Who Hit harder Ken Norton or Jersey Joe Walcott?

I agree with this, and in fact have argued the same points until I am blue in the face. But, apparently this is a topic that will never be agreed upon here.

 

I think you make a good point.

 

I think you've got this board mixed up with the General one, unless you mean the ESB forums full stop. Regardless what you described is anything but this forum. Suzie's post was also anything but the norm for both the forum and himself and completely out of character. I'm not sure if he has posted since but i am confident he will come in and make things right in his own good time.

As for the topic, i think it is very very close myself. I'll go the splinters option at this stage.

 

People aren't taking into account their differing styles.

Walcott was less likely to score a stoppage with his style even though he knocked down/hurt most of the men he fought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zmmlh9erxFM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gB09VEEZvM

 

Norton broke Ali's jaw because Muhammad had an impacted wisdom tooth at the location where Ken's right connected. Furthermore, Ali's big mouth was opened as he was in the process of delivering his characteristic rap. Ali himself hyped how Norton broke his jaw for their rematches, but it really was a fluke occurrance. If Muhammad had had that wisdom tooth removed prior to their first battle, Norton's reputation for punching power would be considerably diminished. The fact remains that even with Ali's jaw broken through most of their match in San Diego, Norton still wasn't able to stop him.

Ken took Garcia down for the count in their rematch with a hook to the body, buckled Ali's left leg with a scorching bodyshot in Inglewood, and starched cruiserweight prospect Randy Stephens with a single right hand. But Norton hit Scott LeDoux with everything for eight rounds to no avail, and his body attack wasn't sufficient for halting Jimmy Young.

Louis was coming off a devastating win over Mauriello when Walcott became the only man to drop the Bomber more than twice. His knockout of Charles is one for the ages. Nobody else was able to drop Marciano until Rocky was at the end of his career. As Marciano was challenging for the title, the Rock figures to have been peaking for this one, yet Jersey Joe hooked him to the floor very quickly.

Walcott's lower knockout percentage can be attributed to the better coached, more highly skilled and experienced caliber of opposition in that era which he often faced, and also the result of performance compromising privations he was sometimes handicapped by earlier in his career. Jersey Joe was also adept at playing the cutie, frequently choosing to outbox his foes.

I think Norton's power is a little overrated. I voted for Walcott.

 

You should also note that Norton hurt Ali several times in their two subsequent fights, something that not many have done. He never reacted to a body blow as he did to the one he received from Norton in the rubber match.

 

Max Schmelling didn't knock Louis down twice? Or am I misunderstanding your point? At any rate, Louis was knocked down a lot in career. It's not a significant accomplishment to knock down Joe Louis. Moreover, Louis looked terrible in that fight. Norton would have put him away had he been in there that night. Louis could count on poor opposition in remaining upright after his knockdowns. If Louis had been fighting in the 1970s, he chin would not have carried very far.

This claim is contradicted by historical fact. The idea that this was an era of better coached, more highly skilled and experienced caliber of opposition, or that Walcott faced such a calibre of opposition, is ridiculous. The 1940s heavyweights would have little success against the caliber of opposition Norton faced.

Walcott was a journeyman. Norton wasn't.

 

Norton probably hit harder but Walcott had better timing and placement of shots.

http://www.amazon.com/Joe-Gans-Biog...39947/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b/183-3907940-0224706

 

"I think it's fair to say the top fighters of the 1970's had better durability . . . compared with the top fighters that Walcott faced."

Well, what do the records actually say:

Ko's by per fight of top men Norton stopped:

Henry Clark-----3-50 (1 per 17 fights)
Boone Kirkman-----5-42 (1 per 8 fights)
Jerry Quarry-----6-66 (1 per 11 fights)
Jose Luis Garcia-----6-40 (1 per 6.5 or so)
Ron Stander-----9-61 (1 per less than 7)
Larry Middleton-----4-35 (1 per 9)
Duane Bobick-----4-52 (1 per 13)
Lorenzo Zanon-----5-36 (1 per 7)

Ko's by per fight of top men Walcott stopped:

Ezzard Charles-----7-119 (1 per 17 fights)
Harold Johnson-----5-87 (1 per 17.5 fights)
Johnny Shkor-----4-51 (1 per 13)
Omelio Agramonte-----7-65 (1 per 9)
Olle Tandberg-----1-30 (1 per 30)
Tommy Gomez-----5-88 (1 per 17.5)
Curtis Sheppard-----5-87 (1 per 17.5)
Steve Dudas-----5-86 (1 per 17)
Elmer Ray-----7-96 (1 per 15)
Willie Reddish-----3-55 (1 per 18)

Walcott clearly stopped men who were on the whole tougher to stop than the men Norton stopped.

As for Quarry, he was not particularly tough to stop with 6 stoppages in 66 fights.

It is true Norton fought some very hard to stop men--Ali, Foreman, Young, Cobb--but he didn't stop or come close to stopping any of them. Walcott also fought some hard to stop men--Baksi, Maxim, Louis. He at least had Louis and Maxim off their feet.

Fighting tough men and not stopping them is certainly no argument at all for punching power. Tiger Jones did not stop Gavilan, Robinson, and Fullmer. They indeed were tough to stop. On the other hand, Jones was not much of a puncher, the durability of these men aside.

size--this is the fall back position. Big men supposedly can really take it, but there is no evidence at all for that in history. If there is, give me such evidence. I would also point out that the difference in size of top men of the seventies and the forties is not nearly as much as you are making out. Walcott was as big as Quarry. Norton was no bigger on the whole than Louis, Baksi, Murray, Blunt, Comiskey, Valdes, Baker, Hart, Tandberg, Ten Hoff, Peaks, Shkor, Rivera and a whole slew others who were rated in the late forties or early fifties.

On the other hand, Norton, Ali, Liston, Frazier, and Holmes were much smaller than Lennox Lewis and Vitali Klitschko. The heavyweight division has grown more since the 1970's than it did in the 1940 to 1970 era.

Just as an aside, Ali went 56-5 in 61 fights. I think both Lennox Lewis and Vitali Klitschko do better than that against those 61 opponents.

 

yes so they can miss 3 1/2 years at their peak and comeback and do it like ali. ali lost 3 of his last 4 fights. walcott is not stopping ali or holmes.

 

They can take 5 years off in my judgement and come back to beat the 195 to 205 lb Quarry, Bonavena, and Frazier, plus the 189 lb Ellis and the lightheavy Foster. These guys are not big enough to beat them at any point. Five to nine inches in height and forty to fifty pounds in weight will decide those fights.

 

words are cheap. that's why you don't see fighters like prince naseem coming back. once he got back in the gym he knew he couldn't get back into the fighting shape he was in before stopping. trainers like Cus knew the reality of the situation after a long exile away. you can comeback but you will have lost something and won't ever be as good. old foreman could rely on his power. depends on styles - that's why boxers can beat big punchers or bigger men. bigger and slower punching guys don't bother Ali. speed kills as pacman just showed v hatton.

 

"bigger and slower punching guys don't bother Ali"

Ali didn't fight anyone remotely as big and skilled as Vitali or Lewis. Foreman was only 220 when he fought him. Liston 218. Both men are shorter, much shorter in Liston's case, and Foreman no where near as skilled.

 

The same thing can be said about Vitali or Lewis, they never faced anyone remotely as good as Ali.