Ken Norton's legacy?

[NYDominican]

1. What do you think Ken Norton's legacy should be in professional boxing's heavyweight division?


2. Is Ken an all time great?


3. Or, did Norton's losses to Muhammad Ali (two losses), Earnie Shavers, Larry Holmes, and Gerry Cooney knock Ken Norton out of contention for being an all time great?


Please explain.

[DrDuke]

1. What do you think Ken Norton's legacy should be in professional boxing's heavyweight division?


2. Is Ken an all time great?

No doubt Norton is all time great, his legacy is huge. He was a top fighter in the greatest era of boxing. He was a champion and even taking into account the fact, that he had been awarded the title out of the ring and had never defended, he had still been a fighter deserving such privilege. He had fought the best and even he had lost to the most of them, he had still been among those few, who had defeated Ali.

3. Or, did Norton's losses to Muhammad Ali (two losses), Earnie Shavers, Larry Holmes, and Gerry Cooney knock Ken Norton out of contention for being an all time great?

No way. Furthermore, Ali-fight #3 was a robbery, Ken had won pretty clear to everybody, except the judges. And a loss in the Holmes-fight is that kind of losses, which turns a loser to a winner in some sense. It was an exciting and competitive showdown, where both Ken and Larry had given everything they got.

[oogiebe]

In an era of great HW's Norton is an all-time great. He fought everyone but Frazier and proved himself a great fighter. A great jab, awkward approach, crossover defense and decent right hand, dragging right foot, Norton was one of my favorite fighters in the 70's.

I believe he solidified his greatness v. Holmes, one of the most exciting fights of the era.

[Ambling Alp II]

He was a great fighter. He was highly regarded in his own day. He is now underrated.
When he beat Quarry it was a big deal. When he lost to Cooney everyone knew he was way past it.
Yet somehow these days the narrative is that the 30 year old Quarry was suddenly washed so the win gets ignored. Some people don't seem to realize that Norton was 37 when he lost to Cooney.

The blowout win over Bobick was a big deal at the time. A lot of people thought Bobick would beat him. Now that fight is all but ignored.

He should be rated with the mid-level champions such as Fitzsimmons, Corbett, Schmeling, Sharkey, Baer, Charles, Walcott, and Patterson.

[Kalan]

In an era of great HW's Norton is an all-time great. He fought everyone but Frazier and proved himself a great fighter. A great jab, awkward approach, crossover defense and decent right hand, dragging right foot, Norton was one of my favorite fighters in the 70's.

I believe he solidified his greatness v. Holmes, one of the most exciting fights of the era.

Norton was a pretty good Heavyweight, but an ATG? .... Not for me, because he was too open and vulnerable.

Kenny led with his head... And he had his left hand down at his waist... He was easy work for any good puncher who matched him in size and strength... He looped his right hand so you could step in with a left hook and follow with the right - or you could nail his dipping head with a right and crush him with a left hook.. He tended to panic when he got hit. He didn't find his way out of trouble.. The whole package didn't say ATG.

Norton had 3 Title Fights and didn't win any of them... He had a good jab that worked on smaller and weaker opponents, but he couldn't pink with it... It wasn't rapier like a classic stand up boxer throws... He didn't punish you with it.

If Norton ever faced a good right hand counter puncher with height, size, speed, and power, his jab would doom him... He brought it back so low that Wlad or Joshua would rip his head off... Gerry Cooney had a terrible straight right, but at least he was tall and rangy.. The first punch Cooney hurt Norton with was a straight right.. Kenny never closed the holes.

[oogiebe]

In an era of great HW's Norton is an all-time great. He fought everyone but Frazier and proved himself a great fighter. A great jab, awkward approach, crossover defense and decent right hand, dragging right foot, Norton was one of my favorite fighters in the 70's.

I believe he solidified his greatness v. Holmes, one of the most exciting fights of the era.

Norton was a pretty good Heavyweight, but an ATG? .... Not for me, because he was too open and vulnerable.

Kenny led with his head... And he had his left hand down at his waist... He was easy work for any good puncher who matched him in size and strength... He looped his right hand so you could step in with a left hook and follow with the right - or you could nail his dipping head with a right and crush him with a left hook.. He tended to panic when he got hit. He didn't find his way out of trouble.. The whole package didn't say ATG.

Norton had 3 Title Fights and didn't win any of them... He had a good jab that worked on smaller and weaker opponents, but he couldn't pink with it... It wasn't rapier like a classic stand up boxer throws... He didn't punish you with it.

If Norton ever faced a good right hand counter puncher with height, size, speed, and power, his jab would doom him... He brought it back so low that Wlad or Joshua would rip his head off... Gerry Cooney had a terrible straight right, but at least he was tall and rangy.. The first punch Cooney hurt Norton with was a straight right.. Kenny never closed the holes.

ZZZZZZzzzzzz......

[Kalan]

Screw off.... Or come back with logical points that refute Norton's well known weaknesses... You CAN'T

I remember when Norton was matched with Jose Luis Garcia... I never thought Garcia would beat Norton in a million years because he weighed 188 and had no experience, and no fights versus good fighters... But the kid was tall and had a good straight right hand for his size - so I thought he'd make a decent fight of it...

He knocked Norton on his ear with a straight right and finished him off... Don't come back with the rematch many years later when Garcia was a wreck, had been knocked out by old Ernie Terrell, and everyone knew it was just payback.

[oogiebe]

Screw off.... Or come back with logical points that refute Norton's well known weaknesses... You CAN'T

I remember when Norton was matched with Jose Luis Garcia... I never thought Garcia would beat Norton in a million years because he weighed 188 and had no experience, and no fights versus good fighters... But the kid was tall and had a good straight right hand for his size - so I thought he'd make a decent fight of it...

He knocked Norton on his ear with a straight right and finished him off... Don't come back with the rematch many years later when Garcia was a wreck, had been knocked out by old Ernie Terrell, and everyone knew it was just payback.

Not interested.

[Kalan]

Not surprised -- because there's NO argument there.

[oogiebe]

Not surprised -- because there's NO argument there.

No Kalan...I'm no longer interested in you. Don't expect any responses moving forward.

[Kalan]

Good... I don't want any responses from somebody who can't think of any so he comes with insults.

[oogiebe]

Good... I don't want any responses from somebody who can't think of any so he comes with insults.

...oh yes you dooooooooo...

[gilgamesh]

1. What do you think Ken Norton's legacy should be in professional boxing's heavyweight division?

A very good Heavyweight fighter, and one of the key rivals to Muhammad Ali. Consistently one of the top names in one of the Heavyweight divisions Golden Ages.


2. Is Ken an all time great?

If not he's right on the bubble


3. Or, did Norton's losses to Muhammad Ali (two losses), Earnie Shavers, Larry Holmes, and Gerry Cooney knock Ken Norton out of contention for being an all time great?

I don't believe he ever lost to Ali. He beat him as clearly in their 3rd fight as he did in their 1st as far I'm concerned. I've never sat down to watch the 2nd fight, but I've heard opinions from people who I hold in high regard that Kenny got the better of that one too. I'll watch it at some point in the near future to see for myself.

His fight with Larry Holmes was a tremendous fight that elevated the legacy of both fighters really. When you lose a hard fought 15 round decision against an ATG Champion in a classic bout, that's no disgrace.

The Earnie Shavers and Cooney KO's obviously weren't his finest hours, but hey...big hitters land big hits sometimes. It happens.

[oogiebe]

1. What do you think Ken Norton's legacy should be in professional boxing's heavyweight division?

A very good Heavyweight fighter, and one of the key rivals to Muhammad Ali. Consistently one of the top names in one of the Heavyweight divisions Golden Ages.


2. Is Ken an all time great?

If not he's right on the bubble


3. Or, did Norton's losses to Muhammad Ali (two losses), Earnie Shavers, Larry Holmes, and Gerry Cooney knock Ken Norton out of contention for being an all time great?

I don't believe he ever lost to Ali. He beat him as clearly in their 3rd fight as he did in their 1st as far I'm concerned. I've never sat down to watch the 2nd fight, but I've heard opinions from people who I hold in high regard that Kenny got the better of that one too. I'll watch it at some point in the near future to see for myself.

His fight with Larry Holmes was a tremendous fight that elevated the legacy of both fighters really. When you lose a hard fought 15 round decision against an ATG Champion in a classic bout, that's no disgrace.

The Earnie Shavers and Cooney KO's obviously weren't his finest hours, but hey...big hitters land big hits sometimes. It happens.

Nicely done! Agreed.

[Ambling Alp II]

I thought he won the first fight, lost the second. The third was extremely close and could have gone Norton's way. He was not as aggressive as he should have been for that one. Ali was past it and ready to be taken. Norton was usually a very good defensive fighter ; Ali had more trouble hitting him than almost anyone.
The Cooney fight should not factor in the equation at all when rating him. Even when he fought Shavers he was 35 and had recently had an all out war with Holmes before he fought Shavers.

[oogiebe]

I thought he won the first fight, lost the second. The third was extremely close and could have gone Norton's way. He was not as aggressive as he should have been for that one. Ali was past it and ready to be taken. Norton was usually a very good defensive fighter ; Ali had more trouble hitting him than almost anyone.
The Cooney fight should not factor in the equation at all when rating him. Even when he fought Shavers he was 35 and had recently had an all out war with Holmes before he fought Shavers.

An 'ambling' applause! well done.

[oogiebe]

I thought he won the first fight, lost the second. The third was extremely close and could have gone Norton's way. He was not as aggressive as he should have been for that one. Ali was past it and ready to be taken. Norton was usually a very good defensive fighter ; Ali had more trouble hitting him than almost anyone.
The Cooney fight should not factor in the equation at all when rating him. Even when he fought Shavers he was 35 and had recently had an all out war with Holmes before he fought Shavers.

An 'ambling' applause! well done.

I actually thought the 3rd fight was a draw. It aired a second time with former boxers and experts to re-score the fight. I had it for Norton the first time and a dead heat the second time I watched.

[Kalan]

Good... I don't want any responses from somebody who can't think of any so he comes with insults.

...oh yes you dooooooooo...

Bullcrap.... If you can't give a legitimate response shut it....

[oogiebe]

Good... I don't want any responses from somebody who can't think of any so he comes with insults.

...oh yes you dooooooooo...

Bullcrap.... If you can't give a legitimate response shut it....

LMFAO!!!!

[sweetviolenturge]

In an era of great HW's Norton is an all-time great. He fought everyone but Frazier and proved himself a great fighter. A great jab, awkward approach, crossover defense and decent right hand, dragging right foot, Norton was one of my favorite fighters in the 70's.

I believe he solidified his greatness v. Holmes, one of the most exciting fights of the era.

Norton was a pretty good Heavyweight, but an ATG? .... Not for me, because he was too open and vulnerable.

Kenny led with his head... And he had his left hand down at his waist... He was easy work for any good puncher who matched him in size and strength... He looped his right hand so you could step in with a left hook and follow with the right - or you could nail his dipping head with a right and crush him with a left hook.. He tended to panic when he got hit. He didn't find his way out of trouble.. The whole package didn't say ATG.

Norton had 3 Title Fights and didn't win any of them... He had a good jab that worked on smaller and weaker opponents, but he couldn't pink with it... It wasn't rapier like a classic stand up boxer throws... He didn't punish you with it.

If Norton ever faced a good right hand counter puncher with height, size, speed, and power, his jab would doom him... He brought it back so low that Wlad or Joshua would rip his head off... Gerry Cooney had a terrible straight right, but at least he was tall and rangy.. The first punch Cooney hurt Norton with was a straight right.. Kenny never closed the holes.

Norton's defense was a lot more effective than you give him credit for. It was so effective, in fact, that nonother than George Foreman adopted a very similar "cross-armed" approach in his comeback.
It's not the sort of thing that one would normally teach to a young beginner new to the sport, because, yes, it can leave a fighter vulnerable if not used properly. But, when used by men like Archie Moore, Norton & later, Foreman it could be quite effective.
Yes, the occasional big puncher like Foreman, Shavers & Cooney could exploit it, but those men are few & far between. While, on the other hand, it was a style that could very much trouble skilled, top-flight boxers like Ali, Holmes & Jimmy Young.

Norton had an excellent jab that gave Ali, Holmes, Young & many, many others fits. No, it wasn't your classic, "rapier"-like jab, but it was stiff & he threw it in abundance.

As far as him being 0-3 in title fights, Norton's W15 over Jimmy Young was actually retroactively recognized as being for the vacant WBC heavyweight title. It was originally scheduled for 12 rounds, but then Jose Sulaiman sanctioned it for 15 rounds in case the winner of the Ali - Leon Spinks bout refused to fight the winner. Which proved to be the case. Therefore, the winner ( Norton ) was recognized as the 'BC's champ.

[oogiebe]

In an era of great HW's Norton is an all-time great. He fought everyone but Frazier and proved himself a great fighter. A great jab, awkward approach, crossover defense and decent right hand, dragging right foot, Norton was one of my favorite fighters in the 70's.

I believe he solidified his greatness v. Holmes, one of the most exciting fights of the era.

Norton was a pretty good Heavyweight, but an ATG? .... Not for me, because he was too open and vulnerable.

Kenny led with his head... And he had his left hand down at his waist... He was easy work for any good puncher who matched him in size and strength... He looped his right hand so you could step in with a left hook and follow with the right - or you could nail his dipping head with a right and crush him with a left hook.. He tended to panic when he got hit. He didn't find his way out of trouble.. The whole package didn't say ATG.

Norton had 3 Title Fights and didn't win any of them... He had a good jab that worked on smaller and weaker opponents, but he couldn't pink with it... It wasn't rapier like a classic stand up boxer throws... He didn't punish you with it.

If Norton ever faced a good right hand counter puncher with height, size, speed, and power, his jab would doom him... He brought it back so low that Wlad or Joshua would rip his head off... Gerry Cooney had a terrible straight right, but at least he was tall and rangy.. The first punch Cooney hurt Norton with was a straight right.. Kenny never closed the holes.

Norton's defense was a lot more effective than you give him credit for. It was so effective, in fact, that nonother than George Foreman adopted a very similar "cross-armed" approach in his comeback.
It's not the sort of thing that one would normally teach to a young beginner new to the sport, because, yes, it can leave a fighter vulnerable if not used properly. But, when used by men like Archie Moore, Norton & later, Foreman it could be quite effective.
Yes, the occasional big puncher like Foreman, Shavers & Cooney could exploit it, but those men are few & far between. While, on the other hand, it was a style that could very much trouble skilled, top-flight boxers like Ali, Holmes & Jimmy Young.

Norton had an excellent jab that gave Ali, Holmes, Young & many, many others fits. No, it wasn't your classic, "rapier"-like jab, but it was stiff & he threw it in abundance.

As far as him being 0-3 in title fights, Norton's W15 over Jimmy Young was actually retroactively recognized as being for the vacant WBC heavyweight title. It was originally scheduled for 12 rounds, but then Jose Sulaiman sanctioned it for 15 rounds in case the winner of the Ali - Leon Spinks bout refused to fight the winner. Which proved to be the case. Therefore, the winner ( Norton ) was recognized as the 'BC's champ.

Nice! Norton was one of my favorite fighters in the 70's. I could not believe how he out jabbed Ali. Your points are well taken.

[Kalan]

The Cooney fight should not factor in the equation at all when rating him. Even when he fought Shavers he was 35 and had recently had an all out war with Holmes before he fought Shavers.

The Cooney Fight factors in... Norton beat an undefeated Randall "Tex" Cobb 6 months earlier so he was still good... Cobb was very slow and had no weapons of course... Cooney didn't have a defense, but he could throw.

Jose Luis Garcia was a very skinny kid with few wins... He teed off on Norton with rights and hammered him terribly... The Shavers fight factors in as well... The wrong style for Norton... Punchers who drive straight at you shred the cross-armed defense... Watch Archie Moore's fights with Rocky and Patterson... Watch Foreman-Norton... George scored the 1st knockdown with 5 straight right hands!

Tell me of any orthodox boxer who floored a top ranking Heavyweight (thought to be skilled) with 5 straight rights.

[gregor]

3. Or, did Norton's losses to Muhammad Ali (two losses), Earnie Shavers, Larry Holmes, and Gerry Cooney knock Ken Norton out of contention for being an all time great?
Please explain.

I would say he lost to judges rather than to Ali. As to Holmes, someone already answered - while I do not think it was close enough to make it SD (unless someone watches only the 2nd half), it was great fight anyway, one of those that are elevating the legacy of both fighters. Shavers and Cooney losses happened when he was 35+, so they are not that harming to his legacy either.

IMO, Norton is the only fighter who fought a trilogy with Ali and should've won. And someone who won with "The Greatest" should be considered ATG himself .

[oogiebe]

3. Or, did Norton's losses to Muhammad Ali (two losses), Earnie Shavers, Larry Holmes, and Gerry Cooney knock Ken Norton out of contention for being an all time great?
Please explain.

I would say he lost to judges rather than to Ali. As to Holmes, someone already answered - while I do not think it was close enough to make it SD (unless someone watches only the 2nd half), it was great fight anyway, one of those that are elevating the legacy of both fighters. Shavers and Cooney losses happened when he was 35+, so they are not that harming to his legacy either.

IMO, Norton is the only fighter who fought a trilogy with Ali and should've won. And someone who won with "The Greatest" should be considered ATG himself .

I remember announcers saying after Ali retired that Norton earned a PhD in Boxing from that trilogy.

[sweetviolenturge]

Norton was a pretty good Heavyweight, but an ATG? .... Not for me, because he was too open and vulnerable.

Kenny led with his head... And he had his left hand down at his waist... He was easy work for any good puncher who matched him in size and strength... He looped his right hand so you could step in with a left hook and follow with the right - or you could nail his dipping head with a right and crush him with a left hook.. He tended to panic when he got hit. He didn't find his way out of trouble.. The whole package didn't say ATG.

Norton had 3 Title Fights and didn't win any of them... He had a good jab that worked on smaller and weaker opponents, but he couldn't pink with it... It wasn't rapier like a classic stand up boxer throws... He didn't punish you with it.

If Norton ever faced a good right hand counter puncher with height, size, speed, and power, his jab would doom him... He brought it back so low that Wlad or Joshua would rip his head off... Gerry Cooney had a terrible straight right, but at least he was tall and rangy.. The first punch Cooney hurt Norton with was a straight right.. Kenny never closed the holes.

Norton's defense was a lot more effective than you give him credit for. It was so effective, in fact, that nonother than George Foreman adopted a very similar "cross-armed" approach in his comeback.
It's not the sort of thing that one would normally teach to a young beginner new to the sport, because, yes, it can leave a fighter vulnerable if not used properly. But, when used by men like Archie Moore, Norton & later, Foreman it could be quite effective.
Yes, the occasional big puncher like Foreman, Shavers & Cooney could exploit it, but those men are few & far between. While, on the other hand, it was a style that could very much trouble skilled, top-flight boxers like Ali, Holmes & Jimmy Young.

Norton had an excellent jab that gave Ali, Holmes, Young & many, many others fits. No, it wasn't your classic, "rapier"-like jab, but it was stiff & he threw it in abundance.

As far as him being 0-3 in title fights, Norton's W15 over Jimmy Young was actually retroactively recognized as being for the vacant WBC heavyweight title. It was originally scheduled for 12 rounds, but then Jose Sulaiman sanctioned it for 15 rounds in case the winner of the Ali - Leon Spinks bout refused to fight the winner. Which proved to be the case. Therefore, the winner ( Norton ) was recognized as the 'BC's champ.

Nice! Norton was one of my favorite fighters in the 70's. I could not believe how he out jabbed Ali. Your points are well taken.

Thanks, oogiebe.
Norton was my first ever favorite fighter. I was 14 years old at the time & I'd just begun watching boxing & the Ali - Young televised card was just the second one that I ever watched. And, as you might recall, Norton opened up the telecast of that one by busting up & stopping Ron Stander in 5 rounds.
I can't recall what it was about him exactly, but something about the pre-fight feature & the bout itself turned me into an instant fan. After which I made sure to watch every single fight of his. From his 10th round stoppage of Larry Middleton in a tune-up for the eventual Ali rubber match right on through to his final, inglorious end at the Garden vs Cooney.
In fact, the very first boxing magazine that I ever purchased was a copy of THE RING with Norton & Ali on the cover building up their third fight. Years later, in 1991, I took that copy with me to Canastota, NY during the IBHOF weekend where I got to meet Norton for the first time & I had him sign it for me. It's one of my favorite pieces of boxing memorabilia in my collection.