Jersey Joe Walcott vs Ken Norton

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 25 Nov 2005, 18:39

who wins this matchup at there peaks?

Jersey Joe walcott 1947 vs Ken Norton 1977

IMO, walcott 15 split ken norton

theone · Post by **theone** » 25 Nov 2005, 18:52

Norton Tko 9. His awkward jab and movement would trouble Walcott like it did a alot of stylish fighters. I dont think Walcott had the strenght or power to keep him off the whole night.

JC · Post by JC » 25 Nov 2005, 19:05

This is a good match up; it probably wouldn't be full of thrills but very interesting from a technical point of view.

I can’t see Norton OKing Walcott, and he'd have to work very hard to win the rounds, I suppose the big advantage for Norton is in strength so maybe he'd ware Walcott down with his awkward style.

However I see Walcott out hustling Norton for the decision.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 25 Nov 2005, 19:37

Norton never lost to anyone under 6'1" so I don't see the bigger Norton succumbing to Walcott. He had problems with big, powerful punchers, which was the opposite of Walcott. Jersey Joe had a good punch but he was a technician first and foremost. Norton had the athletic ability and the stamina to go 15 rounds. Norton wins a close 15 round decision over Walcott.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 25 Nov 2005, 19:59

I believe Garcia was under 6'1, as was Young who gave Ken a very tough fight.

I'd edge to Walcott, although it would be very close as both had great jabs and were both were awkward as hell (Joe being more so) It would be fascinating to watch but as stated probably not a slugfest.

evndrbsn · Post by **evndrbsn** » 25 Nov 2005, 20:11

dempseyfire wrote:I believe Garcia was under 6'1, as was Young who gave Ken a very tough fight.

I'd edge to Walcott, although it would be very close as both had great jabs and were both were awkward as hell (Joe being more so) It would be fascinating to watch but as stated probably not a slugfest.

Garcia was a big guy at 6 foot 4 inches.

pound per pound · Post by **pound per pound** » 25 Nov 2005, 23:45

Norton did well vs boxers. Norton was fast and skilled with some power. He was a pretty big guy as well. His size would help him in this match up. Norton had chin issues vs aggressive punchers.

Walcott was a defensive oriented boxer who liked to dance and counter. I like Norton to win a decision.

theone · Post by **theone** » 25 Nov 2005, 23:49

Walcott in his prime had better movement than Ali showed in any of his three fights with Norton. Walcott also had a wider variety of punches than Ali did and wouldn't turn the fight into a war of jabs

This is one of the very few times Ive disagreed with you Decagon. In the last two fights Ali beat Norton by moving around the ring and boxing superbly like he did in his prime, winning the last couple of rounds in each fight to take the close decision. Walcott did not have the reach or height to box on the outside like Ali and needed to get inside to be effective. In, out, in, out, throwing rapid combinations is how he fought, not stick move, stick, move, flurry, like Ali did.
Norton size strenght and awkwardness threw off and stumped all the stylist he ever fought.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 26 Nov 2005, 04:54

Decagon wrote:This is a very close fight, and I'd make Walcott about a -130 favorite. Joe simply had the better fundamentals, and his movement would befuddle just about anyone. Walcott in his prime had better movement than Ali showed in any of his three fights with Norton. Walcott also had a wider variety of punches than Ali did and wouldn't turn the fight into a war of jabs.

i agree

- norton beat a slower past his prime ali. walcott was faster, trickier, better defensivley, better ring technician than the 70s ali and walcott would dance around norton and do his shuffle and confuse the hell out of norton with shuffle, feints, moves, tricks.

i see a peak walcott decisioning norton

- walcott defintley has power to put norton away. walcott psossed hard punch in both fists

- walcott knocked down louis 3 times, knocked down good chinned marciano, and knocked out ezzard charles out cold who hadnt been knocked out in 8 years!

- walcott also knocked down a lot of others like bivins, maxim, ray, oma, etc and all those knockdowns were by ONE punch!

theone · Post by **theone** » 26 Nov 2005, 11:10

norton beat a slower past his prime ali. walcott was faster, trickier, better defensivley, better ring technician than the 70s ali and walcott would dance around norton and do his shuffle and confuse the hell out of norton with shuffle, feints, moves, tricks.

wlacott was also shorter, had a much lesser reach and not a good a chin as Ali. Norton would not be confused by any of Walcotts tricks because he would be constantly moving his large frame in with that quick crab like stance keeping Walcott off balance with his jab. Movers were not effective against Norton because of this. Holmes was on par skill wise with Walcott, but also the size, and reach to deal with Norton. And that fight was almost to close to call.

walcott defintley has power to put norton away. walcott psossed hard punch in both fists

I dont think Walcott was the calibre of puncher to put Norton away or have him seriously troubled.

walcott knocked down louis 3 times, knocked down good chinned marciano, and knocked out ezzard charles out cold who hadnt been knocked out in 8 years!

Louis in his prime was dropped by lighter punchers than walcott. Knocking him down past his prime was not that much of an accomplishment. Marciano was caught perfectly coming in and was dropped. Marciano was 184lbs. which is alot easier to drop than someone who has 26 more pounds of natural muscle on him. Charles,Oma,Bivins were small, barely heavyweights. Maxim was a lightheavy at his very best. They competed at the division in one of its weaker eras. knocking down one of them is not the same as trying to knock out a big strong heavyweight like Norton. You have to contend with taking whats coming at you to land a shot of your own. Walcott did not have the power of a Foreman or Shavers.

Tantum · Post by **Tantum** » 26 Nov 2005, 12:03

Walcott by decision.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 26 Nov 2005, 14:18

theone, im not saying he was a power puncher, but walcott defintley had the power to put down norton

Marciano was 184lbs. which is alot easier to drop than someone who has 26 more pounds of natural muscle on him.

how is that proven???

i mean i think its clear or at least to me that marciano overall had a solid chin, even for a heavy. despite being in 49 fights, he was never hurt in the ring or stumbled around the ring in a daze and he was hit by some hard punches!

I mean early in his career when very inexperienced and thought of as a nobodie, he could have been floored many times but was never floored. it took flush shots from two hard hitters to put him down for FLASH counts.

yes i know "marciano never faced a first tier big heavyweight puncher". u can say that all u want.

but i think marciano had a better chin than norton and walcott did put rock down and i defintley think walcott could put norton down.

why did walcott have low KO percentage??

why didnt walcott knock out more people??

reason: he wasnt aggresive enough. he simply had the power but liked to stay back and box. but walcott had power in both fists and the fact that most of his knockouts or knockdowns were with one punch goes to show u the punch he packed in either fist

tiredoldngrey · Post by **tiredoldngrey** » 26 Nov 2005, 15:22

Walcott easily by wide UD or maybe a tko/ko in the second half of the fight. Norton didn't take a punch so good and Walcott could without question hurt him- hell ko him with either hand

theone · Post by **theone** » 26 Nov 2005, 15:26

how is that proven???
i mean i think its clear or at least to me that marciano overall had a solid chin, even for a heavy. despite being in 49 fights, he was never hurt in the ring or stumbled around the ring in a daze and he was hit by some hard punches!

Brockton, my comments were meant to criticize the Rock's chin. We're talking knockdowns not knockouts. The facts remains that the Rock was 184 solid pounds and Norton was around 20 pounds heavier than him, also solid. Its just physics that both of them are charging at you its going to be easier to knock down the lighter. Just simple science.

theone, im not saying he was a power puncher, but walcott defintley had the power to put down norton

Maybe. But I definitely know Norton could drop, hurt, and K.O. Walcott.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 26 Nov 2005, 15:46

i think this is a wierd fight... i dont know as much about ken norton, as i do jersey joe.. i know jersey joe had some above average power, but preffered to box.. i do know that norton was the big bruising type who had the power to ko walcott.. but im not sure he could get enough shots on him to hurt him...

Ill take either Norton by KO 7-10 rounds

or Jersey Joe by UD/Sd..itll be a close one...

out of 10 fights.. id put my money on norton to win 6-4 maybe 7-3

josh576 · Post by **josh576** » 26 Nov 2005, 15:57

yeah it would be kind of a toss-up. i think of those two as similar fighters. both were boxers with decent ko power. they both had good stamina and chins, though norton's chin was obviously questionable against big punchers. walcott is not that type of fighter so it would make for an interesting match-up. maybe norton would overpower walcott and hit harder shots, but its a tough fight for me to call. it could play put much like the norton-holmes fight played out, but this time with norton getting the slight edge.

norton sd 15 walcott

theone · Post by **theone** » 26 Nov 2005, 16:09

Brockton, my comments were meant to criticize the Rock's chin.

Jeez, I should proof read what I write next time. Brockton, I meant were NOT meant to criticize the Rocks chin.

Lickszz · Post by **Lickszz** » 26 Nov 2005, 18:37

Walcott UD.

Seamus · Post by **Seamus** » 26 Nov 2005, 21:04

I think Walcott would beat Norton to the punch and outbox him for the first 5 or 6 rounds, but then he'd be slowed down as Norton's superior strength became more of a factor. Forced to go toe to toe with Norton, the tide would quickly turn, and I see Norton winning by a 9th round stoppage.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 26 Nov 2005, 21:09

Seamus wrote:I think Walcott would beat Norton to the punch and outbox him for the first 5 or 6 rounds, but then he'd be slowed down as Norton's superior strength became more of a factor. Forced to go toe to toe with Norton, the tide would quickly turn, and I see Norton winning by a 9th round stoppage.

i cant see norton stopping him. he wanst a big puncher, certainly no more than walcott.

walcott was a very muscular strong 6 1/2' 197lbs

- norton was 6'3 212lb

not much size difference at all, and not much strength difference.

walcott was the better ring technician, more speed, just as much power, better defense, and is by far more mobile by the way he moves.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 26 Nov 2005, 21:25

TheOne decides these things on the basis of the calendar. Norton was many years better than Walcott.

However in this case I agree with Brocky, same reasons same outcome.
Close very close.

Rory McCloskey · Post by **Rory McCloskey** » 26 Nov 2005, 21:30

i dunno BB norton did break ali's jaw so he must have been a pretty big puncher

Irish · Post by **Irish** » 27 Nov 2005, 01:59

I think Walcott is a much better fighter. Walcott UD.

theone · Post by **theone** » 28 Nov 2005, 21:39

TheOne decides these things on the basis of the calendar.

Not true Boxbuzz. If it would have been Louis against Norton, I would have picked Norton to lose that encounter. I just dont think Walcott could handle the combination of Nortons size, style and strenghts. Besides the robbery against the faded Louis in the first fight Walcott never fought a good, big mobile heavyweight like Norton before.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 28 Nov 2005, 22:10

that faded louis that walcott beat in the first fight was still a damm good fighter, far better than the louis charle fought.

theone, that is simply not true.

walcott fought extremley hard puncher 6'2 200lb elmer ray beating ray twice and knocking ray down.

in going 30 rounds with ray, walcott was never floored!

walcott also took on HUGE puncher tommy gomez knocking gomez out in 3.

- louis still had a lot of power left as he showed in the rematch

walcott faced huge puncher

Besides the robbery against the faded Louis in the first fight Walcott never fought a good, big mobile heavyweight like Norton before.

hein ten hoff was undefeated 6'5 220lbs walcott boxed circles around him

olle tanberg 6'3 208lbs was widely feared at the time, walcott knocked him out

walcott boxed circles around 6'2 218lb top contender joe baski

walcott also knocked out 6'3 220lb solid punching journeyman johhny skorr

yes and look how he beat louis in the first fight

- he took on ezzard charles thogh not as big, was much more mobile, faster, better boxer than norton.

i might add this is heavyweight division and 15lbs MEANS NOTHING

walcott was chizzled 6' 197lbs

norton was chizzles 6'3 212lb

thats what 3" 15lbs gimme a break!!!!

theres no way norton knocks walcott out. only huge power punchers like marcianao and louis were able to knockout walcott in his prime.

- i might add a malnourished light young walcott taking the fight on 24hrs notice with no training in 1940 boxed circles around 6'4 257ln abe simon for 5 rounds before falling over in the 6th to exhaustion and abe finished him off.

walcott better ring technician, better ring smarts, more speed, more boxing skills, beter denense, hit harder than norton, was cutier.

walcott would simply move and outspeed and coufuse the hell out of norton the whole nigtht

walcot 15 unaniimous norton