. Maybe 1 or 2 shots Ken takes on the chin, but not 7-8 shots, then headbutts, shoulders, body...............not over 8 or 10 or 14 rounds. He'll beat him up

 

....

Anytime it ends up toe to toe/inside Holyfield is coming out on top, and Holyfield will likely land some on the way in once he figures out Norton's game of trying to keep him back, Holyfield has adaptability, heart, chin, and combinations on his side

 

I have finally decided to say Norton edges this, especially if over fifteen.

 

And EH had a nice left hook that should work well with KN keeping his left hand across his body and his right hand in front of his face and his left shoulder turned. The right side of KN's jaw/head should be there for the hook. EH had hard, quick punches that he threw in combination. As you mentioned completely different style than Ali or Holmes. Plus EH had better movement than KN, he could give angles and move around while KN was more of a plodder with his wide stance. KN had what it took to beat Ali, but the things that worked for him with MA would work against him with EH.

 

And again I ask for a rebuttal not a blank response what fighters did Holyfield beat easily in his prime ? Still waiting.

You think Holyfield would fight an even fight vs a peak Holmes after losing 4 or 5 rounds vs a 42 year old version ?

Put it this way how would a prime Norton fair against a 42 year old Holmes ? I'm thinking a very convincing win for Norton with a stoppage not out of the question.

Still not understanding the logic behind Holyfield convincingly beating Norton.

 

Re Holmes being injured vs Norton.

That was Larry’s left arm and by fight time it was certified as good to go with some possibility of deterioration as the fight wore on.

You’d be hard pressed to see Holmes apply his jab better than he did in the Norton fight - the left basically won Larry the first 5-6 rounds.

Personally, I would rubber stamp the alleged effects of Holmes injury vs Norton as Myth Busted.

 

On this topic you will find a few horses around here dying of dehydration.

 

I've always scored Holmes - Norton around 10-5 for Holmes. The judges scored it closer, possibly because LH was an unknown, while KN had beaten Ali, been in a few movies, and was the guy who could make more money for the boxing establishment. IMO KN beat Ali 3 times, but while he was competitive in his fight with LH, he lost convincingly.

If LH won the first 5-6 rounds (in your opinion) by jabbing and (in your opinion) KN did better in the later rounds, maybe it was the "deterioration" of LH left bicep as the fight progressed that let KN back into the fight?

 

Well sure, a lot said on both sides is of course just “opinion” - I think in most cases it goes without saying without necessarily having to qualify said views as such at each and every turn or electing to only emphasise/accent the obvious opinions expressed from my end of the discussion.

In all possibility, there might’ve been some measure of deterioration, but it’s best to point to the vision that actually supports that view.

I understood that the forecast of possible deterioration during the fight would be addressed.

Norton himself also claimed that he held back for a good number of rounds, with the view to Holmes tiring himself out.

Ken later admitted that he erred in his judgment in that regard - leaving a bit too long before he decided to put the pedal to his own metal.

I personally see no issues with Larry’s left arm throughout and particularly in view of its sustained and primary use through to rounds 5-6, the accent being that Larry used the left almost exclusively during that period - which he was known to do in fights anyway - Larry’s axiom being, more or less - “first, you make ‘em drunk with the jab”.

 

It is little more than a talking point for Holmes sycophants at this stage in most cases. Plainly obvious to see he was fine.

 

I'm a Holmes sycophant, and imo he beat Norton by easily more than one point. Norton didn't do so good the first six rounds, in fact he looked kind of lame (and this is coming from a staunch fan of Kenny).

Holmes was neck to neck with him in the later rounds. I saw the fight the day it happened, and I was confident Larry was ahead before the 15th round.

Norton Holyfield is a toss up. Norton had enough of a punch to make Holyfield respect him, and I can see Holy getting rocked more than a couple times. That said, Holy would do more than a little shaking up himself. A tough split decision either way.

 

I agree with all of this, actually.