Max Schmeling - Ken Norton?

It's all been done before. The difference between guys 190 and 220 is much more functional than 220 guys and up. Shavers had more than enough power at 210 to almost decapitate people.

Wilder at 214 has absolutely freakish power and is the hardest puncher in the world today and deep in the conversation for the hardest puncher ever. Feel free to put forth all the 190 pound guys punching with the power of Wilder. It's hardly as if Helenius is a good fighter either.

 

Then I must concede your point.

 

All good i was curious as to how you arrived at where you did. You were on a slightly different track.

 

As a heavyweight it didn’t. If Spinks had of just been a 200lb heavyweight his whole life he would be disregarded out of sight.

So tell me when Ken was prime? The first fight with Ali? After the first two split decisions with Ali Foreman demolished him. One fight before challenging Ali for the title ken seemed extremely lucky against Larry Middleton. He beat Bobick in his first fight after losing to a shot Ali. Then he looked terrible against Zanon and Young. The fight with Holmes was about as good as it Got.

Yes it was. There is the argument Louis was more aware of what Schmeling had second time around, but since it took him the first time to find that out, does that even count? Louis was as honed the first time as he was for just about anyone else. Schmeling just had the answer that night.

Louis approached the second fight completely differently. Just because he tactically had an answer for a Schmeling, who had grown 2 years older since last time, it doesn’t mean joe was physically better second time around. Just means he had a plan. Louis was programmed not to lead so much with a jab. The one jab he tried in the second fight was about the only time Schmeling landed before he got bombed out. This time Louis was drilled on what to do for that one guy. And it took him two fights to get the right answer.

 

Really? I don't think I do that and I have no problem with taking 189 lbs Schmeling from the earlier fights. That still wouldn't reach 25 lbs advantage.

I don't think it's that clear, Schmeling came off a very strong win vs Hamas when he absolutely dominated him. To me, Schmeling has no clear peak and I think it's reasonable to argue many of his fights as the best ones.

I think you shouldn't just brush off two of the greatest HW wins ever as "they weren't prepared enough". I strongly disagree with that take.

 

You could argue the first Ali fight marked the start of Norton’s prime, Ken already 29 1/2 years old at that point.

You could also argue that Ken was even better in the rematch, moving proportionally along with a far better conditioned and mentally focused Ali in the rematch.

Foreman’s 2rd KO win doesn’t compromise that view - Foreman was a destroyer and did to Ken what he’d being doing to a lot of opponents - including Joe Frazier. ONLY Ali was capable of halting THAT Foreman’s progress.

You asked about evidence of any decline on Norton’s part - but then go on to suggest that Norton was extremely lucky against Middleton and later looked terrible against Zanon and Young??

How was Norton lucky vs Middleton? Ken stopped him in the 10th round, leading on all cards plus UP tally.

Fact is, Middleton was handy and fought a very good fight. 30 yo plus Ken started slow, and his coming on in fights was progressively being pushed back <age, reduced stamina?>.

Likewise against Zanon who, like Middleton, actually fought a very good fight for nearly as long as it lasted. Norton caught up - it was only 5 rounds. Job done.

Young? Mores the question - who didn’t look bad vs streaking Jimmy? Relatively, Norton certainly didn’t look bad, and in my book, though a close fight, he did beat Young. No mean feather in Norton’s cap.

Again, the opponent Young, got the jump on
Norton in the early rounds but Ken came back.

Enter Holmes. Larry arguably swept the first 3rd or so of the fight. Again, Ken arguably slowing down more so. It’s true that Norton said it was his tactic to hang back and allow Holmes to tire himself out.

Ken later said he erred with that tactic and said that he should’ve come on earlier.

However, the employment of the tactic in the first instance and in its own right suggests that Norton was budgeting his own stamina - knowing he couldn’t fight full steam every round, or at least not as fully applied as he used to be.

And certainly, at near age 35 yo, that strategy correlates with an age impaired fighter, no longer at peak - but one who still made it a razor thin close fight against a peak ATG <more or less at that point>.

Holmes later said, relatively, his following title defences we’re a piece of cake compared to what Norton put to him.

 

Norton by KO.

Max wasn't nearly dynamic or powerful enough to trouble Kenny.

 

Could well have been someone else, you are usually quite measured and fair. Many times we've seen Joe Louis' weights from the back end of his career cherry picked to tell us he was comfortable carrying X pounds and bigger than people realize.

Whichever way we dice it Norton has a substantial size advantage across the board. Weight, height and reach. It won't be the only factor but it will be one of them as we both agree.

Perhaps. My readings through history have Max being on the downslide (not past it mind) by the time he fought Louis and further diminished by the time of the rematch 2 years later. As you say it was a good win. He was proclaimed by many to be a has been and washed up at the time he fought Joe. Obviously he still had something left.

Perhaps Max was much closer to his best in the rematch than is commonly accepted?

I'm not brushing them off. Embracing the intangibles isn't brushing them off because the intangibles were both real and proven.

 

Of course it did, jeepers creepers. It is the guts of what puts him into the top 100 heavyweights of all time. Do you think he would have made this list if he never fought Holmes? Do you think he would have been the lineal heavyweight champ and Ring rated #1 if he never fought Holmes?

This is kindergarten level.

I'd accept him as prime and performing at a very high level from Ali to Ali III maybe. I believe it's on record that the disputed loss in the last Ali fight took something from him that he never got back.

Playing devil's advocate, others might say, well second career Ali was never again near as good as he was against Foreman (this is supported by Eddie Futch) so Norton's performance against a diminished Ali in their last fight shows that he too had lost something. Perhaps the Norton of 73 might have done even better. Like Holmes he was still a good fighter as he tapered off and didn't just fall off the cliff.

Oh dear

Read up on some boxing history. As Perry was fond of saying........study up!!!!!!!

It's blatantly on record he was physically better and before either fight at that.

Study up on boxing history......with both eyes open. It's all there.

 

That’s not what I was saying.

I think that any guy to beat an ageing long serving champion wasn’t going to get the credit for that alone. He has to do something else.

where was Norton going to go after beating Ali for the title?

Straight into Shavers or Holmes. That’s where.

I am long aware of the what’s on record and what Jack Blackburn said. Established “opinion” was that Louis had an off night. But it’s only an opinion.

The film shows Louis starting off as good as ever until he was first hurt by Schmeling.

Had Louis won before that point, say had he tagged a momentarily less aware Schmeling with one of the exact same punches from exactly the same performance he used that night, and knocked Max out, then what then?

it s blatantly obvious it would have went down as good a win as any other “Joe Louis win” he’d had so far.

 

I'm not sure anyone knows what you are saying. Round and round you go.

Trouble is it's not "opinion" so you aren't aware at all. Not even a little.

 

But but...I thought you liked, & repeatedly commented & laughed about my surreal thread about essentially mutant & zombie Ali & Tyson's.
Someone could be Stephen Hawking & Einstein combined & just love musing on strange & amusing creative matchmaking.
You should be intelligent enough to realize storytelling & mirth can express, but do not delimit, practical or abstract intelligence.

So you were completely insincere in your appreciation there?
And thought I would not see this thread?

 

These are threads that were constantly being done before your thread. Your thread was an original, I appreciated your thread, it had originality, those others were constantly being done Buddy.

 

I'd favour Schmeling