Norton, not just a paper champ.

Yes i agree, Ken Norton beat Muhammad Ali twice. Even during the third fight, commontators where up Ali's ass, because of his physical shape. I personally think he looked drained as ****ed, and did not look physically strong. His mannerism inside of the ring, gave me this impression.

He did more dancing than Damage during the second fight.

But for sure, i gave the first and third fight to Ken Norton. And so did many other people.......

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOYLRsM4-gI&feature=related[/ame]

 

Norton was a very good fighter, it's a shame that he went just 0-3 in HW World Title Fights despite being the WBC Champ for a short period.

Norton had 3 close fight with Ali but came away with only one win (their first fight, WSD12). Most feel he was robbed in their 3rd fight, LUD15. A case can even be made that he could have won the 2nd fight, LSD12.

He won a close decision vs. Young, WSD15, that could have gone either way.

A case can be made that he beat Holmes, LSD15... the fact remains he lost by split-decision.

Add these fights up and he went 2-3 but a case can be made that he should have went 5-0. No clear-cut winner in any of these fights to be honest... 4 split-decisions and the one that wasn't was the 3rd fight with Ali.

Let's look at Jimmy Young. Young lost a questionable decision to Ali and beat Foreman. A win over Jimmy Young was huge at this point, Norton got that win and it meant something... even if it was close.

Now, consider the fact that Norton was robbed vs. Ali in '76 (that's what most people think) and look at his record after the Foreman loss in early 1974.

After Foreman he stopped B. Kirkman KO7, J. Quarry KO5, J.L. Garcia KO5 (avenging a previous loss), R. Stander KO5, L. Middleton KO10, D. Bobick KO1, and L. Zanon KO5 among others.

For a short period in time Norton was considered the best HW in the World by a lot of people... that's because Foreman had retired though.

 

Norton was an extremely tough match up in his prime for the vast majority of heavyweights that ever lived ... UNless you were a monster puncher like a Foreman or Shavers he could be hell .. however the rub comes in the huge gap between a prime Foreman and a 33 year old Shavers ... Norton should have beaten that Earnie but the way he froze up and got taken out by this one dimensional fighter puts a huge question mark next to his name whenever he is matched up against any form of puncher ..

That being said from the time he was robbed against Ali in Yankee Stadium till he lost to Holmes in 78, a two year window, Norton deserved to be recognized as world champ and would have ben the linear champ if he was not so shamelessly ducked and manipulated ...

 

By no means am I saying he was shot against Shavers .. I'm saying that the way he froze up and got taken out shows a fundamental flaw in his abiiities that could likely be exploited against many major punchers ....

 

I don't think Marciano was on the level of power of Tyson, Foreman, Shavers etc...

Marciano had Joe Frazier type of power......

Which still may have been enough to spark Ken Norton.

I wonder how Ken Norton vs Joe Fraizer would of went...?

 

Ring magazine, May 1981

The "worst" heavyweight champions

The "worst" heavyweight champions

John Tate (WBA, 1979-80 ) 19.5
Primo Carnera (1933-34 ) 14
Marvin Hart (1905-06 ) 8
Leon Spinks (1978 ) 8
Ken Norton (WBC, 1978 ) 4
Ingemar Johansson (1959-60 ) 3.5
Jimmy Ellis (WBA, 1968-70 ) 2
Ernie Terrell (WBA, 1965-67 ) 1
Jess Willard (1915-19 ) 1

 

144-141 is a decent scorecard. Norton definitely deserved to beat Ali in Yankee Stadium and should have been legit champ, although I think the boxing authorities may well have made him defend against the #1 contender almost immediately, which was Foreman- who I fancy would have KO'd him again.

If Ali demanded a 4th fight right away then the title could have been split 18 months earlier than it was.

 

Norton doesn't belong on that worst champions list...he'd have crushed most of those guys.

 

It's more a reference to the tenure, rather than their respective abilities, so therefore Norton was hardly a great 'champ' as he lost the title as soon as he was given it.

 

Hm, I think it´s a strange case with Norton. He certainly was a very good fighter but at the same time he was a bit limited in a way. He had a tremendous style to beat boxers but at the same time was very vulnerable to punchers. Very hard to rate h2h due to that and get´s perhaps a bit sold short there most of the time. On the other hand he get´s a bit too much credit for having close fights with a past-prime Ali and thus elevated to heights he IMO doesn´t belong.

Vey good, borderline great fighter but not Top25 and perhaps not even Top30.