Holyfield v Norton, who would win?

[kick asner]

Just wanted to point out that even though some people think Quarry was ready for the Senior Citizen's home when he fought Norton that he was only 29. Norton himself was 31. Quarry just had a fight a month previously and couldn't have been that rusty. It was a legitimate win for Norton. Norton was simply a better figher than Quarry.

Actualy he had a fight less than a month before the Norton fight. I'm sure you saw the fight, but have you seen it recently? Quarry was heavy (207, the 2nd heaviest of his career to that point), soft and completely out of gas at the end of the 3rd round. You're correct that he was only 29 at the time of the fight, but it was a very ring worn 29 from many battles aginst top HWs, while other than Foreman Norton had had a relatively easy career to that point and had not been subjected to very many tough fights. Certainly you can't say that the Quarry who punched himself out after 3 rds against Norton was anyhting like the Quarry who went toe to toe with Frazier in 69?

And while Quarry had fought a month previous, this is not the same as having spent a planned amount of time training for a fight. Fighters and trainers setup training to ensure that the fighter is at his peak the day of the fight. That's why it's so hard to step in on short notice, which Quarry did for this fight.

Do you think that the argument Norton had fewer tough fights thus giving him an advantage could be turned into a pro Quarry argument that he was the more expirienced fighter having been in with tougher fighters and giving him an advantage based on the caliber of opponents?

[raulc002]

who carees

[The Great John L]

Some of the guys Norton failed to kayo (Ali, Holmes and Young) were never ko'd in their primes. Failure to kayo these guys does not indicate lack of punching power.

Yes, failing to KO Ali, Young and Holmes is hardly a good indication that someone can't punch. In fact didn't Foreman fail to KO Ali and Young?

[The Great John L]

Do you think that the argument Norton had fewer tough fights thus giving him an advantage could be turned into a pro Quarry argument that he was the more expirienced fighter having been in with tougher fighters and giving him an advantage based on the caliber of opponents?

Of course just about any facts can be used to support any argument it just depends upon how you present them. Just watch any good politician to see this theory in action. My point was simply to propose that Quarry’s 29 years put a lot more mileage on him than most 29yo fighters. I do agree that Quarry had more world class competition than Norton, and therefore more experience. But he was clearly not well prepared for that fight.