There is no proof beyond the ballyhoo of Rickard paid scribes that he actually possessed any extraordinary strength. An old Willard didn't seem too bothered by his strength so much as his stamina. And he is absolutely the worst looking thing on film to ever take a championship ring. Truly dreadful. Lurching in head down, not so much punching as jousting with his left. It puts me off my feed to even watch.
I've read the Dempsey book and to me the most interesting section is the one about which part of the fist to hit with. He recommends hitting with the lower knuckles. His reasoning is that if you fall toward a wall and catch yourself with your fist, the bottom knuckles will naturally hit the wall, the top knuckle will not touch the wall. Some teach hitting with the top two knuckles since they are usually bigger, but doing that puts the fist and forearm in an unnatural position. The idea/demonstration from the book, of placing the fist against a wall, high or low and the bottom knuckles will naturally be against the wall works and people remember it.
I disagree totally .. as far as strength look how he bounced Jack around .. as far as the worst you're using a cliche exaggeration. Munroe, Sharkey, Kaufman, Wells, Ruhlin, Moran, Galento, Baer, Carnera, a dozen Louis opponents .. the list goes on and on of who looked worse .. zzzzz
Worst on film. Carnera was better, Galento was better, Baer was far better... Dempsey had absolute mastery over Firpo every second of their match minus the legit KD that wasn't called (Jack was wild AF) and the part where he was pushed out of the ring.
I remember Eddie's account of that fight. He more or less blamed Duane's arrogance for not warming up properly. He tried telling Bobick that Norton was gonna come out strong because "I'm with you". I guess Bobick's buddies kept interrupting him in the dressing room. Joe Frazier who co-managed Bobick referred to Duane's arrogance as well.
Dempsey is the GREATER boxer like Babe Ruth is the GREATEST baseball player. Not the best, the historically greater as they had immense influence on their game. Dempsey changed boxing; no more crude wrestling, holding and slapping for 20-30 rounds. Ruth said screw it , I don't care if I strike out out, I'm going for the fences. Both men were known world wide and were huge entertainment stars...both made many movies and did stage shows. Foreman gets props for being a champ in different periods, but did he change boxing in any way? The younger Foreman was not any kind of star; let's be honest the older Foreman made his money selling hamburger grills. In the ring it's a different story. It's closer than many think. "Big" George weighed 218 vs Frazier, Dempsey weighed 192 vs Firpo. Not that far apart. Of course 300 pound old George would just sit on Jack and crush him. And let's not forget...Foreman relied on intimidation early on and Ali showed what you could do with Foreman if you weren't afraid of him. My take is that the young Dempsey defeats the young Foreman by out hustling him and wearing him down. I see a TKO just like Ali put on Foreman who goes down with another shocked look on his face. The older George is too much for the older Dempsey and ko's Jack in the middle rounds. George takes anything Dempsey throws at him and puts a one punch Moorer like ko on Jack.
Cobb was a very average puncher and often described as such. There are many articles available describing Bobick as a big puncher, it was known as his strength. Eugene Hart never knocked out anyone good but his reputation as a puncher is legendary. Now i'm certainly not putting Bobick in that category, but whether he could be described as a "big" puncher is touch and go. Bobick just wasn't that good and was glass to boot. He just wasn't going to beat many good fighters, like Eugene. There are plenty of big punchers Norton would have beaten. The ones he struggled with were the come forward ones who would back him up right from the get go. Mind you Foreman was one of the most dangerous and intimidating punchers in history at that point and he would have walked thru many a top fighter at that point.
This is something people seem to gloss over when it comes to Frazier and Norton. There are very, very few boxers in history who would have survived (let alone beat) a determined prime foreman going after them from the opening bell. I wouldn't exactly call a fighter a weakling for failing to avoid a ko loss in such a precarious scenario. People forget as good and as durable as Ali was he had to fight a perfect fight, slipping and countering, and tying up the instant foreman opened up. When he couldn't do this or roll with the punches, Ali did everything he could to avoid punches to the face and endured some insanely painful body shots praying the younger fighter would tire out. A single mistake or a flush combination to the jaw from foreman and history might have been very different. Think about it, count how many actual combinations foreman landed (it was usually 1 or 2 punches at a time and many were glancing blows/blocked/or slipped at the last millisecond). This is hardly evidence Norton would lose to any big puncher he faced. We're taking 2 of the most devastating hitters of all time with an in your face style. I could see him pulling off a win over the powerful but less aggressive Bruno or Smith or cooper.
Nicely put. Ali being Ali makes that fight look a lot easier than it was. His ability to take body shots is very likely as good as anyone that ever boxed. He also took the odd flush BOMB to the head. Not many people in history are walking away from that. Foreman at this point believed himself invincible and fought like it. IMO he wasn't that far from it either. Ali would be the only guy i'd confidently back to be honest.
This is an interesting post that, upon, reflection, I agree with. Ken could have scored TKOs over Bruno and Cooper and a UD over Smith. He had that wearing-you-down style that even gave a ridiculously-dominating-Shavers Larry Holmes a WHOLE lot of trouble. Cooper might have scored a knockdown, but Ken would have torn him down.
The problem for me is not that I can't forgive Norton for losing to these men, it is the lack of a win over a big puncher on his resume. When you put the two things together, it just seems safer to pick fighters like Max Baer or Frank Bruno to beat him.
I can understand that logic given how early he got stopped. But he did show he can make adjustments in the Garcia rematch. To be fair he never rematched the men who stopped him. A weak counter argument I'll admit. Not very reliable having to rematch a guy to prove you dont always lose to big punchers. We have a precedence for this tho. Marvis Frazier obviously had a weak chin yet he was able to outbox james Smith. Smith hits much harder than holmes and holmes blasted marvis out early. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
