Ken Norton

I had him winning vs Ali III.

Still, he was an A- fighter, so very susceptible to heavy punchers.

 

I still think the fact that he was blasted out not just by Foreman, but also by Cooney and Shavers, would have kept him out. But it's a boxer I really like. To do what he did against Holmes at 34, and after sufffering the great disappointment of losing to Ali when he thought he won, was just great.

 

Yes, somewhat. But most still give him a lot of credit for how he performed against those two. For boxing fans I don't think the judges scores are crucial in that matter, even if they do make some difference. Everyone can see for themselves just how great his perfomances were.

But being blasted out by the only three real punchers he met is enough in itself to keep him out of the top 10 IMO. It's hard do rank someone top 10 who has such a poor record against punchers. When it comes to Frazier you can always say that Foreman was one of a kind and that he stylistically was all wrong for Frazier. But if Frazier had been blasted out like that by two other opponents then that argument would fall. I think few would have Joe in the top 10 in that case.

 

I have Norton in my top 20, and I think he did beat Ali at least TWICE. I do think Holmes edged Norton, but considering this was a prime Holmes, the loss helps one place Norton. If Norton had beaten Holmes in the eyes of the majority of the fans, and all judges, then yes, I think he would move up to the top ten. Two wins over Ali, a win over Holmes, mixed in with a win over the Young who beat Foreman, Quarry, and Bobbick.

For whatever reason, Norton gets blasted for losing via early KO, but some other fighters in the top 20, such as Johnson, and Frazier do not. Norton doesn't seem to get any excuses for starting boxing at a later age either.

I also have the hunch most fans have not seen Norton's vs Quarry, Stander, Bobbick, Holmes, and Ali. Norton's fights are seldom replayed. Where I live, only the Quarry and Foreman fights are replayed.

 

It is. And one should always remember that when it comes to Norton. That could be the subject of a thread of it's own: Which other fighters would do as well against Ali and Holmes as Norton did?

As you say, it's not that far fetched to say that his record against these two really should be 3-1. That's not bad at all!

 

Although I agree that Norton won the first fight with Ali, I do think a split decision was a fair reflection of how competitive Muhammad was able to be. Upon reviewing that bout in it's entirety, it's apparent to me that Ali's jaw was indeed broken by Ken's right at 2:48 of round two, and not during round 12 as Futch and Norton claimed. (Through all the remaining rest periods, Ali's corner can be seen to be careful with the left side of his face.) Allegedly, this was able to occur because of the combination of an impacted wisdom tooth, and Muhammad's mouth being open to talk at the moment Kenny connected with that punch.

Would Norton have taken the decision if Ali's jaw had not been broken (and especially so early in the contest)? Possibly, but it certainly affected the complexion of the next ten rounds.

In their second meeting, Norton pursued Ali for the first several rounds, but did hardly any punching. While a split decision was again an accurate reflection of how strongly Ken came back in the latter stages of this one, I'm satisfied that Muhammad deserved the verdict, particularly by virtue of the fact it was scored on the rounds system.

He was very badly outboxed by Holmes over the first ten rounds of their meeting, and I agreed with Mercante that Larry should have had that one locked up in the scorecards entering the championship rounds. Round 15 should not have been the deciding round of that affair. I submit that if the judging went in Norton's favor, that the outcome would have been far more controversial than it was with Holmes winning. (I suspect the judges may have been influence by the urge to validate the WBC's awarding of their championship to Ken. He admitted going in that, "I need a big win.")

Did Jimmy Young deserve the decision in the match which finally resulted in Kenny being declared a champion by the WBC?

If Norton had been awarded the second fight with Ali, he still would have been bludgeoned by Foreman in his next outing for the title. (Anybody who feels Ken was robbed in Inglewood should bear in mind that it was he, not Muhammad, who got the next shot at the title.)

Had Kenny taken the title from Ali in Yankee Stadium, his first defense may well have been a rematch with Foreman, who he'd expressed a willingness to fight again. With compelling stoppage wins over Lyle, Frazier, LeDoux and Denis, Big George certainly would have deserved first crack at Norton, either in late 1976 or early 1977. Does anybody truly believe Kenny could have won that rematch?

Foreman took out Frazier twice. But I rate Joe higher because I believe he could have beaten more of history's other heavyweight champions, was a fighting champion up to the FOTC, and had a slightly more impressive resume than George did during the 1960s and 1970s in my estimation.

If Norton had taken all three decisions from Ali, I'd still rate Muhammad higher because of his wins over opponents like Lyle, Shavers, Foreman, Frazier and Mac Foster, competitors who Ken would be fortunate to touch gloves with at the outset of the final scheduled round.

For my money, Weaver actually has a legacy which surpasses Ken's. No, he didn't beat quite the same caliber of opposition, but he did win and retain a championship for a couple of years, repelling the challenges of a deadly Coetzee in South Africa, and Angelo Dundee's undefeated contender Tillis. Mike proved conclusively that he could win impressively over the true championship distance. The one time Ken was a championship target, he lost.

 

I don't agree,it could be argued that Norton was a little past his best when he came up with that great effort against Holmes ,but it must be remembered that Holmes went into that fight with a damaged muscle in his arm. Irrespective if Norton had one those, admittedly close fights ,he still got blown away early by punchers ,so imo he isnt top 10 material and as his record stand not top 20 or 25 in my view.

 

The scoring of Holmes-Norton is an odd one. I have only seen the full fight once and never scored it, but most people tell me Holmes should have been clear of Norton after 14 rounds, and not even.

But what I do know is that from where I'm sitting NORTON should have been given the 15th round ! From the film it looks like he's pushing Holmes back, applying the pressure and landing the most punches for AT LEAST 2 minutes of the round. Holmes' only comes on strong in the last 30 or 40 seconds, staggers Norton a bit but not dramatically enough to wipe out what Norton's doing throughout the round, and it looks like Ken took that round to me.

 

I've Norton inside my Top 50, for sure. He's usually somewhere in the mid-30's.

 

Norton was not a complete fighter. He could not fight a guy with power or pressure. He did well vs the Ali, Holmes type because it was he who put on the pressure and those guys were not real hard punchers...Quarry and others stated that Jerry was on drugs and alchohal and did not train for that fight, he just went in for the payday, Norton was a good fighter but flawed, as far as former champs, he would lose to the punchers and had the style to give the boxers trouble. I have seen all of Kens big fights and his weaknes was he could not back up vs a puncher which was fatal