Who should rank higher all time ? Norton or Walcott ?

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by mr. magoo, Jul 16, 2021.

  1. mr. magoo

    mr. magoo Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    Jan 3, 2007
    What do you think ?
  2. Gazelle Punch

    Gazelle Punch Boxing Addict Full Member

    Aug 15, 2018
    Walcott…by a mile. Norton isn’t as good as his one good win tells you. I rank Walcott in the 15-19 range. Norton somewhere in the 35-40 range.
  3. RulesMakeItInteresting

    RulesMakeItInteresting Boxing Addict Full Member

    Mar 23, 2019
    20. Norton
    21. Walcott

    Norton beat Ali twice, beat a prime Jimmy Young, and some people think he beat a prime Larry Holmes.
  4. JohnThomas1

    JohnThomas1 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    Apr 27, 2005
  5. Kamikaze

    Kamikaze Heck Full Member

    Oct 12, 2020
    Well there highlight moments are-

    Norton… His achievements are a win over an older out of shape Ali. A loss to a more prepared Ali and a loss against a shot Ali… (Most say he won) He turned a worn down Quarry into mince and almost lost to Jimmy Young who if you actually watch film of was not some great fighter a lot pretend he is. He did well with Holmes and almost brang home the bacon against a Young game (allegedly injured) Larry.

    Jersey Joe almost beat A battle worn would be retired Louis twice. He won the first time in my opinion and tempted fate in the second.

    Almost took Rockys 0 but again he tempted fate one too many times In a fight he could’ve won. Then proceeded to either take a dive or he was just smashed in the second fight.

    Two wins over HW Ezzard. Of course losses to Charles as well. Plenty of mixed bag wins and losses Layne,Curtis,Johnson Simons, Bivins ect, ect.

    I think all in all his key wins over Ezzard aren’t enough to overtake Norton’s over Ali but if we start arguing robberies I think it doesn’t do much for Norton and benefits Walcott. The Louis fight while he was not at his best hadn’t been beaten since Max all those years ago.

    Though despite a pretty decent amount of losses the context of those losses considered, Walcott just had a better body of work as a contender and fighting man then Norton does by a margin.
  6. Fergy

    Fergy Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Jan 8, 2017
    It's an hard one this. I like em both and nothing much between em, as John says. I'll lean slightly toward the Walcott but can easily be swayed either way.
    Good one Mr M.
  7. Reinhardt

    Reinhardt Boxing Addict Full Member

    Oct 4, 2016
  8. Reinhardt

    Reinhardt Boxing Addict Full Member

    Oct 4, 2016
    Not really close either,, Norton had 2 wins over Ali, Walcott had 2 losses to light heavyweight Tiger Jack Fox one by KO
  9. choklab

    choklab cocoon of horror Full Member

    Dec 31, 2009
  10. Kamikaze

    Kamikaze Heck Full Member

    Oct 12, 2020
    But, but, but he beat Ali on a bad night and was robbed against a shot Ali!
    choklab likes this.
  11. BCS8

    BCS8 Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    Aug 21, 2012
    They're close and who you like more is subjective.
  12. ecto55

    ecto55 דמוקרטיזציה של השממות האיסלאמיות כעת Full Member

    May 28, 2009
    As a simple person, if I want to know which of two fighters is the 'better' I just imagine which attributes, tools and skill-set I'd like to have. Ditto for the 'ranking'...whose career out of Walcott's or Norton's would I like to have. For me after doing that, its pretty easily J.J. Walcott.
  13. CharlieFirpo85

    CharlieFirpo85 Member Full Member

    Feb 26, 2020
    Very good arguments so far. Both are legends of the sport and have achieved a great lot. Walcott has fought his way out of poverty. Has a tough job during the day and struggled in the evening.Has a tough job during the day and fought his way out of poverty. He had a hard job during the day and boxed in the evening. Norton was also quite penniless at the beginning of his boxing career.

    I think in the end it's a matter of personal preference. Norton is a picture perfect athlete ("Ken Norton Rule"), Walcott was one of the first slick HW fighters, and even inspired Ali. Norton was awkward for most outside boxers, Walcott handled boxer punchers and sluggers much better.so their is not much difference haed to head.

    Walcott was the smaller man so i think he should rank higher when it comes to P4P. He was the craftier, more experienced and well rounded boxer, while Kenny was a model athlete with so much endurance and determination. On the other hand: Many people think that man fought Ali 3 times, made Ali look bad 3 out of 3 times and won 3 times (I think at least 2 wins, 1 draw). But 1 thing is sure: he was Ali's kryptonite and that makes him a legend.
  14. Gazelle Punch

    Gazelle Punch Boxing Addict Full Member

    Aug 15, 2018
    Norton doesn’t belong anywhere near the top. He’s arguably not even top 40 that’s how bad his career wins are. He only beat Ali once. Enough of the he beats him “twice” bs. If one were judging close calls like that every fighter would have to add a few and drop a few. Including Norton to Young. The one time he did beat Ali, Ali was sleeping w two prostitutes minutes before fight time.
    Walcott on the other hand has great wins over Charles, Bivins, Johnson, Elmer Ray, Maxim and more. Notice how I don’t have to say he “beat” Louis to make an argument for him. He lost a close fight that’s all you can say for both of them.
    Stiches Yarn and swagdelfadeel like this.
  15. janitor

    janitor Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    Feb 15, 2006
    Walcott has more depth for my money, and proved himself against a wider range of styles.