The great Ken Norton

[davie]

Always quoted as being a pivotal part of the greatest ever era of heavyweight boxing, Ali, Foreman, Frazier, Norton and latter Holmes are the 5 kings of the 70s heavyweight scene. "Champions forever" as the DVD states

But does he belong in that company?

Obviously he was among those great fighters and gave Ali 3 tough fights, but lets look a little further into it

Boxrec has him 32nd well behind the lowest ranked of that era (Ali 1, Holmes 10, Frazier 15, Foreman 21)
He never actually won a world title,
he lost twice to Ali and the one he won Ali suffered a broken jaw (admittedly Norton was the one that broke it with a punch),
he was hammered by Foreman,
never faced Frazier
and was beaten by Holmes.

What were his standout wins other than that Ali fight?
Was it just a case that his style was a difficult one for Ali to overcome (as JMM is for Pacquiao) or was he really that close to Ali's level?

I've watched the big fights and there's no doubt he was a good fighter,
I haven't watched through many of his fights against 'lesser' fighters, perhaps that would shine a light on the matter

I've read a lot of criticism of Foreman and Holmes on here of late. but was this guy deserving of being named among these elite guys or just fortunate to have been around in a stacked era.

You talk about the fabulous 4, Hearns, Hagler, Duran and Leonard. Each has their merits, many will argue the case for each man being the best, but they all merit almost equal billing in that magnificent era. Does Norton fit so well with those other top heavyweights?

[BoxBuzz]

Holmes may have gotten the decision, but not sure Kenny was "beaten" that night.

He does get a lot of mileage for listening deeply to Futch who did recognize just what it would take to get it done with Ali. He then listened, and focused.

But sort of like Tarver....he may have been mostly a "Boutique fighter" designed nearly perfectly to foil a remarkable fighter.

However it is my opinion that his best fight was against Holmes, and you can argue that whoever won that fight, was the "judges call" because I saw no genuine winner.

I thought they fought to a draw.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

- Modern revisionism inanity.

Mr. Larry weren't in the 70s mix with the big 4. Many if not most thought Ken won all 3 against Ali and the one against Holmes. BOXREC ranks by results no matter how crooked, not in context to the seedy underpinnings of boxing.

[Ambling Alp II]

This could be a very good thread. Hopefully it won't go into a tangent about Quarry being past his prime or Norton deserving the decision against Ali.

First, the boxrec ratings are not to be taken seriously. Holmes, Frazier, and Foreman were all top 10 heavyweights.
Norton was better than #32, though that is still pretty decent when you consider over 130 years of the sport.

Look at the key fights of his career:
He beat Ali. That is a huge deal. This isn't like Spinks beating him. Ali still had a lot left at the time and Norton fought a great fighter.
He was competitive in 2nd Ali fight.
He beat Jimmy Young in a great fight. Probably one of the most underrated fights ever.
Norton whipped Quarry.
He destroyed Duane Bobick. A lot of people thought Bobick would win.
He lost to Holmes. However it was close and Norton fought a great fight.

He decisively beat several fringe contenders (who would be in the top 10 in some other eras) like Larry Middleton, Lorenzo Zanon, and Ron Stander.
Norton did get crushed by Foreman. However, overall he had a stellar career.

[ClivePatrickLyons]

In my opinion none of the Champion's Forever met Ali when he was at his absolute best the Ali of the 60's..... Even so Norton Broke Ali Jaw yes Jaw
who else did that Foreman/Frazier/Shavers/Liston :?? the Holmes fight well lets just say it was more beneficial for The Don King if Holmes won
I'm not saying that Norton was robbed either but Norton was closer to his used by date then Holmes and Foreman the only Fighter's that didn't crumble from his iron fists in his younger day's were Ali and Young two pure boxer's Norton peek a boo style was almost suicidal against a banger
like Foreman and it would be the same result if they met a dozen time's same if Frazier met Foreman ten more time's.
So in my view Norton surely belongs

[witherspoon]

Norton earned his place alongside Frazier, Ali and Foreman in the '70's. I think the worst you could do is to make a case for him as a 'best of the rest'.
But that doesn't really do him justice. He gave a fit Ali (weighed in at his lightest since the Liston fight, iirc) hell in their second fight, one that tends to get overlooked but for me, the tightest win of Ali's career and a great fight to watch. As epic as the fight in Manila was, I always enjoy Norton II far more because it was fought on a far higher level of skill by both guys. I have scored this fight twice, both times I have Ali win the fight with the last round, which itself was pretty close.

He did enough to take the title when the chance came against Ali, I think most people agree, so I dont begrudge him his world title. He fought Holmes to standstill in losing it, which is no disgrace as Holmes went on to dominate the division for years.

And of course, there is that battle of the broken jaw. The record may stand at 2-1 to Ali, but it could just as easily be the other way. And nobody came as close to beating Ali 3 times as Ken Norton did.

So he was crushed by Foreman, but so was Frazier.

[handsofstone]

Funnily enough i watched Norton's first fight with Ali yesterday and i cant believe some of these "experts" had it close and even worse having Ali winning it,disgraceful bias IMO

I'll watch the rematch later today

[Counter-puncher]

- Many if not most thought Ken won the one against Holmes..

now, that is inane revisionism.

or absolute fvcking bullshit, put another way.

[stevedoc]

Funnily enough i watched Norton's first fight with Ali yesterday and i cant believe some of these "experts" had it close and even worse having Ali winning it,disgraceful bias IMO

I'll watch the rematch later today

The first time I see ali fight was vs Norton I got a video of the trilogy and have to say I was completely under whelmed by Ali and I have never really been a fan of Ali .Norton won 2 of the fights I can't remember which ones but he had Ali's number alright

[littlepug]

Funnily enough i watched Norton's first fight with Ali yesterday and i cant believe some of these "experts" had it close and even worse having Ali winning it,disgraceful bias IMO

I'll watch the rematch later today

The first time I see ali fight was vs Norton I got a video of the trilogy and have to say I was completely under whelmed by Ali and I have never really been a fan of Ali .Norton won 2 of the fights I can't remember which ones but he had Ali's number alright

Same here, Ali could be quite a lazy fighter which never impressed me, Norton on the other hand although limited in skill did the best with what he had and was a good example of will triumphing over skill.

[sweetviolenturge]

Norton definitely belongs among the elite class of the heavyweight division's greatest era, the '70s. Just behind the top three in Ali, Foreman & Frazier.
Others have already done a stellar job here explaining why, so I'll just add my two cents about why I consider the often belabored point about Norton never having won a title fight to be a misinformed myth.
Leading up to the initial Ali-Spinks fight the WBC mandated that the winner had to agree to fight their #1 contender, which was determined by a November 1977 elimination bout between Norton & #2 rated Jimmy Young. A bout that was originally scheduled for 12 rounds.
However, as there were already strong rumors indicating that Ali would likely drop the 'BC belt to avoid a fourth Norton fight or a rematch with Young ( whom only some very shady scoring from the judges in Landover, Maryland allowed Ali to retain his title against the previous year ). So, Jose Sulaiman made Norton-Young a 15 rounder with the victor to be recognized as 'BC champion in the event that Ali did choose to avoid the winner.
Well, Spinks upset the applecart by shocking a badly aging, out of shape Ali & chose to grant Ali an immediate rematch rather than go through with his obligation to defend against Norton who beat Young in a razor close thriller. Thus, said fight became a retroactive WBC championship fight. Which, again, Norton won.
So, although it actually took place before Ali losing to Spinks & Spinks being stripped by Sulaiman for not fulfilling his obligation to defend against him, Norton did win his title fight vs Young IMO.
I know that I'm in the minority this assertion, but technically, I'm correct. :)

[Crease]

He never actually won a world title

That is inaccurate, Norton was the WBC Champion when he beat Jimmy Young in 1977 because he was the mandatory challenger and Leon Spinks refused the fight and decided have a rematch with Muhammad Ali.

[Crease]

One of the problems with rating Norton is that he suffered more than a few quick KO losses & as such he may eternally never been given the credit that he deserves.

One thing is for sure though, he was a tough brute of a man.

[DaveyMac]

I'm not sure it's germane, and it is difficult to explain to people who weren't around in the 70's but Ken Norton was a really big star. Like household name star. There probably isn't a HW today who is well known as Ken Norton was.
True that probably made him the 4th most famous in the world and maybe even 5th after Leon Spinks pulled his upset, but he was a major star.
To me that counts for something. If people really are excited about a fighter and want to see him, that's a sign of greatness.

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

now, that is inane revisionism.

or absolute fvcking bullshit, put another way.

- Ok then, who are you?


Ronnie Pickering


Who?


Ronnie Pickering


Who?



RONNIE PICKERING!








Sir, I am honoured. I've been blessed by the Pope hisself, but never yet graced with the displeasure of RONNIE fvcking PICKERING! until now. I am forever in your debt. 8)

[Counter-puncher]

[Ambling Alp II]

One of the problems with rating Norton is that he suffered more than a few quick KO losses & as such he may eternally never been given the credit that he deserves.

One thing is for sure though, he was a tough brute of a man.

He three quick ko losses and got an undserved reputation as not having a good chin. The Cooney fight should be totally thrown out, he was old and coming off a layoff. The
He was already 35 when he got ko'd by Shavers, who happns to be the hardest puncher of all time.

Really you are down to the Foreman fight, which isn't exactly embarrassing when you look at Foreman's other fights.

He proved how good he was. He was about at the same level as Patterson, Walcott, Charles, Schmeling, Baer, Sharkey etc.

[handsofstone]

Watched the Ali-Norton rematch today and it was worse than the first fight

[BoxBuzz]

One of the problems with rating Norton is that he suffered more than a few quick KO losses & as such he may eternally never been given the credit that he deserves.

One thing is for sure though, he was a tough brute of a man.

He three quick ko losses and got an undserved reputation as not having a good chin. The Cooney fight should be totally thrown out, he was old and coming off a layoff. The
He was already 35 when he got ko'd by Shavers, who happns to be the hardest puncher of all time.

Really you are down to the Foreman fight, which isn't exactly embarrassing when you look at Foreman's other fights.

He proved how good he was. He was about at the same level as Patterson, Walcott, Charles, Schmeling, Baer, Sharkey etc.

Love ya like a brother Alp.....AND....IF.....your going to take the win over Quarry seriously, I'm afraid you have to take the loss to Cooney just as seriously. Treat em both the same, toss em or count em....but no cherry picking.

In my opinion the best Norton probably beats the best Cooney.....and the best Quarry almost certainly beats the best Kenny. But your attempting to have it both ways here.

Then there's that nasty business of how Quarry stopped Shavers, and Shavers stopped Norton. Seems you want that both ways as well. I'm just sayin'.

[witherspoon]

Watched the Ali-Norton rematch today and it was worse than the first fight

You gotta be talking about the 3rd fight, right?

[ClivePatrickLyons]

The Best Quarry Almost certainly beats Norton what a lot of crap Norton was a few level's above The Great White Hope

[handsofstone]

Watched the Ali-Norton rematch today and it was worse than the first fight

You gotta be talking about the 3rd fight, right?

Nah the 2nd,im not the biggest fan of Ali's style but he did improve in the rematch,im gonna watch the rubber match today

I thought both fights have been snoozers with hardly enough punches landed from either guy

[Ambling Alp II]

One of the problems with rating Norton is that he suffered more than a few quick KO losses & as such he may eternally never been given the credit that he deserves.

One thing is for sure though, he was a tough brute of a man.

He three quick ko losses and got an undserved reputation as not having a good chin. The Cooney fight should be totally thrown out, he was old and coming off a layoff. The
He was already 35 when he got ko'd by Shavers, who happns to be the hardest puncher of all time.

Really you are down to the Foreman fight, which isn't exactly embarrassing when you look at Foreman's other fights.

He proved how good he was. He was about at the same level as Patterson, Walcott, Charles, Schmeling, Baer, Sharkey etc.

Love ya like a brother Alp.....AND....IF.....your going to take the win over Quarry seriously, I'm afraid you have to take the loss to Cooney just as seriously. Treat em both the same, toss em or count em....but no cherry picking.

In my opinion the best Norton probably beats the best Cooney.....and the best Quarry almost certainly beats the best Kenny. But your attempting to have it both ways here.

Then there's that nasty business of how Quarry stopped Shavers, and Shavers stopped Norton. Seems you want that both ways as well. I'm just sayin'.

Not at all. Norton was 35 when he fought Shavers and 37 when he fought Cooney.
Quarry was 30 when he fought Norton and we have been through all the crybaby excuses before numerous times on other threads. Norton beat him fair and square.
Quarry did beat Shavers and should get credit for that and Shavers should get penalized for it. However, it isn't very relevant to rating Norton.
Lets not ruin this thread by going off that tangent again.

[Ambling Alp II]

Is this the same Ken Norton who was

knocked out in the first round by Ernie Shavers

knocked out in the first round by pathetic Jerry Cooney

knocked out in two rounds by Foreman

knocked out in eight rounds by Joe Louis Garcia

?

He was 35 when he got knocked out by Shavers.
He was 37 when he got knocked out by Cooney. That fight should even be mentioned at all.
He was inexperienced when he lost to Garcia. Later on when he was experienced, he whipped Garcia in the rematch.

He did get crushed by Foreman, but he shouldn't get any more criticism than Frazier does for that.

We make allowances for other fighters when they lose in similar situations; we should do the same for Norton.

[elmersalsa]

Ken Norton is THE ONLY MAN, THAT BEAT THE GREATEST 3 TIMES!

He just got DICKED 2 out 3 by the judge$$$!