Who is the biggest puncher Ken Norton could beat?

True. But I expect supposedly knowledgeable fans on here to realize that at some point size does matter.

You can compare a 160# MW from today and 50-100 years ago b/c they were the same size give or take a few lbs. You can debate better training techniques today vs. sheer rough and tough upbringing and life all fighters had back then. Of course a very good to top 200# fighter can beat a 250# one. However when the skill gets close, a big, modern SHW will almost always beat the CW to smallish HWs of the past.

A classic example is LL vs. Tyson - and they were from the same era. I have nothing against Tyson. As he's matured he seems more level headed. However LL is a few months older than Mike, but but Mike had a shorter prime. He sure did, the bigger skilled HW fairly easily stopped Tyson. You bet the nostalgia is delusional. Even after other losses there were peeps on here that said if Mike "got serious" he could clean out (meaning beat the K bros) HW division It took losing to big oaf McBride to slowly shut some of that talk

 

LMAOOOO @ the last sentence!

 

Prime for prime I'd pick him to beat Shavers and Cooney.

 

You're straw manning. I never said Lewis beat Tyson just b/c of his size. LL is also skilled. Or are you suggesting LL skill is well below Tyson's?
Now that's comical. See, it's easy to argue this way.

I agree LL would've had more problems with a prime Tyson. But if Douglas, a massive underdog, could stop a 24 y/o Tyson, I think LL could have near that time. By the way I think Mike Tyson must have among the shortest, if not the shortest prime in HW boxing history !

Btw2 if Mike ends up fighting a younger, bigger Briggs I'll be rooting for MT. But if he doesn't win early I don't like his chances.

 

It's more like 10-20lbs.

 

I'm not at all sure about that.
Not going to look it up but I don't think there was much of an age diff between KN and Shavers. There was between KN and Cooney.

Anyway both Shavers & Cooney blasted Norton out of there like they had a plane to catch. I think prime for prime Norton does well to go 1-1 and 0-2 (like he did in real time) is not unlikely.

 

Glad you were entertained.
And great to see an expert argument here on the boxingforum24. Place hasn't changed much in a decade.

 

I have to agree here.

 

Alex Stewart

 

Both

 

Maybe Lyle?

 

He could have beat Shavers if he didn't have a stupid fight plan that was completely out of character for him as a fighter.

 

The accusation against Tyson having a short prime is a bit overshot, I think. First time round, he was champion for over three years, albeit only undisputed for two and a half.

That means he reigned longer than Marciano, Foreman, Liston to name a few(I know Sonny would have reigned longer if given the chance to fight for the title). These men are routinely ranked higher than Tyson in top HWs lists.

His absolute prime wasn't that long but its duration is held against him far more harshly than the men I listed. The length of their primes, while similar in time span, doesn't seem to be the same impediment to them being classed as ATG. And rightly so. They are ATGs based on their performances and qualities but, still, you don't get that asterisk against their greatness that their primes were relatively short like you do with Tyson.

Tyson's absolute prime ended at a young age - 23, 24 - but it had started at an absurdly early age. He was arguably the best heavyweight in the world before he had turned 20.

 

Did you see the last Rocky threads? No? You´d wonder what the 185lb 5'10" italian could do....