Ken Norton vs Jersey Joe Walcott

While Jersey Joe Walcott was by far the greater fighter in my opinion I think that Norton might have had the ideal style to beat him.

 

Could your further elaborate? Is it because he did well when going forward? Is it his counter-punching style?

I think you can make a case for Norton, however I favor Jersey Joe. Stylistically, Norton does and likes coming forward and he is a counter puncher but Jersey Joe is incredibly unpredictable and dangerous in both avoiding and hitting. If Jersey gets too cute it could be lights out for him. I do, however, ever so slightly favor Walcott's durability. Any mention of him being KOed 6 times or half the fights in the early 30's when he was starving would only prove your ignorance, not mine.

I'll Pick Jersey Joe by a comfortably close decision. I'm not sure how Norton deals with Jersey Joe's style. He's the absolute master at feinting (The ultimate way to beat a counter-puncher) and his crab-sand dance would give him fits I believe.

 

Norton to big for him and i think he knocks out jersey joe in 6 rounds.however pound for pound id go with jersey joe ,if he was a couple inches taller and 30 lbs heavier he would have knocked out norton

 

Norton only really has 15 or so pounds on him.

I have Valuev beating both because of the sheer size difference. Same with Williard and Carnera but P4P I'd give it to Joe and Norton.

 

Ken norton weighed 220 against holmes and jersey joe weighed 194 against ezzard charles, norton was 6-3 to walcott6-0. But once your say 215 and up your big enought to fight bigger guys like carnea,willard or valeuv ,norton would easily beat those guys,i mean if chageuv or an ancient holyfield could nearly beat him think what norton would do.jersey joe would dominate todays cruiser weights though. Also back to the size issue as i was saying look at all the best heavys of all time they werent real giants in stature. Even of the last say 40 years ali 63 215 foreman 6-31/2 217 (against fraizer) holmes 6-3 209 against norton tyson 5-11 220 holyfield 62 210 not until lennox and the klitchkos have we seen real big guys

 

As i ve been posting i have also been watching marciano vs walcott i on espn classic the block buster about marciano

 

Okay that's quite a ramble. 215+ is the magic number to beat the big guys. But for Jersey Joe who may weigh 15-20 pounds less that's too much? That's consistent. I guess Dempsey fell out of that label with destroying Williard. Norton was 212 in the first Ali fight. Jersey Joe prime weight would be around the mid to high 190's. The 3 inches in height help Norton be a bit heavier. But technical and in terms of boxing skills Jersey Joe is definitely superior.

 

Jersey Joe is the more complete specimen, but seeing as Norton is particularly well-guarded against most jabs and also relatively well-schooled in in-fighting, I think he can compete favorably alongside the slicker Joe in gruelling physical contest.

I see Kenny bulling his way forward while Walcott set the pace for him early on; most of the incoming jabs would be picked off by that protective right he stuck out the side of his face. The outside battle, I imagine, would be quite even with Walcott slightly the busier, but no more effective, with probing jabs.

On the inside, Norton's superior strength serves him well in working the body. Walcott would try to contain the attack while also sneaking a few blows to the head now and then.

Regarding the issue of size, I actually think it is better for Walcott that he's coming in as the shorter man. The few inches in difference might be of some help in slipping Norton's overhand right. To compare, Ali and Holmes, both roughly the same size as Norton, failed to consistently dodge the overhand right where Walcott, the smaller man, might simply duck under and counter with a right and a left.

If pushed I will go with a split decision in favor of Norton based on styles.

 

ok as for willard,dempsey your talking about a guy in willard who probably would be a clubfighter today against dempsey who would be a champ today at cruiser so the differance in class is obvious,but dempsey would not do well today against a quality big heavyweight

 

Strength might be an issue here but not height ,Norton though 3in taller did not fight tall , he came forward in a half crouch.
I haven't made a pick yet .

 

That sums up my views on this.

 

All I said was that Norton's right might not land regularly for him as it did on slightly taller fighters. I never commented on Norton's stance and know full well that he fought out of a half-crouch. The fact that his right is aimed high, I said, might give a formidably skilled Walcott more time to adjust and counter since he is shorter and thus farther from a high-arching blow.

 

if it where pfp it would be jersey joe all the way. but normally i go with norton. way to strong for him (also to big).

 

Norton UD. Walcott wasn't aggressive enough at times, and would have trouble countering bigger puncher with speed and skills.