Who Hit harder Ken Norton or Jersey Joe Walcott?

I think most would agree with this statement, however 2 fights in a career consisting of some 71 matches does not represent much of a trend. Especially when the wins in question are against men who were both 180 lbs and one of whom took Walcott the distance on 3 occasions. I also think that Charles' elusiveness is commonly mistaken for durability when in fact, I think he was just simply very difficult to land flush on.

As for Norton, his power is difficult to gauge. His KO wins as you say, came mainly against mediocre comp while the men who took him the distance were fighters who could have gone to the cards with anyone, ie. ( Ali, Holmes, Young, Cobb, etc. ) I think the extent of his true punching capabilities falls somewhere inbetween.

I think that the main indicators for me are Ali's broken Jaw, and Holmes' testimony of Norton being one of the hardest punchers that he had ever been hit by.. It may not be much, but its at least something. Additionally, 33 Ko's in 42 wins, a 66% Ko ratio, and over fighters who on average were much larger in size, has to count for something as well.

 

"Ali's broken jaw"

Puffed up lightheavy Marty Marshall broke Sonny Liston's jaw. Things like broken jaws could be a freak thing. It is a good point but I don't find it convincing.

The percentage is a better argument, but I posted why I don't think the size of the opposition is definitive by any means. It is one thing to look at, but not the most important by any means. Lightheavies such as Moore and Satterfield actually had far higher knockout percentages against over 200 lb men.

It is tough to judge two such different fighters from eras so far apart. I think most would agree that Walcott really had to stop his opponents. Norton fought in the era of the referee intervening to save a man from punishment. In the tank towns in the thirties in which Walcott was fighting, the referee would probably have let an outright murder go on. This might be a reason Walcott often didn't score a knockout even when he had a man hurt. He was poor and he had a family to support. So did the guys he was fighting. No one wanted someone to get badly hurt.

 

Found this vid thought you guys might find it interesting.
[yt]j0yJB9U9lJA[/yt]

 

Sure.. This all looks good on paper, but we need to discuss who delivered their punches better........... Walcott was a cutie who threw sneaky type of punches..... Walcott had a great left-hook and a sharp right hand.... Walcott was great, however, poorly managed early on in the 1940s......

Ken Norton was a stand up guy who pressed forward dragging that right leg of his... In terms of a jab, Norton had a ram-rod... And Norton also owned a wicked overhand right, too........... But Norton wasn't a cutie or very sneaky..... He was awkward....:hey

So, who punches harder? Hell if I know...... A toss-up..... Walcott had a harder hook, while Norton's jab was stiffer.......:yep

SR.BILL:bbb

 

They hit egually as hard as the other. Neither was feather fisted at all.

 

So are you saying that Walcott was weak in being able to actually connect with a punch? That seems at odds with the claims that he was superb boxer.

See, if he was such a good boxer, and he was a world class puncher, then his ko percentage should be more than significantly less than half. But it isn't. Either that means that he wasn't a world class puncher OR he wasn't very adept at landing punches. Which is it?

 

Here's what Eddie Futch said about Norton:

His second trainer Bill Slayton:

 

I voted for Jersey Joe. :bbb

 

Who talked two-thirds of Norton's victims into laying down for him? How much were they paid? That's impressive.

 

Well a lot of those opponents were pretty much brought there to be knocked out. He had hardly fought a live body until he faced Ali, aside from JL Garcia (who KO'd him) and Henry Clark (one of Norton's most impressive KO wins).

Even then he went the distance with most of the durable journeymen he fought.

From 1974 to 1978 he stopped most of the men he fought. I've seen those fights and aside from the Bobick fight in which he landed overhand right after overhand right on Bobick's unprotected face, most of them were by attrition with his opponents just not being able to deal with the pace Norton set.

On film Walcott looks like the more dangerous puncher to me even though Norton was bigger. Lets not forget too that Walcott was essentially a counter puncher while Norton was more of a pressure fighter.

 

Walcott punched harder. His left hook was an outstanding punch and he had a good right as well. Norton, unlike walcott, had no one particular punch that stood out.

 

Well, an aging Walcott floored Rocky Marciano with a sweet left hook within one minute; late in the fight he again had Rock in trouble. Norton never staggered Larry Holmes over 15 rounds though he hit him with everything but the kitchen sink.

I am impressed by Walcott's upper-body build, too, by the way.

On the other hand, few men hurt Ali like Norton did: man, he broke the man's jaw and made him crouch in pain from a body punch, feats that sound much more natural for a Liston or Foreman.

It's close, but I'm going with Arnold.

 

By the way, a word of commendation for those who stuck up for decency here vis-a-vis the family insults. We all make mistakes and I sincerely hope there is an apology down the line. I've just grown to appreciate this place a bit more.

 

Styles make fights........ Liston and Foreman were HARDER punchers than Ken Norton, but it is true that Norton hurt Ali more so than Liston or Foreman ever did.. Norton either rattled Ali or rocked him good.... I recall Norton had Ali double over for a brief moment in rd. 5 at Yankee Stadium from a rib shot.... Norton had good power, but not really wicked power......

I say the same about Joe Walcott as well...... Good power that could hurt you if caught flush or by surprise, but not truly wicked power...... Walcott was a good puncher.......

MR.BILL

 

Well remember Norton was in there with Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Quarry, and Young. These guys hard to stop. I do not think Walcott would stop either them either. In fact did Walcott ever Ko a man with better durability than Quarry?

I think its fair to say the top fighters of the 1970's had better durability and size in comparing with the top fighters that Walcott faced. That at the glove size / weight differences were clearly in Walcotts favor to score a higher KO%.

Yet when we tally it all up, Norton has a hight KO% despite facing more durable elite lever fighters.

While Walcott's KO over Chalres was a historic perfect shot, wasn't the Johnson KO as fishy? If I recall, the papers said Johnson collapsed without being hit, and had some injury going into the fight. Is this fight on film for us to judge?