Who Hit harder Ken Norton or Jersey Joe Walcott?

ofcourse a great smaller fighter is gonna beat a big heavy bum but norton wasn't fighting 200+ pound bums like walcott / archie moore. he was fighting the likes of ali, holmes, quarry etc. i've seen what patterson did to small great heavies like archie moore.

 

an old louis - gimme a break. that wasn't joe louis like that wasn't the same ali who lost to leon spinks. re marciano - getting mixed up with the 2 threads LOL. Walcott fought a much better version of Louis.

 

I don't think that Walcott floors Young, Ali or Holmes. I also think that you're hiding behind ring ratings and all time standings, when you know as well as I do that they don't necessarily reflect a fighter's actual physical abilities when compared to a lesser rated fighter of a stronger era.

It is reasonable to say that Walcott was superior to Norton from a technical punching standpoint as well as acheiving what he did given what he had to work with. But, that is clearly not your position here. Your thread was designed to determine who ACTUALLY HIT HARDER, and the facts simply don't support that it was Walcott. A 45% KO percentage against men who were generally between 175-195 lbs and rather extensive histories of being KO'd themselves, does not size up well to a career consisting of a 66% KO percentage against fighters who averaged between 195-250, and during an era where comp was generally considered as superior.....

Your examples of Walcott flooring ( and still losing ) to a past prime Louis along with ring ratings does not bolster a very strong argument. Do you think that ring ratings are the be all end all? The publication was founded by one of the most selectively biased historians in the sports history. I don't care what the ring rated a man in 1950.. Even a shot Quarry who had fallen from the ratings in the mid 70's would have had my vote to be a top rater when being among peers like Don Cockell Roland Lastarza and several others that I can think of..

 

Walcott hit harder.

 

People keep pointing to the Quarry fight to illustrate Norton's power.

Quarry's best weight was around 195. He really was a bloated up cruiserweight, and not only that his punch resistance was gone (see his previous fight with Frazier). Norton plastered him at will and couldn't put him down once, only stopped him on cuts.

Norton was always known as a solid, heavy puncher, but with the exception perhaps of the Bobick fight, he seldom showed explosive one-shot power that Walcott was known for, no matter who he fought or their size.

 

66 percent knockout record against 1970s heavyweights versus 45 percent knockout record against 1940s heavyweights. It would be irrational to select Jersey Joe Walcott.

 

Thread closed.....

...........The End............

 

I don't think YOU realize that the physical dynamics of punching power go a bit beyond mere wins over men who were hall of famers in a dissimilar era. And what evidence do you have to prove that Satterfield hit harder than Norton other than just your having said so?

1. Quarry was not peak when he fought Machen.. He was still a work in progress.

2. I am not maintaining that Quarry head to head would necessarily beat Lastarza, but a better fighter he surely is. Not long before Quarry met Norton, he had gone on streak which included wins over prime versions of Shavers and Lyle. Thats better than what a lot of 50's contenders did.

Here is where you might need to do a little polishing up on your boxing knowledge my man....Oh yes, I know that at 22 years old you think you know everything, but believe me you don't... Quarry was a counter punching genius while Roland was a defensive boxer.. This makes for a very fan displeasing fight, and stylistically an edge for Quarry.. Ellis was nothing like Lastarza.