Ken Norton's Chin

That would be fair. He'd been slowly waning for a few years even if still quite capable.

 

You can't disagree with my point, because it's a fact. Norton was factually knocked out by a fighter who was not considered an all time great puncher.

Alternative explanations for my point is just that. It doesn't make the point infactual and something that can be disagreed with. We disagree on the explanation.

 

I can see the validity of what @Bah Lance is saying, but agree far more with @JohnThomas1's take.

 

At 37, definitely not.

 

You had to put him into retreat to take him out. Make him freeze and fight cautious.

It's not just who he lost to, it's who he beat. In terms of punchers, Bobick, whom he jumped on, Garcia 2, who he backed up.

 

Big George herded Frazier like a Matador, then lowerd the boom

 

Norton was a good fighter no doubt about it, he's in the hall of fame.
he was about 5-5 vs top ten at the time
Wins: ALI, Kirkman, Quarry, Bobick and Young
losses: Ali (twice) Foreman, Holmes and Cooney.

 

I know. (Although, it was known that Garcia could bang a bit and Dundee can be heard acknowledging this during his commentary of the rematch.)

I know. (I presented an alternative view.)

I know.

So you've conflated the fact that Norton was KO'd by Garcia, which I am obviously not disputing (and you know this because you replied to my first post on this thread), with your explanation for why it happened - which I took to be your point.

Seemed fairly straightforward to me. But, yes - I disagree with your explanation...

 

Vic Brown had him down, check his record,

 

The point was that he wasn't just blitzed out by Cooney, Foreman, and Shavers. There were multiple messages that implied this to be the case.

He was knocked out by Garcia as well, and I presented my explanation for this. While he defeated Garcia in a rematch 5 years later, Norton was stopped by every hard puncher he faced I'm aware of except for Bobick , who he beat by blitzing out.

There just isn't any evidence Norton could beat a knock out puncher, unless he was aggressive and got them going back first...Bobick and Garcia 2. Norton's defense and durability drops radically whenever he's forced backwards and we have plenty of fights to draw this conclusion from. That's my explanation and it's straightforward and supported.


If there's some dangerous punchers he beat off the back foot, let me know.

 

It's your interpretation of the evidence and that's fine.

I've given you mine on Norton/Garcia I (which is the strongest piece of evidence to support your theory).

How many fighters were succeeding with an aggressive push against Foreman? Precisely none.

You can't possibly know that attacking Shavers from the first bell would have made a difference to Norton's chances. Norton was way past his best and just as likely to have been caught by a Shavers bomb - several others were (Lyle, Holmes, Ali, Tillis ... ...)

If Norton was past his best versus Shavers then he was positively done, by the time he met Cooney. Moreover, Norton turned the initiative on Cooney, after Cooney had rushed him to the ropes and he paid for it dearly. So this example doesn't even fit your theory, in my opinion.

As alluded to - it's about interpretation of the evidence. Yours and mine are different. It's really that simple.

 

This thread is about why Norton was able to absorb punishment against Holmes, and I feel it's because he was strong enough to push him back and in general just seemed to roll with punches better on the front foot.

Norton had no chance against Foreman. He couldnt push big George back and wasn't comfortable fighting off the back foot, getting caught and overwhelmed so early while trying to circle.

Shavers is only a year younger than Norton. Norton was also coming off what I feel might be his career best performance against Holmes. So I'm not writing this off as just an age thing. Norton was the logical favorite going in.

I would still say Norton's only shot would have been to blast Shavers out like he did Bobick.

Lyle beat Shavers by fighting off the ropes, Norton just never had success doing that. Shavers overwhelmed him easily.

Despite his size, Norton was a pretty set in his ways pressure fighter who fought small, and wasn't comfortable going anywhere but straight ahead. Obviously a nightmare for Holmes but on the flip, Foreman is his nightmare.

 

It's about Norton's Chin, inspired by his bout by Holmes, effectively questioning the idea that Norton had a weak chin.

That's fair enough. It's an idea, but it's not one I would necessarily agree with.

Agreed.

Foreman did a superb job of marshaling Norton.

Norton was older, nonetheless, and had competed in a considerable number of more professional rounds than Shavers, who went on to fight for several years. Norton would fight 3 more times after Shavers - only once in 1980 and once in '81. Shavers fought on for longer, over 20 more bouts (and that's not including his couple of comebacks).

It might have been, but a strategy to have Shavers wear himself out was logical, given what was known about Shavers. Norton's miscalculation was probably related to his own punch resistance; his ability to recover and what he had left in his legs.

It was nearly all over for Lyle in the 2nd round, for doing just what you described.

Lyle won by being saved by the bell and then, after a break, continuing to box for 3 rounds; keeping his distance, tying Shavers up, at close range, blocking/slipping a lot of Shavers work and going on to deliver a straight right from center-ring, early in the 6th.

I don't think Norton had a specific style, with which he could be categorized.

Prime Norton:
- might have had the edge on Holmes
- would have beaten Shavers
- always loses to Foreman

...in my opinion

 

The death of Norton's manager and the scary way he lost to Cooney, had a lot to do with his retirement. Prior to Shavers, Norton looked to be a remarkable physical specimen for his age, nearly outlasting Holmes. Shavers simply hit too hard for Norton to be effective against.


Disagree about Lyle. While he suffered the knock down, he defended himself well on the ropes for most of Round 2, and even rallied to hurt the tiring Shavers. Lyle spent most of the next rounds, fighting off the ropes effectively, before stopping the gassed out Shavers.


Norton probably always loses to Shavers and Foreman, he has shown me nothing to suggest he can defend against them or take their punches.

A younger Norton may have edged Holmes. But then again, Norton was a bit of a late bloomer.

 

Good debate between Man_Machine and Bah Lance, each making good points. Not something you see often in sports forums.

My take on this punch resistance ("jaw", etc) issue is that too many fans seem to think fighters either have glass/ close to it, or granite/ close to it. There's lots of in between and that also depends on a fighters opponent, age, and ring wear, etc. I think Norton, and given in his era he was a good sized HW, had mediocre punch resistance. Shavers was smaller than Norton and no youngster himself. He blasted Ken out of there like he was a journeyman. Regardless of experience, the early KO loss to a 188# (well below this eras CW) fighter was telling.