Who Hit harder Ken Norton or Jersey Joe Walcott?

I would say that this is a borderline bannable offense here. But, I'm not even going to get upset about it, cosidering the source. You just made my ignore list.
You have a lot of growing up to do son...........

 

With all due respect, the conflict began with this :

While I admit that a long day at work and a snooty remark led to an overreaction on my part, I am quite comfortable with the notion that my comments did not warrant what later followed.

 

they didnt warrent that assualt but just leave it now if SuzyQ is man enought to apoligise he is if not just leave it this isnt the GF

 

Agreed mate,

Thanks:good

 

no probs

now lets get back to the original debate who hit harder Norton or Walcott

 

I am going to simplify my position by saying this:

Joe Walcott was a better technical puncher than Ken Norton was, but if we're talking about raw power, it's not very cut and dry as to who actually hit harder.

Jersey was probably more accurate and threw cleaner crisper shots, but I think Norton's track record at stopping bigger heavyweights, indicates that his blows may have been a tad heavier..

 

There is no justification for Suzie's personal insults against you. As I said, it was way out of line, and I think out of character for him.

I will defend Suzie as a great contributor to this forum, I have learnt a lot from his posts.

It is to your credit that you admit that you overreacted and were unfair to Suzie. I think we should try and restrict our weapons on this forum to sound reasoning and knowledgable debate. There are plenty of good brains on this forum, and it is a shame to see them wasted in foolish squabbling.

 

Norton couldn't knock out Ali, Foreman, Holmes, or Young. Does anybody believe Walcott could? Walcott might survive a prime Young, but he isn't knocking him out. He would be overwhelmed by the others.

Norton should have been so lucky as to be facing natural light heavyweights like Charles and Johnson at the height of his career. Or small cruiserweights like Marciano, for that matter. You would be regarding him as an all-time great. Norton would have been king in the 1940s.

Charles weighed 182 lbs when he was knocked out by Walcott. Walcott outweighed him by 12 lbs. Norton would have outweighed him by probably more than 30 lbs, towering over him at 6'3", with the skills that gave Ali and Holmes, arguably the two greatest heavyweights ever, fits.

Yet, despite facing opponents who were routinely smaller than he was (which is significant, given that Walcott was not a big heavyweight), and who were far less durable than the cream of the 1970s crop, Walcott couldn't even manage to knock out half of his opposition. That's right, his knockout percentage was only 45 percent.

Walcott was not only not a harder puncher than Norton, but he wasn't much of puncher compared to many top heavyweights. Walcott's punching power, much like his boxing skill, are exaggerations by people trying to glorify the 1940s and a Cinderella boxer.

Look, the man lost a quarter of his fights and was knocked out six times. He fought in eight title fights in one of the division's weakest eras, and could only manage to win two of them, one of those a gift by judges who liked him, and those were against a natural light heavyweight.

Likewise, Walcott's reputation is a gift by those who like him. It's not an objective assessment. It's a sentimental one. It's patently ridiculous.

 

I don't know that I agree that Norton would have been king in the 1940's, but there are plenty of other points that are definately valid here.

 

Louis was ready to be taken by a heavyweight of Norton's caliber. Charles was too small to deal with Norton's combination of size, talent, and power. Walcott wasn't good enough to beat Norton. Some might consider Marciano to have the best chance, but I don't think so. I believe Marciano is overrated. He beat Louis, Charles, and Walcott at the end of their careers.

 

One point that the pro-Norton posters are running with is that he knocked out bigger men (over 200 lbs) and is thus supposed to be more impresseive.

1. Historically, What is the evidence that men above 200 lbs are more difficult to knock out. I think there is none at all. Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Moore, Satterfield, etc, all had better ko percentages against bigger men. Was Fulton harder to ko than Miske or Tommy Gibbons? Was Carnera harder to ko than Uzcudun? Simon than Pastor? Stribling and Maxim were about as difficult to knock out as anyone. So was Risko.

2. The argument will probably be made that the sixties and seventies were different and the big men better and harder to ko. Well let's look at Norton opponent Jerry Quarry who fought quite a few fights with both above and below 200 lb opponents.

Quarry's record against men below 200 lbs:

Won 23-----lost 3-----drew 1-----ko 12-----ko by 0-----Ko%-44%

Quarry's record against men above 200 lbs:

Won 30-----lost 6-----drew 3-----ko 20-----ko by 6-----ko%-51%

As is usually the case, the ko percentage is actually higher against the big guys. Why? As any hunter will tell you, it is a lot harder to hit a moving target. Also, the big guys on the average don't have the stamina of their smaller opponents. And there is no evidence at all that they take a punch better.

Interestingly, Quarry has a lower ko percentage against sub-200 lbers despite the fact that most of his higher rated opponents were over 200 lbs--including his victims Spencer, Mathis, Foster, Lyle, and Shavers. The only top fighters under 200 lbs he fought were Patterson, Machen, and Ellis. He went 1-2-1, with a controversial draw and victory over Patterson, and losses to Machen and Ellis.

What about Norton against under 200 lbers. He was 8 of 9 with 6 knockouts. Jose Luis Garcia, who had lost to Vicente Rondon and been stopped by Allan Thomas at lightheavy, had puffed up to 188 when he ko'd Norton. Norton was 34-6-1 with 27 ko's against over 200 lb men. His ko percentages against the big and little men is a wash, although his opposition above 200 lbs was much higher rated.

 

Norton was never going to take Louis ... Louis would have iced him early ... I do respect the spirit of men having the balls to make peace ... too much talent here to act like a bunch of assho-es ...

 

"Norton should have been so lucky as to face natural lightheavies and cruiserweights"

Considering what Jose Luis Garcia did to him when at 188, that might be a dubious point. The lighter men on the whole will be quicker and better at putting combinations together. That would not be a good thing for the weak-jawed Norton and he might have found it difficult to protect his chin against quicker, more sustained attacks.

"Walcott's reputation is a gift by those who like him"

A lot of people seem to like him. The AP end of the century poll of experts voted in the top ten heavyweights of the 20th century. He is usually in the top 20 of most polls.

"Walcott lost 6 of 8 title fights"

What, by the way, was Norton's record in title fights?

 

Norton retired as being 0-3 in world title fights. His win over Jimmy Young was only an eliminator for the WBC, shortly after which he was awarded the vacant WBC title. It should be noted however that while Walcott did manage to win two workd title fights, he was 0-4 in his first four attempts.

 

Walcott is not all that impressive as a puncher. His critics have brought up some good points. However, Norton never scored an impressive ko in my judgement. Quarry was going back and obviously out of shape. I don't think Bobick was all that much. He never beat a top man and was blown out early not only by Norton but by Knoetze and Tate. Zanon had a glass jaw. Stander no defense. All these men were stopped rather frequently (Quarry 6 in 66 fights-Stander 9 in 61, etc).

I do think Walcott's ko's of Charles and Johnson are more impressive than anything Norton accomplished.