I think norton was a great contender. he had a good style, was strong and a good puncher, he came along when there were a lot of great heavyweighhts but IMO he did not posses the same edge as the other champions. He beat ali but they were all very close fights. Tommy farr gave joe Louis a close fight, jimmy bivins gave charles a close fight and laughran beat max baer too. I dont think it fair to say norton was an ATG or that he could have been a linear champion in another era. As exciting as the 1970s were I think it benefited from the free colour tv generation and largly from the fact that Ali (essentially a 1960s fighter) had slowed enough to be in competative fights. I think after the final frazier fight ali was a weak (albeit experienced) champion ripe for the picking. Norton should have dominated that version of ali but muhammad conned and bluffed him into keeping it much too close. Norton was a great fighter, just not an all time great.
Knockout losses to Garcia, Foreman, Shavers and Cooney are devastating to his legacy. He failed to stop an unprepared and out of shape Ali with a fractured jaw over the last ten rounds of their first fight, followed Muhammad around for the first several rounds while letting a retreating Ali do all the punching in their second fight, failed to get the job done in their Yankee Stadium rubber match against a badly faded post Manila GOAT, and got dominated over the first ten against Holmes. The limited Shavers and Cooney would have easily become champions at his expense, and Foreman would have quickly regained the title if Ken had dethroned Ali in their third bout. (Big George impressively stopped big undefeated cutie Dino Denis in four shortly after Ali-Norton III, and that was probably his best performance between Ali and Young.) After Ali-Norton III, Muhammad won at least one title defense Ken could never have survived in turning Shavers back. Norton could never have become much more than a one and done transitional champion at any time in his career. Shavers, Foreman, Lyle, Cooney and Coetzee would have always had too much firepower for him to cope with. He's destined to be remembered as the only heavyweight champion to never win a title fight. He was very good, but absolutely not great, and no, I do not buy him as a hall of famer.
Could have used a stronger chin. But in all fairness, guys like Shavers, Foreman, and Cooney destroyed a lot of good and great fighters. I would have liked to see Norton get in there with Frazier. Norton had a style that was great for some fighters, and not so great with others.
He was great against slicsters and defensive specialists. Perhaps one of the best of all time at nulifying this stype of fighter. Also, I think that he would almost certainly have become a lineal champion if people had not been able to sidestep him at crucial points in his career. There was a verry short period where he probably was the best heavyweight on the planet.
good but not great. but he should really shut his mouth about beating Ali. he only beat him once in my opinion even if the third fight was extra close.
well, at least Ali could back up his trash talking, Norton couldn't that's the difference. But at times I think that he shouldn't have said the things that he said.
I want to say great but I can't. His losses to punchers, and the way they occurred were devastating. Thus, I will call him very good. But going 2/3 with Ali and going toe to toe in a war with a young Holmes is top notch stuff. No doubt. He's up and down. When he's great he's great, but when he's not he isn't. And this is a style thing, therefore very good seems better. To be great, you have to be great against all fighters and styles.
Came along in a very strong era of heavyweight boxing. I'd rate him just a notch below Ali,Frazier,Foreman and Holmes. Ken was a very good fighter,though.
He was a great fighter with a shaky chin ... it only failed him against huge bombers but the way he froze up goes a bit deeper ...
