Would Kenny Norton Have Stood Out, Fighting In The 1990 's?

Holyfield
Tyson
Ruddock
Witherspoon
Mercer
Bowe
Lewis
Were around, I'd pick all of them to beat him.
Douglas, on Tokyo night probably would too. I'd give Briggs and Tucker decent chances as well..

 

Tyson and Lewis would have beaten Ken. Maybe Bowe too.
I'd make him favourite against Mercer,McCall,Bruno,Ruddock (provided he avoids Razor in the early going)

Norton v Holyfield would be a 50/50 one in my opinion. In fact,we have a hypothetical fight of the year with that one.

 

I think Kenny does better than he's being given credit for.

He's cited as not having the chin to go up against these guys yet, arguably, the decade's top man, Lennox Lewis got knocked out twice by one shot from much lesser fighters than 1973 George Foreman. Are the pro-90s brigade having their cake and eating it a bit, here?

Let's discount his kayoes to Shavers and Cooney - both huge punchers - when he was 37 or else we have to factor in how Bowe was bounced around aged 29 by Golota, Tyson at 37 or so by Williams and McBride, or even Holyfield nearly getting kayoed by John Ruiz when in his late 30s. It happens.

So we are left with one display where Foreman overpowered him where Ken took plenty of shots. It was more George's aggression that took Kenny out of his game plan. The 90s heavies weren't like that. Lewis was generally quite patient setting his attack up off his jab. Well, that was Kenny's bread and butter and he would have had a good chance of finishing what Ray Mercer started and outjabbing Lennox. Lennox would have to bring his Golota/Ruddock A game to the table and look to drive Kenny out of the ring.

Evander blew hot and cold throughout the decade. There'd have been numerous versions of him that Norton could have beaten. Ruddock was very limited. I'd be willing to bet Eddie Futch devises a plan to negate the smash and that gives Kenny every chance.

Tyson had the kind of power and, in bursts, aggression that puts Norton on the back foot but he was only at that level 90 and 91. Bowe could also be quite overpowering but only in that brief window in the early part of the decade. I don't think any version of Bowe post 1993 poses insurmountable problems for Norton, especially if Eddie Futch goes with Ken which I imagine, given his frustrations with Bowe, he would.

Moorer barely squeaked by the worst version of Holyfield who, that night, was a much lesser fighter than Norton. Mercer barely proved he was better than Jesse Ferguson. Witherspoon in the 90s? Too inconsistent. Morrison? If he lands the hook but then we said that when he fought Michael Bentt. Tokyo Douglas might win although I think he as a much harder time with Norton than that version of Tyson. Mirage Douglas loses 10 times out of 10.

Tucker? In the 90s? Based on what? I don't think 80s Tucker beats Ken and those years out of the ring, taking coke won't have improved his chances. Briggs? If he'd convincingly beaten a 47 year old Foreman, I might be more confident.

So, all in all, while I think the 90s was a strong decade for heavies and more consistent than the 70s over the whole decade, it does get slightly overrated, probably due to the age of many posters on here and our rose-tinted glasses. Let's remember that aged in their 40s, Foreman and Holmes did quite nicely in the 90s. I think a prime version of Norton does just as well, at least.

 

better

 

Some days it's like no one on this forum has ever even seen Mandingo.

 

Yeah, some of it was about that, but that's not what I was talking about.

 

Briggs and Tucker would certainly not beat Norton in the 90s, Briggs was shot after losing to Tyson in 87, and Tucker after the Tyson fight was getting gift decisions vs the likes of Orlin Norris, and getting stopped by Seldon and Hide.

Douglas only stood out in two fights vs Williams and Tyson, your talking a 1 or 2 fight window in a whole career. Mostly everyother time Douglas would easily lose to Norton.

Holyfield in the 90s would a pick em, 90s version of Witherspoon loses to Norton, Mercer and Norton would be a tough one to call, and it would depend on when Norton fought Mercer. As Mercer could often be very inconsistent in the ring aka Jesse Ferguson.

Ruddock has the punch "The Smash" to certainly stop Norton that punch could get under the cross arm defence, but Ruddock never really started fast, so if Norton got through early part of the fight, without getting hurt he could pull it out it all depends hard one to call.

And finally Lewis definitely beats Norton.

 

I just realized I had brain fart then haha, thanks for pointing out my mistake. But as for Briggs I think hes very overrated personally, but I guess the fact that hes a hard puncher and is a fast starter ? As evident by all his 1st round knockouts. Will make him a live underdog vs Norton, but I don't necessarily agree Norton loses to every puncher, just because he got stopped twice past his prime, and losing to a prime George Foreman is nothing to be ashamed of either.

 

Another point, at the risk of opening a whole can of worms, but have we got a level playing field in terms of 'nutritional supplements'?