Who should rank higher all time ? Norton or Walcott ?

Unofficial wins are a very grey area, in both of these cases.

You end up asking questions like "was the decision within the bounds of reasonable interpretation."

If it was, then you accept it, because it wasn't your call.

With a historic fight, the question is harder, because you often cant score it yourself.

Then it turns on contemporary opinion.

If 95 ringsiders had it for the guy that lost, and five had it for the guy that won, then you could say that it was probably an unusual decision by the standards of the day.

If 60 had it for the loser, and 40 had it for the winner, then the question is more problematic.

 

This is baloney all due respect. Norton beat no one…literally no one other then Ali worth mentioning. Young and Quarry in his last fight. Quarry win is ok but nothing spectacular. It’s a joke that I can list better wins for Maxim who I don’t even put in my top 50 at hw. Through out the course of a career he should have had better wins. I don’t want to knock the guy but he’s probably the most overblown guy in hw history because of his one good win. You are who you beat and others stating things like he only lost to Holmes Ali and Foreman in eight years means nothing if he didn’t fight anyone else worth mentioning. He was a decent contender but there are so many with better scalps and are more proven. Especially Walcott

 

Norton was a good solid contender. He took young and Ali close in fights that could have went either way. Yet He also lost to Holmes, Ali Shavers and Foreman when it mattered.

Walcott has wins over Charles, Bivins, Baksi and Ray that were clear cut. Sure he also lost to Louis and Charles when it counted but the time line shows he could improve on results. By the time walcott could beat Charles he would have been favourite over Louis in a third fight. And that’s the best two guys of that era.

perhaps Norton might have also been favoured over Ali in a 4th fight..but he would run into losses to Larry and Ernie around that time anyway. There are not that level of mishap on the record of Walcott at a similar stage. Two similar fights.

I don’t buy into the credit Norton gets for being around in a better decade either. His time to shine was the second half of that decade when Ali, Foreman and Frazier were on the way out and Leon Spinks of all people was able to pull out in front.

Against Young, Holmes and Shavers Ken could not find a single clear win. Yet He was possibly favourite against all of them.

jersey Joe might have lost to Layne and twice a piece against Louis and Charles but At least Walcott has the later two wins over Charles when it mattered.

The level of opposition is comparable. When he fought them I don’t think Young or Holmes were viewed higher than Charles was when Walcott beat Ezzard.

The only thing comparable is that In title fights with Joe Louis and Muhammad Ali the champions were at a similar stage and neither Walcott or Norton were able to get a sold win over a fading champ.

Of the two, Walcott is the legitimate champion. And justifiably so.

 

Walcott was ahead on the judges cards when he was knocked out by Rocky Marciano in 1952.

 

That’s because Walcott was still the best heavyweight in the world at that point. And justifiably so. Because at that time he was the only guy who could genuinely beat Ezzard Charles.

Charles had been the main man.

In comparison, at a similar stage, around 1976-79 Norton could not genuinely beat an elite fighter. And in that period, there was nothing around that was better than the post war era.

 

It stands out like dogs balls doesn't it.

Good post mate, short and succinct. It's perfectly fine to pop Walcott ahead and believe it strongly but it's another thing altogether to make out they are tiers apart and barely worth comparing.

 

Norton was 33 by the time he fought Ali in 76, incidentally a fight plenty believe he won. The guy was looking toward the exit himself.

Norton was pushing 35 by the time Spinks beat Ali. Norton - Holmes (and Norton having the WBC title) actually came about due to Spinks rematching Ali and not facing Norton which the WBC had demanded. It's a credit to Norton that in the twilight of his career he could run Holmes close mere weeks off turning 35.

 

Close affairs aren't "robberies" and you've been fastidious in repelling Norton's claims of more than one win over Ali for obvious reasons.

Bivins was on a good streak yes. Some of that streak is at light heavyweight and some of it is against light heavyweights with Bivins weighing overs. Good examples are the win over the pre-war version of Ezzard Charles where Charles weighed just 165. There's also a light heavyweight win over Marshall and a win over a 168 pound Archie Moore while weighing 186 pounds himself. Oakland Billy Smith was also beaten weighing in at light heavy. Fine wins but wins that have little to do with heavyweight really.

He stepped up in class against Walcott and was beaten and then lost 2 more in a row to Murray and Charles. He most certainly never "basically cleaned out the division".

He was highly rated around 43-46 (war era inclusive) as Louis was finishing cleaning out what was a very very poor division at that time.

I'm not going to label him a "GREAT" win. Charles would be closer to that label bearing in mind Charles beat Joe x 2 in title shots in less than 2 years and also that Walcotts third title shot was gifted to him on the back of getting flogged by Rex Layne with Walcott being a hot 4-1 favorite.

There was next to nothing between Walcott and Ray.

It's a little tainted for me. Johnson won the 1st, was knocked down in the second then injured unpunched in the 3rd. Regardless Johnson was a light heavyweight at that time who now and then weighed a bit 175. He was unranked as a heavyweight.

LOL!!

Lets pretend Patterson was a novice of just 13 fights and that he didn't weigh 168 pounds when Maxim beat him. Disingenuous at the very very best.

Satterfield beside popping in at 172 1/2 has any amount of embarrassing losses and certainly wasn't top 10.

Nardico is yet another light heavyweight popping on a couple of pounds here and there and fighting just over the weight. Any amount of losses. Very impressed he beat Fred Krueger tho. Perhaps he was a light sleeper.

Split a trilogy with Muscato who is certainly no great shakes unless one hands out points for being from an older more favored era.

Sheppard is 18-11 in their first fight and gets outboxed. He's 19-13 in the rematch and knocks out Maxim in 51 seconds and loses a decision in an immediate rematch. I'd be hiding that not putting it on the table.

It's a poor era. This is understandable. Joe's a very good fighter and one i like. Excellent power and skills. I posted at length years back explaining his inconsistencies in an effort to get him a fair shake. If pressed i might even have him a little above Ken but it's close.

You are sugar coating Joe and everything to do with him while taking an extremely negative slant on Ken.

 

How do you judge someone who beat nobodies? I don’t judge Norton on his bad KO losses. Nor do I judge Lewis, Charles, Tyson etc on their KO losses. All those men have a lot of quality wins. Cobb and Bobick are c level fighters not worth mentioning.

sorry the one real solid win isn’t good enough. Walcott has a ton of wins. We judge people at their best and whom they beat there is no other way to judge a man in this sport. Norton’s best win came off a past prime great in Ali. There is a considerable gap in quality wins here. That should come with a separation in ranking. But to each their own.

 

Bivins was an excellent fighter a hall of famer with far greater wins and credentials then Norton. Great win no matter how you try to shape it.

maxims win over Patterson was when Maxim was old and on the down swing. Old lion against a young one it’s a common theme.

Satterfield was ranked and he too had better wins then Norton. Maybe if Norton fought ranked fighters all the time that could bang he would have more losses on his ledger too. Probably why he never fought Lyle or Bonavena or Frazier. Satterfield was an enigma would have been much better if not for the partying. Satterfield and Young are on Par.

I’ve sugar coated nothing with Joe it’s your imagination. I’ve done nothing but comment on the lack of Norton’s record . If someone was so great they should have more then two good wins.

 

Walcott only surfaced to importance in a weak ebb. Norton had to his work in the second strongest era ever for the division.

Norton must be 30 to 40 places ahead.

 

Disregarding losses is absurd.

 

Both men achieved basically the same measure of success in their careers.