Who should rank higher all time ? Norton or Walcott ?

You haven’t addressed one point and all your doing is analyzing Maxim and Saterfields records lol. The names listed weren’t hyped they were just some ok names. Noticed you glossed over the likes of Baker Valdez Johnson but whatever. Once again where are Norton’s wins? I ask this because you should be comparing his scalps to other champs and contenders scalps. When you look closely at his record it doesn’t compare with a lot of people. I used to hold Norton in extremely high regard. Prob had him top 20 to 25. Then when you actually look into other contenders and see how many more quality wins they have you can only drop Norton. If Norton had fought better fighters in his day he would have more losses on his record. His lack of any real opposition and getting blasted out by any decent contenders proves that.

 

Norton had just one early career loss before he hit his straps. He avenged it later.

Would you like to talk about Walcott's losses to Palmes, Mays, Taylor, Ketchel, Brothers and Johnny Allen 11-15-1 among others?

I'm sure they were all amazing one way or another given they were from the 30's and 40's. A real murders row.

 

You’re the one who brought up weight not me. I also am not a fan of the 30s and 40s lol again making stuff up.

 

Walcott ranks higher in my way of thinking. Ken may have got the best scalp in beating Muhammad Ali in their first go but aside from that Joe beat better fighters than anyone else on the Norton resume with a W beside it.

Close one to call,though.

 

Let’s take these two years then. How many wins do you have for the 1970s guys matching them place for place?

Charles is beating the version of Ali that Evangelista couldn’t. That’s reasonable.

Savold can beat Young that Ocasio beat. Henry beats Lyle who couldn’t decisively beat Joe Bugner.

Who is going to pick Bobick to beat Bob Baker?

Obviously Walcott beats Knoetze.

Oma beats Spinks....where are the guaranteed wins for the 70s dudes?

I think Larry might be the one guy from the 70s getting a guaranteed win here because Ken is only 50-50 with old man Louis if he can’t beat old man Ali.

Even Shavers and Layne is 50-50.

 

At some stage there probably was not much of a void between Norton and Walcott until Walcott got over that Norton like hump of being a nearly man to become a real champion who could defend the title. In order to do this he had to even up a 0-2 record with Charles to 2-2 against the man who was dominating that post war era. Ken had a chance to do this in his own time but flunked against Young and considerably more so against shavers and Larry.

 

If you’re referring to Johnson and Bivins maybe you should check their records at HW. It doesn’t fair well for the Norton argument when many other contenders who were in multiple weight classes have more solid win at HW then Norton. I assure you the HWs they fought were real people. I also have no problem with ranking Norton in the top 40. But top 25? You don’t think that’s a stretch?

 

I've addressed a lot of points. One of them is that you have been intentionally misleading at various points by claiming Satterfield to be a contender when i said he wasn't at the time of the fight and then producing a ranking for him that was half a decade later. Very poor form and agenda driven.

Why would one not analyze the records of guys that are being debated and scrutinized? Perhaps you should try it instead of intentionally leading the discussion away from losses because you know they greatly weaken your stance.

You listed these wins as wins "that blow away Norton". You didn't list them as ok names and at the same time you disparage any win that is mentioned for Norton while having more holes than swiss cheese in your own lists as i have showed at length.

Well there was so much low hanging fruit i would have been up all night addressing the rest of it.

I don't think Bob Baker was even ranked in the top 10 when Bob beat him so there's that. Imagine if i put forward a Norton win over someone not in the top 10?

Valdez was extremely inconsistent having lost four on the trot a couple of years prior and was beaten by Moore immediately before fighting Bob and lost 6 of 8 fights during his Satterfield period albeit against some quite decent fighters. He had some good wins but man did he have some losses and again it was certainly not the strongest of era's.

Bob fought Johnson 3 times and won one. For all intents and purposes the one he won was a light heavyweight fight which has no bearing on things here - yet again.

You've been told this again and again.

What are Walcott's 10 worst losses? What are Norton's 10 worth losses? I bet you don't touch that one

I hugely doubt you ever held him in high regard given what i have seen over the years. You seldom hold anyone in high regard post 50's. you're latest smear campaign seems to be The Fab 4 which is only going to end one way.

I'm not sure i'd call 3 fights against Ali, 1 against Foreman and Young lack of any real opposition but hey, have at it.

If he was fighting many of the guys you have put forth he would have had an absolute whale of a time on the whole.

 

I'm not in the least worried by you mentioning Garcia was 188. Norton was well short of what he was to become at that point and avenged emphatically as well.

Your passion is most certainly Marciano and around that period.

 

Heck lets just make it a clean sweep for the choklab Murderers row.

I won't be trolled mate

 

Once again you bring zero substance to an argument. You can’t answer the argument so you come to your own odd conclusions. Like I “love” the 30s and 40s. Then you stated I hate anything not 1950. Man you’re all over the place. If you must know Ali is the best HW to ever live. The Norton win had nothing to do with that. I defens Marciano because knuckleheads like to bring his name down . If someone did that to Ali Id do the same. Just as I do for Liston when he’s being $&@“ on.

Walcott had a lot of bad losses before he got good. What does that have to do with what he accomplished after?

you keep answering the Norton’s wins question with nonsense. Just admit his resume is trash is outside Ali and Quarry. I can’t imagine you hold Young responsible for his losses. Yet he’s some killer while Satterfield who beat far more people is trash? Nice logic.

i like the Fab Four like anyone else but the drooling fan girl logic on this forum is embarrassingly painful to endure at times.

Please find my posts where I’ve discredited Norton in the past? I’ll wait patiently. If you knew how to read properly you’d see I didn’t really trash the man the fighter but questioned his resume. This to you is absurd for some odd reason. Yet you can’t name several decent wins that should place him at the top of line in HW history. We base people on wins not how many losses because if you never fought anyone (like fighters today) then many people have perfect records. It means nothing if you’re not fighting quality. Otherwise we would have to disregard a lot of fine fighters. In the 60s/70s down people fought each other far more frequently (are you gonna argue that one?) imo FOTC made fighters far more selective in whom they fought to maintain a perfect record for bigger paydays.

 

I've watched you championing the older era's for days on end. It's what you do. Your bias toward older era's is evident all through this thread - it's not hard to see. If you want to get technical over decades your posts are there for all to see. Maybe i'll bump a couple of threads for comedic value on the weekend. You've been cunningly trying to slip in light heavyweight resumes into heavyweight resumes multiple times as well as basically lying about rankings or at the very best trying to deceive. It's all there.

They can't just be totally ignored. Everything needs to be summed up.

There's some nonsense going on alright.

Why would i not hold Young responsible for his losses? You imagine a lot of things but your imagination is woefully unreliable.

It's entirely fair to say young started to come on around the Shavers rematch and then had a great 3 years. He beat Lyle easily not once but twice, beat Foreman and lost a quite disputed decision to Ali and then lost a nail biter to Norton. It was a really good stretch. After that he dropped off quite vertically as did, say Charles at a certain point. It's not rocket science.

You weren't impressed with their resumes outside of each other but the truth is collectively they have a helluva resume outside of themselves.

Where did i say you've discredited Norton in the past? You've certainly disparaged wins of his in this very thread. It's not hidden. You belittle or underrate his opponents.

Who is saying Norton is "top of the line in heavyweight history"?

We base people on wins not how many losses? What the actual ****? You have to be taking the ****. As if the quality of wins aren't being taken into account. Who are all these guys with perfect records that aren't still fighting???

Yes the further back we go to an extent the more they actually fought full stop and top guys matched up far more often. Is this some sort of revelation?

FOTC made people more selective? That's beyond drawing a long bow.