View Full Version : jersey joe walcott vs ken norton


SuzieQ49
04-11-2006, 10:37 AM
who do you take

Southpaw Stinger
04-11-2006, 10:46 AM
I'd back Norton by decision.

M26
04-11-2006, 11:22 AM
I would rank Jersey Joe Walcott the better boxer of the two. He was a slick sob and could give Ken Norton a few difficulties along the way.

On the other hand, Norton was a good boxer himself, and he also carried with him more power. I don't see chin being a factor, as Walcott didn't carry sufficient power to stop Norton.

Considering that Nortons trouble were against hardhitting sluggers, not against skilled boxers, I think he would win this one. If he could give a close-to-prime Muhammad Ali hell, he should be able to defeat Walcott.

Ken Norton by UD.

Stiv Rex
04-11-2006, 12:12 PM
i do think chin is a factor. walcott went down twice in the first fight with marciano, once in the second. marciano's "suzie q" wasnt your average punch, but it shows that walcotts chin was vulnerable. a look at his record shows 18 total losses, several early in his career on points, as well as a few losses by ko to nobody fighters. however, the ko losses to marciano were at the end of a 23 year career.
nortons gangly style and power plus the size advantage would enable him to wear down walcott, eventually enough for a late ko.

SuzieQ49
04-11-2006, 01:08 PM
no way norton knocks out walcott. norton NEVER knocked out a fighter of walcotts caliber. shot quarry doesnt count. norton did not have enough power to knock out walcott. the only time in walcotts prime he was ever knocked out was by marciano and louis all time punchers. elmer ray a far bigger puncher norton was unable to floor walcott in 23 rounds.



walcott was defintley the bigger puncher than norton

moondog0
04-11-2006, 01:47 PM
Norton in a close one. Norton was one of my favorite boxers growing up, he whippped Ali and he could whip Walcott.....

mokele
04-11-2006, 03:45 PM
You have to go with Norton on this one. Ken had a substantial size advantage on Walcott, around 3" in height, typically 15 to 20 lbs. in weight, and a longer reach (80" to 74" according to boxrec.com). Kenny was also a harder puncher and hard to hit because of his cross-handed style. Walcott had the edge in speed and perhaps overall boxing ability, but it wouldn't have been enough. Maybe Walcott's chin was as good or better, but Norton was murder on smaller guys. The only guys who ever beat him were bigger guys or heavy punchers (Jose Luis Garcia, Shavers, Cooney, Foreman).

I like old time fighters but I have to admit that Walcott seems to be over-rated among all the great heavyweights. Ranking Walcott ahead of some of the better modern fighters makes sense only in 1 way: Walcott nearly beat Marciano, who is usually highly ranked, well inside the top 10. I find it hard to believe that Walcott would have stood a chance against Riddick Bowe, Lennox Lewis, Vitaly Klitschko or other giant guys with decent skill.

Today, Walcott would be just a great cruiserweight, someone who would have to be favored over the best cruiserweights in the world today such as O'Neill Bell, Jean-Marc Mormeck, Dale Brown, etc. This is pretty much the best that I can say for him.

Oasis_Lad
04-11-2006, 03:47 PM
norton by ud

SuzieQ49
04-11-2006, 03:53 PM
Kenny was also a harder puncher


walcott was a harder puncher than norton


Ranking Walcott ahead of some of the better modern fighters makes sense only in 1 way: Walcott nearly beat Marciano, who is usually highly ranked, well inside the top 10.


he also beat JOE LOUIS, ever heard of him? unfortunetley walcott was robbed. he also beat EZZARD CHARLES twice


THERES A LOT MORE GOOD NAMES THAN JUST ROCKY MARCIANO ON HIS RESUME!

Kid Achilles
04-11-2006, 03:59 PM
I'll take Walcott who was by far the better, more versatile, boxer. I think Norton tends to get overrated quite a bit because of his win(s) over Ali but he was not a big puncher (just looked the part of one) and really did not perform well against guys who could really hit. If he fought today, even with the talent being what it is, I'm not so sure he would be champion. Guys like Wlad Klitschko, Brewster, and even Samuel Peter would all have a great chance of KOing Norton.

I think prime Quarry takes him as well.

mokele
04-11-2006, 04:08 PM
walcott was a harder puncher than norton

he also beat JOE LOUIS, ever heard of him? unfortunetley walcott was robbed. he also beat EZZARD CHARLES twice


THERES A LOT MORE GOOD NAMES THAN JUST ROCKY MARCIANO ON HIS RESUME!

Of course I knew that stuff. I saw a show a few years ago in which Joe Louis, Tony Galento, Jersey Joe Walcott and a moderator (who I've forgotten) were sitting around reminiscing about their boxing careers. Galento had lost a lot of weight and no longer looked like he was ever a heavyweight. During the show, the 1st Louis-Walcott fight was brought up, and Walcott said that he had won that fight. Louis disagreed but tried not to make a big deal out of it. It was sort of touching to see 2 old boxers that still carry on a feud 30 years or more after it occurred!

Kid Achilles
04-11-2006, 04:29 PM
If you can find out where you saw that, I'd love to know.

RockyMarcianofan00
04-11-2006, 04:35 PM
walcott was a harder puncher than norton





he also beat JOE LOUIS, ever heard of him? unfortunetley walcott was robbed. he also beat EZZARD CHARLES twice


THERES A LOT MORE GOOD NAMES THAN JUST ROCKY MARCIANO ON HIS RESUME!

good posting

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c49/IrishInsomniac00/other%20boxing%20pictures/JerseyJoeWalcott_Big.jpg


Walcott was a great fighter with a good punch for the most part and he had a special punch that would knock nearly anyone down, maybe not out but down. This is the punch he used against Louis,Charles,and Marciano

Walcott was prime during the Marciano fight

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c49/IrishInsomniac00/Rocky%20Marciano/thhit2.jpg
Walcott knocks down Marciano

SuzieQ49
04-12-2006, 12:12 AM
kid achilles, my fights came in. i will upload some for you


quick points after watching the fights


* nino valdes was absolutley tailor made for marciano. valdes is lucky he did not fight the rock, it would not have lasted 5 rounds. all of valdes weaknesses are rocky's strengths!


* bob satterfield had a lot better defense and better boxing skills than people think. he was polished


* rex layne knocked out bob satterfield with one of the best right hands i have ever seen. satterfield dropped like he been shot. this fight shows how hard layne could hit.


* walcott schooled the huge 6'6 hein ten hoff who on film looked pretty mobile for a big man. walcott showed in this fight he was very good at dealing with big men.


* machen-johannsen knockout is THE MOST BRUTAL KO I HAVE EVER SEEN. i thought machen was dead. literally. he was being pummeled on the ropes uncounsious and the ref refused to step in. it was very scary KO! make no mistake about it, ingo could bang with his right. machen dropped the first time like he been shot!


* sam langford is the real deal. he has incredible punching technique as well, throws very straight punches in combinations.


* archie moore was just as fast in early-mid 1950s as in mid 1940s

Kid Achilles
04-12-2006, 12:26 AM
That's great to hear! Satterfield is a punching power legend and I've always wanted to see the guy in action. When I get back home from college, I'll have to order some fights myself.

SABBATH
04-12-2006, 05:37 AM
* bob satterfield had a lot better defense and better boxing skills than people think. he was polished


* rex layne knocked out bob satterfield with one of the best right hands i have ever seen. satterfield dropped like he been shot. this fight shows how hard layne could hit.

Satterfield was an explosive puncher and had an impressive looking style until he got hit on the chin. Keep that in mind any time you see Satterfield get starched. He wasn't very durable.

SABBATH
04-14-2006, 08:50 PM
Norton-Walcott is a good match-up. I see it being more like Norton-Young than Holmes-Norton or Ali-Norton. Young was a slick counter-puncher who had a better chin than Walcott but didn't hit as hard as Jersey Joe. Young was able to stop Norton dead in his tracks with sharp counter-punches so it's not inconcievable that Walcott could hurt Norton while I also believe Norton could hurt Walcott as others fighters were able to.

Having watched Norton-Young many times I believe Young could have been given the decision. It was a very close fight and difficult to score. Your classic aggressor vs counterpuncher. I do believe Norton was not the same after Ali III and admittedly had lost some of his taste for boxing. Starting with the debateable Young decision Norton went on to lose to Holmes, was demolished by Shavers, was floored and out on his feet at the final bell in his draw against Ledoux before coming back to a split decision win over Cobb and a blow-out loss to Cooney.

Norton's peak was from '73-'76 and I believe this version of Norton beats prime Walcott. Based on the split decision '78 Holmes fight, this prime Norton may have beaten Holmes also.

Dempsey 1919
04-15-2006, 12:55 AM
who do you take

norton has the slightly better chin, and the edge in power and size, so he would catch up to walcott and ko him late.

norton in 10.

SuzieQ49
04-15-2006, 02:05 AM
norton does NOT i repeat DOES NOT have more power than walcott

Heckler
04-15-2006, 03:06 AM
With the parrying hand norton would render Walcotts jab useless, Walcott may have been slick but Norton was rather relentless and would eventually brake him down. Norton was a harder hitter and he would track and brake walcott down eventually. Him dropping Joe Louis isn't justification for being a harder hitter, Joe Louis isn't known for a strong chin.

Heckler
04-15-2006, 03:08 AM
So yeah Norton has more power but Walcott was a better puncher from a technical standpoint. I dont think those short sharp right crosses and left hooks carried more power then Nortons punches at all.

Kid Achilles
04-15-2006, 01:44 PM
How is everyone so sure that Norton is the harder hitter? I don't see it at all. I think both guys were good but not great punchers but I just don't see how you could say Norton had such an obvious edge in power. If anything, Walcott's punches looked better and harder on film.

SuzieQ49
04-15-2006, 02:35 PM
So yeah Norton has more power but Walcott was a better puncher from a technical standpoint. I dont think those short sharp right crosses and left hooks carried more power then Nortons punches at all.


walcott knocked out and knocked down the better fighters


can u imagine ken norton knocking ezzard charles out with 1 punch?


on film, walcotts punches are more powerful IMO. walcott floored granite chin rocky marciano, knocked out ezzard charles with 1 punch, floored joe louis 3x, floored elmer ray 3x, floored jimmy bivins, floored and stopped harold johnson, knocked out contender curtis sheppard, etc.




abe simon called jersey joe walcott "the hardest hitter i ever faced"

Dempsey 1919
04-15-2006, 07:16 PM
walcott knocked out and knocked down the better fighters


can u imagine ken norton knocking ezzard charles out with 1 punch?


on film, walcotts punches are more powerful IMO. walcott floored granite chin rocky marciano, knocked out ezzard charles with 1 punch, floored joe louis 3x, floored elmer ray 3x, floored jimmy bivins, floored and stopped harold johnson, knocked out contender curtis sheppard, etc.




abe simon called jersey joe walcott "the hardest hitter i ever faced"

from that statement you know abe has to be lying. either that or joe louis hit him so hard that he doesn't even remember louis pounding him to the ground. :D