Marciano vs. Norton

Considering Norton got knocked out by an 188lb fighter, your arguement for "size is better" does not hold much claim. And if I had said Johnny Skhor and Ollie Tandberg were Walcotts best knockout wins, than your size arguement would go completley out the window. Fact is that the 4 men I listed 2 of which were hall of famers would have destroyed the 4 men on nortons list he knocked out including washed up quarry.



Now let me throw this at you....

Archie Moores best knockout wins

TKO 9 Bob Baker- Top 10 Ring Magazine
TKO 10 Alejandro Lavorante- Top 10 Ring Magazine
TKO 9 James J Parker- Top 10 Ring Magazine
KO 1 Embrell Davidson



Now what is your arguement norton hit harder than archie moore?

 

Walcott had a 45 percent knockout record. Norton has a 66 percent knockout record. This means that while Walcott fell well shot of knocking out half of his opponents, Norton knocked out two-thirds of his, and his record was accumulated in an era of much bigger men. True, Norton couldn't knock out Ali and Holmes, but then Walcott couldn't knock out Louis, who didn't have the chin of either Ali or Holmes, and this was despite the fact that Walcott nailed Louis often and cleanly.

Walcott gets his reputation as a puncher from his brutal knockout of Charles. It was impressive. But Charles was a light heavyweight and, as we saw going forward, the studiness of his chin has undergone a chance in character over years of competing out of his weight class. Besides, even fighters with low knockout percentages can capture lightning in a bottle from time to time. We don't think of Benitez as a terrific puncher (although his ko percentage was considerably higher than Walcott's), but he was capable putting an opponent to sleep. Obviously there are plenty more examples.

 

Walcott gets his reputation as a puncher because he either knocked out or floored pretty much every hall of famer he faced Charles, Louis, Marciano, Bivins, Johnson, Maxim all kissed the canvas courtesy of a Walcott punch.


Ken Norton on the other hand DID NOT FLOOR ANY ring magazine top 10 contenders not named Bobick.

 

Just to make the record clear, Archie didn't knock out Baker. He overwhelmed his man with superior skill and the referee stopped it because it was so uneven. Baker was on a serious downward slide, having been knocked out by Henry late 1951 and then knocked out in one by Satterfield less than a year before the Moore loss. This is not to take anything from Archie, who was a terrific fighter, but to make sure we don't read too much into the fight. Interesting, though, that the Moore loss woke up Baker for a little while and he put together a nice little winning streak over the next year or so.

The Parker fight was a joke. It was no contest. Moore overwhelmed Parker from the beginning. The only surprise was that Moore couldn't actually knock him out. The ref stopped the contest. Everybody expected the win. Moore was a 4-1 favorite entering the fight. Parker had been twice knocked out before, and two fights later he was knocked out in the first round by George Chuvalo. Why he was ranked in the top 10 by Ring Magazine says something about why we shouldn't always trust rankings.

We should also note that Embrell Davidson was coming off an eighth round stoppage loss to Clarence Henry less than four months earlier. I don't know the circumstances of the stoppage.

 

The point being that if anybody thinks Parker lasts much longer with Norton than he did with Chuvalo, ah....

Moore could really punch. Nobody denies that. It is equally silly to argue that Norton couldn't.

 

The problem with this thread is that most of ya'll who are arguing that so and so was too small don't know **** about the sport of boxing itself.

Boxing is a skill sport. It's not predicated by size. It is today, but that's because there is much less skill.

 

Marciano's right hand was BETTER than Frazier's right----NO DOUBT! But, I think Frazier's left-hook was equally as wicked as Marciano right cross in terms of a power punch looking to cause severe damage...... No man in his right mind wants to get nailed by Frazier's hook or Marciano's cross........

As for Norton's physical strength, that was ONE of his MAIN attributes that was worthy of note.... I know Marciano was strong, but I'm damn sure Norton could lift more weight in a gym than Marciano could.... Norton had the biggest biceps of muscle back in the 70s that I ever saw on a boxer / fighter.... Only the George Foreman of the 1990s developed bigger pythons.....

Again, for the umpteenth time as well, Norton owned a damn good jab that was hard.... NO! He was not really a wicked puncher with numbing power, but he had above average power that hurt / stung.....

I can see the 215 to 220 pound Norton pushing back the 190 pound Marciano in the ring and battering him about as well....

NOW!! I am BOLD as all HELL! Muhammad Ali was not a known power-puncher, however, Ali had some power..... Ali got his victims drunk before he mugged them....... Same goes for Larry Holmes, as well....... BUT! I think Larry Holmes was a damn good right hand puncher...... Holmes really let his hands go against Norton in the epic '78 classic title fight in Vegas... Norton took it all and lasted all 15 rds in losing his title to Holmes..... So, point being: Norton's chin was not entirely made of glass...... However, I admit, his vase had a few cracks in it.......

MR.BILL

 

I must agree that Shavers' power is partly legit and somewhat fabled.....:shock:

I have said so myself that Shavers rarely ever KO'd a solid "A" fighter..... His KO's over "Ellis" and "Norton" are his two "A" grade KO's that I know of off the top of my head...... Jimmy Young, Howard Smith, Henry Clark & Joe Bugner are NOT my idea of "A" opponents..... That is the "B" team......:hey

SR.BILLARDO:rasta

 

Did see footage of Marciano tossing giant rocks around if that means anything.

 

Marciano was a slow starter who wore out his opponents. Norton had power, but Marciano had a steel jaw (he was floored twice for only 2 seconds). Norton would not be able to hold out for a long time. Marciano had the best stamina in boxing history. Watch him in round 15 against Ezzard Charles: it looks like he's in round 1.

 

I gotta say: "Norton in my view would've and could've beaten all the guys that Rocco Marciano fought in the 1950s." I think Ken Norton could beat and hammer an aged Joe Louis and a 38 year old Joe Walcott pretty much the way Marciano did back in 1951 & '52....

I can't see a smallish 183 pound Ezzard Charles beating Norton, nor can I see "LaStarza or Cockell" beating Norton, either........ I see a 1975 / '76 version of Kenny Norton handling that crop pretty well......... Peace....

MR.BILL

 

I think MR.BILL may be right on this one. Marciano feasted on fighters who were generally smaller than the likes of Norton and his contemporaries. The biggest man Rocky fought as champion was Walcott and he was 6' 196lbs. The rest would've been puny if dropped in the 1970's contrasted against the likes of Foreman, Lyle, Ali, Bugner and Norton as well as Holmes. Much has been made of Marciano's power but Rocky was for the most part a grinder. He would wear down and discourage his opponents more than take them out with one spectacular punch. After beating Walcott for the title who did Rocky blow away early with an awesome display of power? Nobody actually. Walcott was decked in the first round but it always looked to me like he decided to call it quits anyway rather than go through another long struggle with Rocky. After that all of his subsequent defenses were grinders (Charles, Moore, Cockell). Now if Rocky couldn't blow these guys away (Cockell especially) why do so many in this forum think he'll blow Kenny away. Rocky had to live like a monk and train like a Spartan to beat men who were for for the most part light heavyweights. Can we be sure that he could take out a big modern athlete like Norton with ease? Norton 's chin was good. It was his style that let him down against bombers. He couldn,t fight backing up. Could Rocky back him up? Norton had a considerable size and reach advantage along with a very good (and underrated) jab. Could Rocky get past that jab? Norton gave Ali fits with it. Couldn't he do the same to Rocky? I'm not suggesting that Rocky can't win but I think we have to give Kenny a little more credit here. If Cockell could last 9 or 10 with Rocky I think Norton could a little better....don't you agree?

 

Think 37 year old Walcott would shock Norton, the punchings he nail Marciano with in the first fight would have hurt Norton imo.

 

YES! Walcott was decked early by a Marciano uppercut in '53, but Walcott was still clear-headed...... BUT! Walcott took his sweet ass time rising.... The ref waived the fight off too soon..... Walcott was on his feet at the count of 10, but slightly hunched over; he was not fully erect.... Still, that call was hogwash....... Walcott got his check and retired......... Had I been ringside in 1953, I'd have chased the referee home on foot...... I also would've been ticked at Walcott for showing no heart or soul at age 39 in 1953...... Walcott took the money and ran............:scaredas::fire

MR.BILL:deal