Who Hit harder Ken Norton or Jersey Joe Walcott?

Who cares what he said. I'd be more impressed if it was Ali that Walcott had nailed and the testimony went like this " no man has ever done that to my jaw before. I couldn't eat nothin' or kiss nobody for a month "

 

Do you have any idea how many times I sat back and watched your credibility get shot strait to hell, and by multiple posters? The concensus of this board is that you have a well established history of applying double standards, half truths, botched facts, and flat out lies.. Its a miracle anyone even wastes their time responding to you anymore.. You're also borderline illiterate. Sorry, but I'm just expressing what I see.

 

It's funny how Norton's faulted for not knocking Ali out or some such. Frazier had the guy down once in three fights and no one's faulting Joe as not being a great puncher.

Ali was one of the hardest to touch fighters of all time, and when you DID manage to hit him the guys chin was still ****ing cosmically tough.

Anyway, even watching a ancient Norton hit Cobb you can tell the guy could bang. Sure looked to me that his punches had more affect on Cobb then, say, Holmes did over 15.

 

That's really over the top. You're better than that Suzie.

 

suzy that is harsh this is the Classic section not the GF

 

Walcott is the harder puncher p4p, and the overall better puncher at heavyweight. For pure power at heavyweight Norton could have an edge, but Walcott was more effective due to his accuracy and sneakiness. He could land pinpoint power punches on guys and they had no idea it was coming, these are the kinds if punches that do the most damage. Norton didn't really have this ability.

 

Suzie ,your comments on Mr Magoo's wife are totally unacceptable and out of order,I thought better of you,insult each other as much as you like ,but you went beyond it .I know you are young and impulsive,passionate about your boxing but the vitriol you spewed out there was a disgrace you should apologise.

 

He's very passionate about 1950's heavyweight boxing. I remember when I once called a a guy's mom a ***** on a message board because he thought the Dawn of the Dead remake was better than the original. Not that I'm condoning going on hate filled tirades against people and their loved ones over a difference of opinion, just saying that the remake was so much not better than the original that it's just ludicrous to say otherwise. I'm actually more with Suzie on the main thread topic, more so than Magoo. That being said, they're both usually wrong about most of the things they say. To make a long story short, as the drugs kicked in I lost interest.

 

Good data.

I think Norton hit a little harder. Walcott was more likley to land the perfect shot. Lets us not confuse the two.

Holmes who fought many hard punchers said Norton hit on Shavers level.

Also the 40's and 50's had lighter gloves.

 

Its sad to see the Classic Forum degenerate into a slanging match that would be embarrassing in the General Forum..

I feel for Suzie, because it is obvious that he has made a huge effort to contribute rare material, articles and videos, as well as his own research and conclusions to the board.

Of course, this doesn't mean he is right with every conclusion he makes, but someone who contributes so much time and effort to the board should not be dismissed with a "You're full of ****" as he was on another thread recently. "I think you're wrong in this instance, Suzie" would suffice.

Magoo was wrong and disrespectful in the way he provoked Suzie ("The consensus of this board is" [that you are crap as a poster]....what a spiteful and unjustified thing to say).

But Suzie, your response went way over the top. Bringing somebodies family and physical threats into it? C'mon Suzie, you're better than that. You were badly out of line with everything after the first paragraph of your post.

Lets try to keep the Classic Forum for exchanging knowledge and opinions on Classic boxers. I don't post much here, but I enjoy reading the posts of you guys who are much more knowledgeable than me. I'm sure there are a lot of people like me who enjoy reading this board for the knowledge and passion about boxing that it can offer. Let's keep it a cool place to visit.:good

 

This content is protected

 

Apparently he's not.

 

There is no need to get so nasty here. I I repeat again and again, the rep this board has through out the internet community is that there is a bunch of hot headed, childish assholes here and that is why so many great posters do not show up. It is a shame since there are many knowledgable guys here and the board is very active. There should be some form of decency here, some mutual respect and the ability to agree to disagree ...

That being said, both guys could hit. Walcott was a poor finisher but hit hard enough to drop Louis three times, Marciano once and ice Charles ... Norton was a very hard puncher. Anyone who followed his career knows this . He hurt Ali on several occassions, he rocked the iron chinned Quarry,he rocked Holmes ... the man could definately swat ...

I say they were about the same.