Kenny Norton vs Marciano's opponents. Would he have also ran the table and went 49-0?

There is a fairly high probability simply due to the circumstances of the 49-0 by Marciano. First, while 49 wins is gaudy - how many are viable or substantive opponents? Cuts the number down materially. Then, how many from this time and era are simply going to have enormous problems with Norton's comparative size and strength (PEDs)? Then, of the decent or even exceptional ones - how many are prime? Maybe we are at zero now.

Next, while 49-0 is incredibly difficult - it can be even more so if you were a fighter with poor or the wrong promotion so that you got fights on short notice, didn't receive the advantages that accrue to "having the promotion" regarding influence on the belt org's or state regulatory bodies (as the case(s) may be) in determining refs and judges, etc. that may well be more inclined to be "supportive". Did the Rock have any advantages in these areas? Were his backers more or less influential than others? It is a lot easier to back out of a fight on short notice (excluding actual injury) when you have the promotion and just aren't right when it matters vis-a-vis "an opponent".

Does Norton receive the benefits of some fighters where the venue, the timing, the location, the facilities, the ring size, the gloves, etc., etc. are weighted in his direction or to his advantage? Did Rock have any advantages in his era that was not accorded to every black fighter?

Guys like Louis and Moore seemed to be well-embraced - for different reasons - whereas less charismatic athletes would surely have fewer built-in advantages.

While performing in the ring is what matters - there can be some hard to measure or quantify aspects that provide some meaningful qualification to careers that end up 49-0.

Given the same support and limiting the question to Rock's opposition it becomes more probable that Norton could have accomplished exactly the same thing against those opponents under the exact same conditions.

 

Here is the problem with your analysis.

Weak eras are ten a penny, and in 140 years of gloved boxing, only one lineal champion has ever attained a 49-0 record. It took a lot of variables to fall into place, and a few lucky breaks.

Ken Norton is not a good candidate for being the other man to do it.

 

Here, let me use your phrasing.

The problem with your attempt at categorization is that you are placing a "box" around my statement that wasn't placed there by the OP.

At no point did the OP ask "Would Norton be the best choice of all possible combatants to run through Marciano's opponents and also end up 49-0?". Similarly, no where did I make that attribution either. If he or I had, then your response would have some basis.

Of course, I would not pick Norton to be the "best choice". Far from it.

But, the question is what it is. And, it would be a bit foolish to say "X, Y, & Z could do it easier than Norton" when that wasn't the question.

As far as the difficulty in going 49-0 or anything similar - this is why I mentioned some of the things I did. There does appear to be some similarities or common elements or threads that many fighters that have held their "0" until the end or got quite close seem to have or had (beyond a discussion of their fighting abilities). Which is why I noted some of them. Has it become easier for FMJ to maneuver his way toward career ending perfection now that he has near 100% control of everything in relation to any potential fight? Or, take a fighter who is a "big fish" in a little pond. Were there obvious and clear advantages for Calzaghe from FW's position in those years that were not afforded other athletes? Or, Ottke in Germany. Or, Jones when he was effectively 50-0. Or, a bunch of others you could pick or choose (who could have remained undefeated).

When asking whether Norton could achieve the same impressive winning streak then it seems fair to understand whether the same non-ring advantages would be similarly available. Some "impressions" of various fighters has an aspect that gets lost in the analysis. It is quite advantageous to be the fighter with the overarching promotion rather than the "opponent". Some of the fighters upon a review or look back have very different levels of control on the many variables that can affect a career while others were in a much more favored position - for some very evident reasons. While not a mitigation of their ring prowess it is still a one-off endeavor rather than a series or season like in other sports. Coming in with fewer ring and non-ring disadvantages or distractions is desirable and optimal.

 

What's with all the Marciano hate lately? I know it comes and goes on these forums, but lately it seems to be at an all-time high.

Yes, Norton was a very good fighter. I am a Norton fan. I read his autobiography and I even had him sign it. Norton went 1-2 vs. Ali in 3 close fights (sure, he should have won their 3rd fight in 1976 as well). He lost a close decision to Holmes. He was blasted out in less than 2 rounds vs. Foreman (he fought well in the 1st round) but so was Frazier. He stopped Quarry in less than 5 rounds. He also won a close decision vs. Jimmy Young.

A prime Norton was 6'3" with an 80" reach and about 215 Lbs. He had good overall skills but they were not great in my opinion. He was strong but not a huge puncher. He wasn't very fast and his footwork was fair. He wasn't very elusive. Despite the fact that he was in great shape, he wasn't great at fighting back when he was getting hit with clean shots.


In 1951 Louis fought his last pro fight vs. Marciano. Louis had won his last 8 fights, 3 by KO, including wins over Cesar Brion W10 x2, Freddie Beshore KO4, Omelio Agramonte W10 x2, Lee Savold KO6, and Hall of Famer Jimmy Bivins W10 (2 1/2 months before the Marciano fight). Louis was still tough. He was definately past prime but he was much better than a lot of people want to admit. Marciano stopped him inside of 8 rounds. Could Ken Norton have beaten Louis that night? I'd bet on Norton but not by KO.

Walcott lost his title to Marciano by stoppage in the 13th round. It was scheduled for 15 rounds people, everybody knew this before teh fight started. I don't want to hear that bullshlt about...... had it been a 12 round fight...! Had it been a 12 round fight the fight strategy and training would have been different and Marciano would have probably stopped him in the 10th or 11th round. Walcott was as good as ever when he faced Marciano, why would you think otherwise? I'd like to hear the reason.

Moore was also as good as ever when he fought Marciano. Again, why would you think he was not?



Charles? Charles was past prime but still awesome when he faced Marciano. Charles trained hard, was well prepared, and really rose to the occassion. This was for the HW World Title and Charles wanted it.

Charles came back in 1946 after serving in the military. From that point on he went 39-1 in his next 40 fights overall and 9-0 in HW World Title fights. The only loss had been a questionable split-decision loss to Elmer Ray, he beat Ray by 9th round KO in their rematch.

He had 2 wins over Walcott and figured a 3rd win over him was a sure thing. Charles fought well in their 3rd fight but got caught with a great shot and was stopped in the 7th round (that could have been Ken Norton). The 4th fight vs. Wacott was close and could have went either way (Charles would have been the first 2x HW Champ).

In Charles' next fight he took on Rex Layne for the 2nd time. He had stopped Layne in less than 11 rounds in their first fight. This time Layne got a decision over Charles that is highly questionable (7 even rounds!). In their 3rd fight Charles dropped Layne 3 times and clearly won by decision.


He lost a close decision to Nino Valdes that many people feel Charles deserved. Valdes was Cuban and the fight was in Miami. Charles also lost a split-decision to Harold Johnson that many believe should have went to Charles. He came back with wins over Coley Wallace KO10 and Bob Satterfiled KO2. It's now 1953 and he's getting ready to fight Marciano. Washed up? Hardly. Past prime? Yes, but still very good.

So, look at Charles resume from 1946- Marciano in 1953. His only clear loss was the 7th round KO loss to Walcott who he also had 2 wins over and a close disputed loss against. 53-6 during this stretch and a case can be made that 5 of those losses should have been wins. In between those losses he beat Hall of Famer Archie Moore x3, Hall of Famer Lloyd Marshall x2, Hall of Famer Jimmy Bivins x4, Elmer Ray, Hall of Famer Joey Maxim x3 (went 5-0 vs. Maxim lifetime), Jersey Joe Walcott x2, Hall of Famer Joe Louis, Gus Lesnevich, Rex Layne x2, and others.

Could Norton have beat Walcott '52, Charles '53, and Moore '55? I'm not so sure he could have beat them. They were all more skilled than Norton.

 

I disagree because Norton will have to take fights set for 15 rounds and in my opinion he was so wary of that distance itself that helped him blow the title fights he did have more than anything else. Froze against Foreman. Took to long to get going against injured Holmes and faded Ali who spinks could beat.

In my opinion Ken was a good fighter only destined to be a contender. He lacked that championship x-factor.

 

What is this supposed to mean?

 

His fights with Ali x3, Holmes, and Young were close. Could be 5-0 vs. these guys (I don't think he won all of those fights though)... but could just as easily be be 0-5. Nobody brings up how close the Young fight was when talking up Norton. Look, I'm usually one that does talk up Norton a bit, or at least gives him a lot of respect, but let's not pretend like he clearly beat Ali over 3 fights, Holmes, or even Jimmy Young. He didn't prove dominance over any of those guys. I don't think that Quarry would have beat Norton even if Quarry had been in his prime, but that doesn't change the fact that Quarry was not at his best when he faced Norton. What else is there? Early KO losses to Foreman, Shavers, and Cooney? A KO loss and a win over Jose L. Garcia? He was clearly past prime vs. Shavers and Cooney, but...???

 

Do you really think Norton beat Ali in all 3? Honestly? You'd have a hard time finding many people who would agree with you on who won the 2nd Ali vs. Norton fight. Their first fight was close and Norton deseved the win. Most will agree that Norton won their 3rd fight which was in 1976.

Who do you think deserved the decision in the Norton vs. Young fight? I think Norton won but it was very close.

Some people say that Norton beat Holmes but I really do not see it. It was close but Holmes deserved it. Keep in mind that Holmes improved after this and had an injured arm in the fight.

Great efforts by Norton in these 5 fights but I can't say that I think he won all of these fights.

 

You disagree but I think you are the preposterous one. It is only my opinion.

Don't you think Ali was ripe in that third fight? Norton was way better than Ali at that point but he was far too wary. He hung back. He let Ali off the hook a few times. ALI conned him out if it. I think Norton was intimidated by the championship distance. So what? He could have done better.

I know the Holmes v Norton fight very well. A great fight, and yes I had it close. However, Norton was not busy enough in the first six rounds. Many people gave Holmes those rounds to Holmes consecutively on a forum I found that scores fights. He was closing Larry down without punching him more than one shot at a time. He was hoping Larry would tire but it back fired.

 

I think you are saying that Norton wasn't great over 15, right? Because, I think it was still 15 until '83 or so ('87 & '88 variously for different Orgs). So, his entire career was predicated on the possibility of 15 just like those before him. I'm sure a proponent of Ken's would believe that he wouldn't need fifteen for the great majority of Rock's 49. Even a detractor would accept that - more or less - it would just be another handful to discuss one by one.

Yeah, I'm not a big advocate for Norton. Though, his losses in title-fights were to some of the best ever (in name). Generally, you can be a champion if you face lousy opposition or are in a weak era and look "destined to be a contender" if you face rare greatness.

But, I didn't respond to a question attempting to put Norton in H2H or historical context. It was a very specific question of whether Norton could run the table on Rocky's 49. Obviously, he doesn't have to be the greatest to beat the majority of that 49. It then gets down to a specific few. Essentially, the ATGs and the differing opinion of whether they were long in the tooth in ring rounds and/or age or whether they were still so formidable in this state as evidenced by being competitive with the younger and/or fresher Marciano that they could beat Norton or did the various advantages accruing to Marciano play a part and so Norton might have been able to do the same (whether easier or harder is irrelevant - just ending up with the same "wins" or an "0" at the end).

I think it is fair to say many are hedging on this prognostication.

For example, FlyingFrenchman, after a rousing, stout defense and outline of the ATGs performances leading up to their fights with Rocky, he ends with the following ...

He could or should have closed the show and said unambiguously "there is no way Norton wins these fights". That would have demonstrated not even a degree of doubt. I agree with his last line completely. The ATGs were all more skilled than Norton.

But, I also didn't state "There is no doubt in my mind that Norton ....". Rather, the quote of mine you referenced said ....

Didn't need to said "fairly" if I meant "absolute certainty". No reason to use "probability" if I wanted to be as inflammatory as possible either. But, maybe I was just being subtle. lol

 

Norton beats a good percentage of Rockys opponents. Of course he does. In fact most rated fighters from any era beat all the usual suspects on Rockys ledger that make up the same percentage of most successful fighters early record. It's a given.

Of course Holmes got off to a great start with his jab, he boxed excellently, controlling the distance but he was not beating Ken up. Ken needed to double up his workrate. He could have. He did later on. Don't you think Ken was conserving his energy early on whilst expending Larry?

ALI was still world class but out of the two he had declined further since their last fight. I think Ali had declined below kens level and therefore presented an excelent opportunity for Norton. Was Ali much further behind against Leon? I think the difference is negligible. Leon grasped the situation and kept pressure on. Used his youth and pace. Who is to say had Leon stood off and bought Ali's bluff and allowed him to rest quite so much as Norton did Ali might have been more like he looked against Norton anyway?. In fact ALi was good in the final round losing to Spinks. Do you think Ali was below world class against Spinks? He was no longer the world's best but Ali was still world class.

 

The thing I've noticed about this thread is that many are concentrating on Marciano's championship opponents as the most likely candidates to beat Ken. But history has shown us many times that an unheralded fighter can be a banana skin for more fancied fighters.

So, he could have picked up a loss against someone totally unexpected, or against someone where he would be a firm favourite.

I don't care what anyone says about the quality of Marciano's opponents. Going 49-0 against cans is tough, let alone the quality of some of the fighters he fought.
Draw your own conclusions about what that says about Rocky, but it's a unique record that has stood for decades.

Also, Mayweather was mentioned above. The difference is that Mayweather has made a hell of a thing about being undefeated.
I don't think it was a 'thing' for Marciano.
Let's face it, 50-0 sounds better than 49-0, but he stopped short of the half-century.
He could have easily had another fight or three and remained unbeaten, but he quit the sport on that rather odd number.

It's not that he deliberately went out to create a record, it just happened.