View Full Version : Ken Norton Tribute/Discussion


DarkTerror88
10-07-2011, 07:18 PM
Here is a Kenny Norton tribute/highlight video. Any thoughts on him as an ATG? Where does he rank in your book?

<object width="640" height="480"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/5MXy0ubvHDM?version=3&amp;hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/5MXy0ubvHDM?version=3&amp;hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="480" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>


PS. Where the hell is Steak/BlackIrish?!

Scott9945
10-07-2011, 08:27 PM
A very good heavyweight. Definitely not an ATG though. Outstanding boxer/puncher whose rigid style and shaky jaw cost him too often. But if you couldn't hurt him he was a very difficult opponent.

Pastrano
10-07-2011, 09:13 PM
Ken beat a lotta good hw's. He had a great punch and his stance was great too. Not always as effective against long armed monster punchers like Foreman, but most often it was. He was a clever boxer no doubt and yet a great puncher also. I thought he won at least 2 of the fights with Ali. Shame he never fought Frazier. He stopped Quarry, Bobick, Middleton, Stander, Lovell and decisioned Jimmy Young and Clay/Ali.

New England
10-07-2011, 09:23 PM
Awesome fighter to watch
terrific athlete

i'm quite partial to his style. he's a great counterpart for a great fight

i don't believe he's a genuine ATG beater

good/very good puncher
good/great engine
nice body shots
hard worker. just a lot to like

slow starter//got dropped, stopped, hurt, early quite a bit for a fighter of his esteem and measured against his peers in the hall.


he fought in an era where the high level journeymen and fringe contenders would beat and probably stop at least a few of the guys in the top ten at HW today

other than the klitschko brothers (i would pick him to lose to both, if i found good odds i'd bet on norton to stop wladimir,) i don't think there would be a tough fight for him at HW.

alexander povetkin?
alexander povetkin is ranked third in the world right now (sad state of affairs when you've got to be troubled to check the top ten at HW, and don't get me started about how guy who refuses to fight the top two guys in the division is ranked third.)

he would never even take the fight

Capaedia
10-07-2011, 09:23 PM
The best non-ATG heavy of the '70s in my opinion.

Shame he tended to freeze up when nailed with a good shot. He was never going to make it to mid-rounds against Foreman like that.

Sugarj
10-08-2011, 11:39 AM
Ken Norton is a fringe ATG in my book.

The one and only thing that can be held against him is his lack of punch resistance against the truely big punchers (Foreman, Shavers, Cooney).

In every other area, the guy was very much up there. Good handspeed, good power, excellent conditioning and a very useful style. He was precise, accurate and punched well to head and body.

The guy was poison to excellent technical boxers. There was clearly not much between him and 70s Ali, Jimmy Young and Larry Holmes. Their 5 very close fights clearly indicate this.

Judging by these performances any objective viewer would have to give him a fair shot at beating other technically excellent ATG heavyweights:

Gene Tunney
Max Schmelling
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Floyd Patterson


Granted, I'd have severe doubts about how he would handle Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Sonny Liston, Riddick Bowe or Lennox Lewis. But I think 'fringe ATG' would be a fair estimate of Norton.

A superb fight for Norton would have been against 1990/91 Evander Holyfield.

young_robbed
10-08-2011, 11:27 PM
[QUOTE=Capaedia;11265916]The best non-ATG heavy of the '70s in my opinion.QUOTE]

Don't think he's better then Young who did better against common opponents and actually beat him in my opinion.

Sugarj
10-09-2011, 09:46 AM
[QUOTE=Capaedia;11265916]The best non-ATG heavy of the '70s in my opinion.QUOTE]

Don't think he's better then Young who did better against common opponents and actually beat him in my opinion.


Its a close call between him and Young. Young's win over Foreman and draw with Shavers indicates that he had a better chin than Norton.

But Norton got a genuine win over 1973 Ali and very close losses against returning 1973 Ali and an in shape 1976 Ali. The 1976 Ali that faced Young was overweight and clearly much less of a force than Norton had to contend with.

Also, Norton was a touch past his best when he faced Jimmy Young in 1977, and like it or not Norton did get the decision in that close fight. I'd fancy that 1973 Norton would have given 1977 Young a more decisive beating.

Pastrano
10-09-2011, 10:08 AM
Ken Norton is a fringe ATG in my book.

The one and only thing that can be held against him is his lack of punch resistance against the truely big punchers (Foreman, Shavers, Cooney).

In every other area, the guy was very much up there. Good handspeed, good power, excellent conditioning and a very useful style. He was precise, accurate and punched well to head and body.

The guy was poison to excellent technical boxers. There was clearly not much between him and 70s Ali, Jimmy Young and Larry Holmes. Their 5 very close fights clearly indicate this.

Judging by these performances any objective viewer would have to give him a fair shot at beating other technically excellent ATG heavyweights:

Gene Tunney
Max Schmelling
Ezzard Charles
Jersey Joe Walcott
Floyd Patterson


Granted, I'd have severe doubts about how he would handle Jack Johnson, Joe Louis, Sonny Liston, Riddick Bowe or Lennox Lewis. But I think 'fringe ATG' would be a fair estimate of Norton.

A superb fight for Norton would have been against 1990/91 Evander Holyfield.
He was clearly past it against Shavers and Cooney, so that can't be held against him. And Foreman of the early 70's was an absolute MONSTER, so that can't be held against him either. That even the ironchinned Ali chose the tactics he chose against him is the proof how deadly he was. And that Frazier had no chance against him coz he forfeited the strategic gameplan in favor of offensiveness is a further testament to how dangerous and overpowering Foreman was. Only another monsterpuncher like Lyle could dare to trade with him, but even he failed in the end.

Sugarj
10-09-2011, 05:21 PM
He was clearly past it against Shavers and Cooney, so that can't be held against him. And Foreman of the early 70's was an absolute MONSTER, so that can't be held against him either. That even the ironchinned Ali chose the tactics he chose against him is the proof how deadly he was. And that Frazier had no chance against him coz he forfeited the strategic gameplan in favor of offensiveness is a further testament to how dangerous and overpowering Foreman was. Only another monsterpuncher like Lyle could dare to trade with him, but even he failed in the end.


Hell, I know how dangerous Foreman was. Shavers and Cooney had frighteningly heavy hands too. Its nothing to be ashamed of in Norton's case to be knocked out by these three, past prime or not.

The thing is, Norton belongs further up on the list in a hall of fame sense than the likes of Shavers or Cooney. But I wouldn't be confident picking even prime Norton over either of these two, simply because his chin wasn't quite as reliable as the Alis, Foremans and Holmes's of the world.

bojangles1987
10-09-2011, 06:22 PM
I'm a very big Ken Norton fan. He's another example of a good fighter during that time period that would have been remembered much better if he showed up 20 years earlier or 10 years later.