He didnt look ordinary against top 5 ATG Larry Holmes or Jimmy Young and he would of won another HW belt if Spinks hadnt ducked him. Norton was a level above Galento. Period.
It was Foreman's brute strength that made him special moreso than power. Guys got up from Foreman after he landed his best more often than Shavers. Anyway, I favor Galento here.
Well, at least we're back to the thread. I still respectfully disagree because of the huge gulf in class between these two fighters...despite the obvious "styles makes fights" argument.
Exactly how big is the gulf in class though? Ken Norton was verry effective at neutralising a certain type of fighter, but he was not a good generalist. Gallento for all his limitations might have been a better all rounder, and he was certainly better at defeating punchers.
Well, if you want to use that sort of argument - Galento stunned and decked ATG Joe Louis, beat top contender Lou Nova, and beat half a dozen of the top black contenders and prospects that other top white contenders didn't want to fight. His record against top fighters was good, and very good when he was in shape. Both Norton and Galento were good contenders. But neither of them were consistent stand outs in the division.
Norton beat an iron chinned Cobb over the distance. Beat the **** out of him really, some incredible work off the ropes. Don't think Galento takes this.
Norton. He's not going to lose to just anybody who hits hard. I feel Quarry (even the '75 version) was a better fighter than Galento in pretty much every way.
I'm not seeing where you guys are saying Galento is a bad style match up for Norton. Aside from hitting hard he has nothing to really trouble Ken. I think Norton smashes his way to mid or late rounds TKO.