My top 55 heavyweight punchers

Sorry Sonny's Jab, I screwed up your quote. The following was my reply to your question regarding Killen and Merritts merits;
Killen ko'd durable Patsy Cardiff and had a great punching rep with his peers. He stood 6-1, about 195 pounds. He ko'd allmost everybody he faced in his time, the exceptions been Bill Bradbury, Lem McGregor and Joe McAuliffe. He was boxing at a fringe contender/ good B level eg Duncan McDonald, Joe Lannon, Joe Sheedy, Mervine Thompson. Not many fighters ko'd men as cleanly and as often as he did back in thoes days.
Merritt it is true is partly there by reputation. Aside from Terrell (whom i didn't give Williams much credit for ko'ing!) his other good win is over Stander whom only Smoking Joe had ko'd at that point. He also, if memory serves me right, broke Shaver's jaw in sparring.

 

This is by far the worst list ever, in the history of boxing forum's.

Mike Tyson is 36, but we've got Sullivan at #1.

Please, just sign out and don't come back.:smoke

 

Mendoza, I dont follow your logic. You rate Norton over Walcott because he generally failed to knock down or out fighters who were harder to knock down or out than the fighters that Walcott ACTUALLY knocked down and sometimes out? Am I missing something here?

 

Yes, he doesn't know what he's talking about. I think he's likely just a wind up artist.

 

I already posted a statistical comparison of how often each group was stopped; Norton's group was stopped an average of once in every 30.8 fights, while Walcott was stopped on an average of once every 21.1 fights. Not an enormous gap. The guys you Norton fought were down far fewer total times, but they also had far fewer total fights, far fewer fights against elite opponents, and fought with refererees who were quicker to stop fights- and your claims about groups of fighters having been floored fewer times than a given individual fighter are not accurate.

Ali was down four times, Holmes was down five times, Foreman was down four times, and Quarry was down seven times. That makes 20 knockdowns suffered by that group. To my knowledge, I believe Ray was down 11 times in his recorded career, possibly more if he was dropped multiple times in his early stoppage losses I don't have anecdotal data about, but probably not. Bivins was down about 10 times to my knowledge, possibly more also if he was floored more than once in a couple of his stoppage losses to Moore and Charles, but probably not enough to make 20.

Only Charles was dropped more than that group of fighters, and that is the result of Charles' having been allowed to rise from 15 knockdowns in two early fights and then getting battered a lot as a washed-up journeyman. Marciano was floored less often than anyone on either list, and Walcott still put him down. It is a fact that Walcott consistently displayed power and knocked down elite-level opponents, while Norton never did. Unless one thinks that 1970s heavyweights were made of steel and bullets would bounce of their chests while 1940s and '50s heavyweights were little stick men with china plates for chins, it's just an unavoidable conclusion that Walcott displayed much more power at an elite level than Norton did.

Show me the round, show me the moment- when did Ali's knees sag from a Norton punch? When was Ali ready to go as a result of Norton's offense? I've watched round after round of these two guys in the ring, and I've never seen Norton look as though he's even close to wobbling Ali with a punch.

 

I never said he doesn't know what he is talking about-I think he does. The problem for me is; I dont know what he is talking about!

 

I don't think this requires a huge in depth analysis, nor a heated debate that stretches over 3 days and 35 posts ( you won't get one from me by the way. ) Most of this stuff is pretty much common sense if you're honest about it.

You already said so yourself. Norton fought the more durable opponents, who were also generally quite a bit bigger than the men Walcott fought. In addition they were the product of the 1960's and 70's- a period commonly regarded as a golden age for heavyweights, whereas the 30's and 40's weren't as much. As stated before, Norton KO'd or TKO'd as many as 30 opponents who breached the 200 pound mark, while Walcott only stopped 4 men who climbed to such perameters. If you don't think this holds any significance, then why don't you tell me why divisional guidelines have changed over the last few decades, and why men who are 180 Lbs are no longer considered heavyweights. Personally, I don't have a problem with men of that size getting into the ring with bigger fighters, but apparently the sport of boxing does, and perhaps for good reason. Despite these obvious differences, Norton still managed to score more knockouts in a fewer number of fights. ( kind of a no brainer really. )

As for this claim about Norton failing to stop or floor his best opponents, my response is " so what?" Did Walcott ever manage to break a man's jaw who was as durable as Muhammad Ali? How many guys did Walcott fight who were made like Larry Holmes? Who was the most solid chinned fighter that Walcott ever dusted, and was his chin made like Tex Cobb's? How difficult were some of his opponents to hit, were any of them like Jimmy Young? How many guys like Jerry Quarry did Walcott beat? Sure he Ko'd a 180 lb Ezzard Charles a single time in 4 meetings ( two of which he lost ), and managed to floor a declining Joe Louis. I don't find these things as being particularly convincing when comparing the punching abilities of Ken Norton vs Joe Walcott. I also don't see the relevance in pointing out the fact that Norton did not manage to floor George Foreman. Again, who cares? Foreman was rarely dropped in his career, and in fact destroyed Norton before he got a chance to land much on him. What does this have to do with the guy's ability as a puncher? Thats like saying that because Shavers was KO'd by one of his better opponents in Quarry, that his power and punching ability should be questioned.

 

Yes, it is. Walcott consistently floored and hurt world-class fighters, and Norton never did, in spite of having a much more aggressive style than Walcott.

1. You've no doubt had this explained before, but again, many fighters who naturally weigh in the 180s have competed at heavyweight with success in recent decades; for the most part, it's simply become the practice for them to bulk up to over 200 pounds in order to compete there, no doubt because, admittedly, they are generally facing bigger opposition- that doesn't change the fact that men of that size compete and do so with success.
2. Again, I've already acknowledged that Norton had a higher knockout percentage and fought bigger men than Walcott did; I then proceeded to point out that, although they may have been collectively smaller opponents, a much higher percentage of Walcott's total fights were against world-elite opponents than Norton's fights, Walcott spent a great deal of his career living in poverty and fighting on short notice wihtout training, while Norton was well-managed his entire career, and Walcott was a defensively-oriented fighter, while Norton was an aggressive fighter. With this taken into account, it should be obvious that, all things being equal, Norton would have a considerably higher knockout percentage, even if he didn't hit harder (which he didn't).

"So what?" So nearly all his knockouts, making up the majority of the record you keep citing, were over tomato-can-level opposition, while he didn't produce results against elite opponents in terms of displaying punching power, and Walcott consistently floored and hurt elite-level opponents, even durable ones,

What, do you think Ali was durable because he had super-strong, extra-hard-to-break bones?

How many guys did Norton fight who were made like Marciano? That's kind of a vague, meaningless question. Holmes wasn't impossible to hurt or knock down; Kevin Isaac, Renaldo Snipes, and Earnie Shavers all did it.

It's debatable who Walcott's most durable victim was, but obviously comparing him to Tex Cobb (which would be an admittedly unfavorable comparison) is a moot point, since Norton didn't "dust" Cobb, or any other high-ranking heavyweight with upper-level durability, either. A more apt comparison would be which of these two fighters (Walcott and Norton) "dusted" the more durable opponent- the best opponent Norton "dusted" was Bobick, who had a glass jaw by world-class standards and was blown out by an obscure journeyman shortly thereafter. Walcott at least "dusted" Harold Johnson and Ezzard Charles, both of whom had chins reliable enough in their primes to stand up to numerous deadly punchers round after round and fight after fight.

Bivins, Maxim, Charles, Johnson- these guys were all famed world-class cuties, very hard to hit effectively.

I'm sorry, what do you mean by "like"? Walcott beat a lot of guys who were greater fighters than Quarry, who were stopped less often than Quarry, who were Quarry's size or bigger, etc. This is another vague question meant to draw out an image of a discrepancy that isn't there. Quarry wouldn't be the best name on Walcott's resume.

It is a fact Norton never floored or knocked out anyone nearly as good as those guys. The best way to demonstrate you have high-level power is to knock down and knock out high-level opponents, particularly with one shot the way Walcott did to the likes of Louis and Charles and Marciano. The fact is that this isn't just a bit of incidental background noise; it's a consistent pattern.

It is true that Norton's top opponents were generally better than Walcott's, but they weren't all better than all of Walcott's, and it is true that Norton's top opponents were generallymore durable than Walcott's, but they weren't all more durable than all of Walcott's; and you would have to believe that they were in order to pretend that the gap between these guys' results isn't relevant.

 

All these back and forth stats would be revelent if you were comparing like with like, however you are making a comparison of people that Jersey Joe SUCCEEDED in ko'd or at least knocked down with opponents that Norton FAILED to do either to. Its interesting but going no-where.
I think Walcott should be in but not Ken but both seem borderline calls. I think one criteria should be that an elite puncher knocked-out a similiar elite, near equal opponent at least once. No problem there for Walcott, perhaps Quarry qualifies for Ken.

 

I agree with all of this.
I think it is a valid point that Walcott did not show as much power as the size of his opposition increased, certainly not always the case with big punchers. Here is his record against over 200 lb opposition:

Walcott 14 bouts Won 10 lost 4 ko'd 4--only Tandberg and Shkor among his ko victims were even second tier, although European champion Tandberg suffered his only stoppage to Walcott.

How do some of the other borderline punchers do against over 200 lbers?

Archie Moore---25 bouts Won 23 lost 1 drew 1 ko's 19 including top men Baker and Lavorante (ko % 76%--much better than against general competition)

Ezzard Charles--16 bouts Won 13 lost 3 ko's 7 including Joe Baksi and Coley Wallace (ko percentage 44%-exactly as against general comp--but was 8-1 with 5 ko's against 200 + men through 1954-no evidence power waned against larger opponents)

Bob Satterfield--7 bouts Won 6 lost 1 ko's 5 including Bob Baker, Cleveland Williams and John Holman(2) (ko % 71% far better than against general competition despite this being a tough group-Nino Valdes, Baker, Holman, and Williams were all top five men at one time or another)

Just for fun, what about Ken Norton against less than 200 lb opposition
Ken Norton--10 bouts Won 9 lost 1 ko's 6 (none against ranked opposition--the one ranked fighter under 200 lbs Norton fought, Jose Luis Garcia at 188 lbs, stopped him--ko % 60% slightly below general average of 66%)


conclusion--Moore and Satterfield for certain, and also Charles in my judgement, were bigger punchers than Norton. Walcott is much more of a tight call.

 

While this is a somewhat valid argument, I think you're probably putting too much emphasis on size-of-victims as an ultimate decider for power. Ultimately, it is quality that is important, and even durability certainly doesn't vary directly with size.

Now, in my last couple posts, I've argued heavily in Walcott's favor as compares with Norton- however, I concede that in some areas(pure knockout percentage and knockouts over bigger opponents), Norton did have a better punching record, and I will also concede that Walcott's apparently much-greater capacity for flooring and hurting elite-level opposition was aided by his superior boxing skill to Norton, although noting at the same time that an inverse is true; Norton scoring more general knockouts was aided by his greater aggressiveness. The big question here is what one considers the most important criteria.

I see the same question when it comes to Walcott compared with, say, Moore. Afterall, as you point out, Moore has a veryimpressive knockout record against bigger men in general, much moreso than Walcott's, and even a good deal better than Norton's. However, Moore, like Norton, didn't really deliver in terms of power against the cream of the crop at heavyweight; he had one flash knockdown against Marciano and never floored Ali, Patterson Valdes or Henry.

Walcott, on the other hand, is an opposite situation- he doesn't have a particularly impressive statistical knockout average against more or less any tier of opposition, but, when he fought the cream of the crop, he consistently displayed power in a way in which very few fighters do (Norton and Moore being among the ones who did not at heavyweight). I tend to believe, personally, that this is a stylistic thing; Walcott was criticized throughout his career for a lack of killer instinct and a tendency to let opponents off the hook. He liked to hang back and potshot people, often hurting them or flooring them with some of his jolting counters, but not jumping on them and ending the fight the way someone with more killer instinct would, preferring to continue coasting. Norton and Moore were guys who pressed for the knockout when they thought they could get it, and who poured it on when they had their man hurt. I believe this to be the main reason that they much more consistently knocked out journeymen, but much more seldom hurt and knocked down elite-level heavyweights than Walcott did.