Very good or great? Volume 1: Ken Norton

Very very true. The Ali of their second fight was awesome. At that point,it was the best form that Muhammad hadproduced since before his lay off,and Norton still pushed him all the way.

 

if i had to pick the #4 of his time i would think of Shavers , Bonavena , Jimmy Young or Ron Lyle maybe even Chuvalo . Norton is an option as well but far from a lock. they achieved just as much as norton did except norton did better against ali.
picking the #4 of that era is very hard and close .
and anyway the #4 of that overrated is below great.
the great thing about that era , except its 3 greatest hws was , that all of its elite fought each other and it makes that era interesting to judge.
anyway , call it great or very good , he is not a top15 for sure in my list.
if i will think more about it , i believe he won't make the top20 either.

 

Foreman's dethroning of Frazier was a stunning outcome for many. By the time Norton got his first title shot though, Big George was much more of a known quantity. Foreman had the element of surprise going for him in Kingston. Ken had a far better idea of what he was facing in Caracas, yet failed to improve much on Joe's showing. Foreman-Norton is therefore very disturbing to me. This was a primed and fully prepared Norton, and he got crushed. There is nothing in his career to suggest he ever could have done better against Shavers, Cooney, Lyle, or Foreman in a rematch. Caracas was for all the marbles, and he choked horribly.

Why did he not let his fists go during the first several rounds of Ali II? How could he let Holmes dominate over the first ten rounds in a situation where he understood and expressed the realization that, "I need a big win," going in? How was it that a post Manila Ali could be so competitive over the championship distance in Yankee Stadium that he'd be awarded the only UD in their series, even though he spent so much time flatfooted going toe to toe?

To his eternal credit, Leon Spinks went out and seized the title in February 1978. In the final analysis, Ken was never really able to do this when the heat was on. (Leon's other big heavyweight win was his stoppage of big and powerful Bernardo Mercado, somebody else who Norton would not have been able to cope with.)

 

Yes,Leon Spinks seized the title in '78,but over a more shopworn Ali than the man who Norton faced.

 

That’s a fair comment, I think there are better comparisons like joey maxim and tommy laughran who each beat 2 HW champions. Philidelphia jack also beat 2 heavyweight champions and in title fights drew with both jack Johnson and tommy burns.

 

Ken Norton was a very good fighter, who losses drop him a bit.But he did score with Pam Grier in film, so he gets an extra credit.

 

Actually Norton was having many "out of the ring" problems leading up to his fight vs. Foreman. He went thru the motions during training and had no clue on how he was going to fight Foreman... it showed. Maybe he would have done better in a rematch vs. Foreman, maybe not? Who cares? Foreman is an all-time top 5 HW IMO. IMO, Norton is top 20.

As for Shavers and Cooney? I think that they would have always been tough to beat for Norton. I do believe that a prime Norton would beat them more times than not though. Maybe 2 out of 3?

A fight with Lyle would have been great. Lyle did lose to Quarry, Young, and Ali though... Norton beat all 3 of these men. Lyle was stopped in 1 by Cooney in 1980. Cooney did the same to Norton in 1981.

Some people assume Frazier and even Lyle were better than Norton but I'm not convinced. Norton and Frazier gave each other hell in the gym... sometimes Frazier got the best of Norton, sometimes Norton got the best of Frazier.

 

What kind of problems?

 

Buster Douglas had some hideous distractions before Tyson, as did Mike Spinks before Qawi. Both turned in outstanding performances. Sometimes, greatness, even if momentary, entails succeeding through such adversity. Foreman trashed him AFTER Norton read "Think and Grow Rich." (I'm glad Napoleon Hill didn't live to see that.) The bottom line is that Ken did not ever prove he could succeed against an established and primed bomber.

His first career defeat was an upset knockout loss to an opponent with the dimensions of Bob Foster. Think about that. Bob Foster was 188 for Frazier, but being an inch shorter than Garcia, Bob was actually a little more solidly built for Smoke! Garcia didn't do it with a single lucky shot either, but dropped Norton three times, and nearly put him down on two other occasions. Yes, Cooper was just 185 when he decked a still maturing Clay, but that was only a single shot, not a multiple flooring beat down. Whenever Ken got stopped, he got badly thrashed, whether in 1970 at age 26 (Garcia), 1974 at age 30 (Foreman), 1979 at age 35 (Shavers), or 1981 at age 37 (Cooney). Ali could be hurt or dropped before he matured physically to full strength, but Norton was already 26 when it happened to him for the first time. Can all of Ken's stoppage defeats be dismissed as anomalies? Looks more to me like a career long pattern.

 

This content is protected

 

Ken was just verging on greatness. A lot may say that as Joe Frazier had a similar record when it came to fights with Muhammad Ali and George Foreman,Ken was entitled to be looked upon as a great like Frazier was. The only thing that splits them,is that Frazier would never have lost to Jose Luis Garcia. If this had n't have come to pass,Norton would have been a ring great.

 

Norton wasn't ready for Garcia the first time around, but avenged the defeat. Norton was well past his prime when the KO loss to Cooney happened. Neither KO loss is that damaging. Many HOF fighters have been KO'd more than 4 times.

Here's the truth, Norton is 2-1 va Ali on fair score cards! And if you take Ali out of the picture Norton's resume of wins is comparable to Frazier.

 

he was more then good but comes short of being an ATG. he had his shortcomings and had the bad luck of fighting in an era with so much great HW. but a very good fighter. who would dominate todays HW

 

Great for me. As said earlier in the thread he could easily have been 4-0 against Ali & Holmes - or at least 3-1.

The 2 things generally held against Kenny was that he never won a HW title fight and that he didn't like punchers - well, I and many others felt he beat Ali in '76. Had he been given the decision he probably would have reigned until he met Holmes and his legacy would have been that of a good, solid worthy world champion.

The problems referred to in the Foreman fight - well, he received death threats against his parents the day before the fight - enough to take most peoples' minds off the fight I believe.

Regarding punchers - he did no worse than Frazier vs Foreman, and the Shavers & Cooney losses took place when he was past it.

Whose to say he would have lost against Lyle? Lyle seems to have become a greater fighter on Classic since he retired! - AT THE TIME, I doubt many would have rated Ron above Norton...look at the world ratings at the time as evidence!

Mercado? Kenny was leagues above, I believe.

If people only consider Kenny Norton "very good", for me that typifies his career - the close ones never seemed to go his way!

 

Good post... but I'm not as hard on him. True, the loss to Garcia looks bad but it was only his 17th pro fight. He had not yet peaked. He had not yet fought a decent fighter. He had never been past the 9th round. He had only been past the 8th round once. he had only been past the 7th round twice. He was fighting near home and thought he would easily beat Garcia in front of his fans.

Remember when Holyfield fought Cooper in his own backyard? Yes, Holyfield was able to win though.

It's not like Garcia stopped him early or with one punch, it was an 8th round stoppage. Norton had turned pro in November of 1967, this fight was in July of 1970 and he was 16-0 (15). He would get better. He did stop Garcia in 5 in 1975.

He won his next 14 (8 by KO) including a SD win over Ali for the NABF belt in 1973. He lost a SD to Ali later that year. They fought again in 1976 many people feel that Norton won the fight even though Ali got the nod.

He was stopped in 2 by Foreman after the 1st loss to Ali. Norton didn't really have a fight plan and was going thru a lot of problems outside of the ring... that's bad when your facing a prime Foreman. I doubt Norton could have ever beat Foreman but he may have been able to do better in a rematch. Frazier was also stopped in 2 by Foreman but managed to last into the 5th of their rematch.

After Foreman, Norton went 7-0 (7) including wins over Kirkman KO7, Garcia KO5, and Quarry KO5. Next up was the 1976 loss to Ali for the HW World Title.

A 4th fight with Ali was talked about but I doubt Ali wanted it. Norton went on to beat Bobick KO1, Zanon KO5, and Young WSD15 for a #1 WBC ranking.

Norton was proclaimed WBC Champ when L. Spinks would not defend against him.

Norton's 1st defense was vs. Larry Holmes. The fight was great and the decision was split. Holmes got the nod. It was pretty much over for Norton after this. He was 35 years old. He had gone 40-5 (32) overall with 2 KO losses. He was 0-3 in World Title Fights despite being the WBC Champ... bad 2nd round KO loss to Foreman in '74, B.S. loss to Ali in '76, and SD loss to Holmes in '78.

Here's the thing with Norton... he went just 1-3 vs. Ali and Holmes but a case can be made that he should be 4-0 vs. these two all-time greats. Ali and Holmes are #1 and #2 on many lists. Add in his wins over Quarry KO5 and Young W15. Add in the loss to Foreman... and a case can be made that he went 6-1 (1) vs. some of the best HWs of the 70's.

Another thing... Norton did as well if not better vs. Ali than Frazier IMO. They both did shltty vs. Foreman. They both stopped Quarry They used to spar and sometimes Norton was better, sometimes Frazier was better. Why is Frazier considered so much better? I know Frazier went 10-2 in World Title fights and undefeated thru his first 30 but Norton could have most likely beat all of the people Frazier defeated. I see people putting Frazier above Foreman, WTF? I'm a big Frazier fan but I'm not blind.

Ok, we need to talk about post Holmes... he went 2-2-1 (1) and was stopped in 1 by Shavers and in 1 by Cooney. He stopped Randy Stephens, struggled to a SD win over Tex Cobb, and was dropped twice by Scott LeDoux in a 10 round draw. So, would Shavers and Cooney have been able to beat the crap out of a prime Norton? That's the big question isn't it? Well, I will say this... Norton was definately past prime vs. these guys. He was almost 36 and almost 38 and a veteran of nearly 50 pro fights... some of those vs. the best HWs who ever lived. I wonder how Frazier (a 37 pro fight veteran) would have done vs. those guys at that point? He was lucky to get a draw with Jumbo Cummings in 1981.

Great? If not, he's damn close!:bbb