"Two Ton" Tony Galento vs Ken Norton

Here is the problem.

Galento might have been a limited contender, but he was not just a heavy puncher, he was a wrecking ball.

He probably was close to Foreman and Shavers in terms of power than any puncher who Norton had any degree of success against.

 

How close do you think?

 

Norton beats Galento to a pulp and stops him in five or six.

 

Um. No. Galento had a 50 percent KO percentage (he stopped about half the guys he fought). He was hardly a Shavers or Foreman.

Norton destroys him. Galento was wide open for everything.

 

Actually I don't think his ko percentage accurately indicates how hard he hit . I think he lacked the quickness and mobility to score more kos against agile boxer types.Norton could only be effective coming forward,this would suit the slow- footed Galento.An intruiging matchup

 

Yeah, this. I haven't seen much Galento to be honest but he seems to me to be a Sam Peter type ... enormous power but lacking the finesse to actually bring that power to the target. If somebody like Cus d' Amato had gotten hold of Galento ... ouch. Could have been fun times.

 

Perhaps even a 9.5 out of 10, if Foreman was a 10, and Shavers was a 10.5.

 

While I agree with what your're saying, neither Foreman nor Shavers were terribly quick or mobile yet they were able to get the job done against most of their victims, and while also fighting bigger men on average than Galento. I don't think that at 5'9" and with a body composition consisting of more fat than muscle, that Galento would be able to force Norton to fight off the back foot the way that Foreman and Shaver did... And Ken was also 35 years old when he fought Earnie.

 

Foreman and Shavers look like Willie Pep against Galento!
Galento wouldn't want Norton fighting off the back foot, he needs him coming in, his feet would be too slow to chase him. Norton is by far the more skilled and athletic of the two but that applied to many of Galento's opponents.
I haven't made a pick but Tony has a live chance imo.

 

Anytime a fighter who has a decent punch goes up against one who's chin is shaky they always have a chance, so yes. Galento scoring an upset KO isn't out of the question. But I really don't think Galento's power rivaled that of Foreman or Shavers. And Norton's skills, defense, size and conditioning would negate a lot of Tony's offensive maneuvers. If we break down the opposition that Galento fought going into the Louis fight, most of those guys were coming off of terrible runs.

Abe Feldman - had only won 2 of his last 10 fights
Natie Brown - had only won 5 of his last 15 fights
Jorge Brescia - had only won 5 his last 10 and was a novice besides.
Dick Daniels - was on a decent win streak, though I don't know how good he really was
Otis Thomas - Hadn't beaten anyone I've heard of
Harry Thomas - Had won only 5 of his last 10
Nathan Mann - Probably one of the better fighters he beat
Charley Massera - Had only won 4 of his last 15

It should also be noted that in addition to a lot of these men being ring worn from consectutive beatings many of them would have also been relatively small for the heavyweight divisions of the 70's and 80's, and Galento often used dirty tactics to beat them which wouldn't have been tolerated under modern day officiating.. Hell Galento was stopped once by the 168 lbs Al Gainer.

 

Norton defeats Gallento because he was much taller and faster to the wild predictability of Gallento who was 5'9 ,thus he would have to get inside Nortons effective crouching inside stiff jab . Isee Norton stopping Two Ton by 8th round .

 

There are a few here that will solemnly tell you that Marciano's shortness would be a big advantage against Larry Holmes and Muhammad Ali.

 

I am going to have to put my hand up as one of them.

 

In what way does a slow 5'10 have an advantage over 6'3 long range jabbers? The only guy of that stature that makes that work because of speed is Mike Tyson who had a effective jab an excellent counter punching .

 

Agreed Tyson had excellent hand speed.