Supposing Ken Norton came along ten years later than he did..?

I think Tubbs, Witherspoon, Page, Dokes, Weaver, and maybe Thomas, would be even-money to beat him. I wouldn't write off Berbick readily either.

But what Norton had over them was he was always in-shape. Half of the above names were not. So he'd do well.

 

He does well until Tyson comes along. I imagine he would be Holmes' successor and although he could be upset by one of the early 1980's heavies, he could always take them in rematches because the likes of Tubbs, Witherspoon, Page, Dokes rarely kept themselves in shape. Tyson takes the title off him in brutal fashion though.

 

Ken would need to watch out for the various land mines littering the heavyweight field in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Naturally, he'd have to avoid Cooney and Shavers. Sims, Mercado and Larry Frazier all had the power to spring an upset. He managed to avoid Lyle during the 1970s, and would best stay away from Ron in a later situation as well. Coetzee's bionic right could spell disaster for him, and Knoetze is another slugger to watch out for on the way up. John Tate could be taken out by Kenny, but Big John also had the size, stamina and physical strength to completely smother Norton for 15 rounds, as he nearly did to Weaver.

I don't see him beating a healthy Holmes with greater experience. Larry should have had their 1978 showdown clinched after ten rounds, and I think he similarly outboxes Ken at any time prior to 1985, unless Norton catches him in the depleted state Witherspoon got him in. (This brings up another question. Does Kenny compete for the title over 12 or 15 rounds?)

Norton does not topple Holmes in my opinion, but he could snag a secondary alphabet championship.

Boxers like Page, Dokes and Tubbs would be Norton's preferred targets, and Ken could effectively neutralize the jab of Pinklon Thomas as well. Tucker could also be cleanly decisioned by Norton. There are plenty of top heavyweights Kenny could defeat during this era, but the matchmaking has to be shrewd and calculated to favor his strengths and abilities.

As I see it, Norton was always going to be a better contender than champion. He could give stylists hell, but sluggers generally demolished him. He simply didn't have the adaptability to become a great champion with multiple title defenses. Even Weaver was able to defeat Tate, Coetzee (who I think knocks Norton out), Williams, Tillis and LeDoux. (And everybody I've spoken to who saw it strongly believes Hercules was robbed in both matches with Dokes. Weaver may not have gone on to win that first bout, but thanks to the paranoia of Joey Curtis, we'll never know if Weaver would have rallied as he did against Coetzee.)

 

I think he would have been one of the division's top fighters, but it would have also depended greatly on how he was matched. A man with Norton's abilities, stylistic attributes and devotion to top conditioning, would have made him a problem for a lot of heavyweights between 1982-1985. An aging Holmes might well have lost to a prime Norton under these circumstances.. In fact, it would be reasonable to favor Ken.. Other boxers like Tony Tubbs or even boxer/punchers like Greg Page would have probably lost to him.. Witherspoon is questionable... Neither Norton or Witherspoon ever faced someone with the other's style..Tim had a hard punch, but nothing like the men who sparked Norton. He won most of his best fights by decision and often showed up either half motivated or on the deconditioned side... I might pick Ken to take it by a narrow marging... Dito with Dokes.. Other contenders like Tillis, Williams, and Snipes would be good wins for Norton.. Weaver, Shavers, Cooney, Bruno, and eventually Tyson are the main ones that I'd keep him away from for as long as I could..