trevor berbick 81 vs ken norton 73-74

Ken takes it over the distance. Too strong for Berbick and had better all round boxing skills.

 

I don't believe Ken was nearly as strong as his musculature made him look, or as hard a puncher as Ali's fractured jaw [which Muhammad played up to the hilt for their second bout] and the Berbick anomaly might suggest, but Trevor didn't have the power to hurt him, nor the skills to compete on an even level over the distance.

This could well be a shutout win for Norton on the cards.

For me, the main intrigue would be how the movement in the ring looks. I do think Berbick was physically stronger than Ken [as Cobb and Foreman were]. Do they square off in mid ring, or does Norton go back to counter off the ropes? Ken didn't box very well while backing up [Foreman], but he could look pretty good once against the ropes [Cobb, Jerry Quarry]. Either way, Norton dominates the scoring.

Check out the first several rounds of Norton-LeDoux. Ken batters Scott repeatedly with multiple hooks to the body and administers a boxing lesson, even while aged and fading. He didn't really have much of a straight right, and had to reposition himself to unload his fine right uppercut, but he wouldn't need to here. His jab, hook and overhand right were executed with better hand speed and technique than any punch in Trevor's arsenal. From long range, his jab would place Berbick at a serious disadvantage, while his superior body punching would carry him on the inside. Trevor was a competent infighter, but Ken served his apprenticeship sparring with peak Frazier in Philly gym wars.

 

I actually think Berbick was physically stronger than Norton. Trevor was built like a truck at his peak. But like the rest of you, Norton was more skillful. Still, because of their styles, I see a fairly hotly contested battle, with Norton edging it, about 7 rounds to 4 with 1 even. 15 rounds, I think it's Ken's 9-6.