Charles or Norton, Who Do You Rate Higher ?

[margaret thatcher]

you seem to keep saying its close as it gets but only really seem to argue against ezz my man

[Cojimar 1946]

I think Charles is a good example of a guy who became underrated once the generation that remembered him died out. People around today don't feel a connection with his era because they either weren't alive or at least not old enough to be following boxing. Ironically, we see the same trend with increasing numbers of younger fans who don't rate heavyweights from the 1970s or even the 1990s very highly. Norton's reputation seems to be based almost entirely on the first fight with Ali which is a good win but Ali was out of shape and in the rematch he lost to a better-conditioned Ali who showed up in decent shape. I'm curious as to why wins over Quarry and Young are being held up as more impressive than many of Charles's wins. Why is a win over a faded Quarry more impressive than beating a prime Rex Layne? Why is beating Jimmy Young more impressive than beating Jimmy Bivins? Young lost in his very next fight to Ossie Ocasio.

Moreover we have numerous examples of fighters from Charles era (and the prior era) beating fighters from subsequent eras some of whom beat direct contemporaries of Norton.
Bob Satterfield beat Cleveland Williams and John Summerlin (who beat Folley)
Jimmy Bivins beat Mike DeJohn
Joey Maxim beat Floyd Patterson
Bob Baker beat George Chuvalo
etc

Not sure what any of these fights have to do with Norton and Charles. Norton never fought any of these guys, and Charles didn't might many of them.
btw- Williams literally took the Satterfield fight at the last minute. Patterson got totally robbed against Maxim. He may have lost one round.

The argument people are trying to make is that Norton fought in a far stronger era so that Charles's far greater accomplishments in his own era somehow count for less. In the real world though many of Norton's contemporaries lost to fighters from other eras including older fighters from the prior era. It's fair to bring those fights up. Williams had more than 30 fights when he faced Satterfield and was physically in shape. Being a late replacement is less of an issue if your fighting regularly and in the gym. It seems a silly excuse though given how many heavyweights come to fights horribly out of shape. As for Maxim-Patterson, observers saw it as a close fight.

[Ambling Alp II]

The guys that you listed as "contemporaries" of Norton were not really contemporaries.
Cleveland Williams, George Chuvalo , and Floyd Patterson were at the end of their career when Norton was in his prime. Johnny Summerlin and Mike DeJohn retired well before Norton even started his career. How in the world are they "contemporaries"?

Cherry picking their defeats has nothing to do with Ken Norton or Ezzard Charles. How about real contemporaries like Foreman and Holmes? Look at how well they did when they were way past their primes. Norton fought them in their primes.
How about all of Walcotts defeats? Are you going to count those against Charles?

When Cleveland Williams fought, Satterfield, he had no idea he was going to fight that night. Satterfield of course did. Being mentally prepared is kind of a big deal. Having your trainer there helps. rushing around, getting your equipment on is not the way to enter a fight. No trainer would advise a fighter take a fight like that.

Have you ever seen Maxim-Patterson? I saw it broadcast with one round missing. I gave every round that was available to Patterson. It is widely regarded as a horrible decision.

[Ambling Alp II]

you seem to keep saying its close as it gets but only really seem to argue against ezz my man

Go back and read my posts from the beginning. I have stated multiple times that they both had big wins, big losses, and gray areas.

[margaret thatcher]

Oh sure, I see that my man, just that it seems more like a little qualification before going off on ezzard's arguments

[Cojimar 1946]

The guys that you listed as "contemporaries" of Norton were not really contemporaries.
Cleveland Williams, George Chuvalo , and Floyd Patterson were at the end of their career when Norton was in his prime. Johnny Summerlin and Mike DeJohn retired well before Norton even started his career. How in the world are they "contemporaries"?

Cherry picking their defeats has nothing to do with Ken Norton or Ezzard Charles. How about real contemporaries like Foreman and Holmes? Look at how well they did when they were way past their primes. Norton fought them in their primes.
How about all of Walcotts defeats? Are you going to count those against Charles?

When Cleveland Williams fought, Satterfield, he had no idea he was going to fight that night. Satterfield of course did. Being mentally prepared is kind of a big deal. Having your trainer there helps. rushing around, getting your equipment on is not the way to enter a fight. No trainer would advise a fighter take a fight like that.

Have you ever seen Maxim-Patterson? I saw it broadcast with one round missing. I gave every round that was available to Patterson. It is widely regarded as a horrible decision.

Norton's era and Charles era are separated by an era but many fighters of Charles time went on to beat fighters of the next era who in turn beat guys who were direct contemporaries of Norton like Bonavena and Quarry. Moreover, all the guys I mentioned aside from Summerlin were contemporaries of Ali who is considered the best heavyweight of the 1970s despite really being a guy who peaked in the 1960s. A lot of the fighters of Norton's era seem to be hyped simply because they shared an era with Ali. Had Norton fought in a different time period I doubt the people currently hyping his abilities would be doing so. This is born out by Norton's contemporaries not doing very well in crossover matches many of which were seeming winnable fights like Shavers-Mercado and Quarry-Machen.
Many people had Holmes clearly beating Norton and Foreman of course beat Norton decisively with little difficulty. Holmes beat several top heavyweights when past prime but Foreman really only has the Moorer win and nothing else.

The argument some people seem to be trying to make is that Charles era was poor so virtually none of his wins mean much. But if Sonny Liston's wins over Mike DeJohn and Cleveland Williams are held up as good wins than Charles wins over men that beat them probably should count for something. Rex Layne beat Walcott and Satterfield. I should think that would be a win of some value for example.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't even know where to start.

There was more than an era between Charles and Norton. More like three. there were 18 years between Charles 2nd fight with Marciano and Norton's first fight with Ali. That is a long time.
They have no common opponents. You are taking specific supposed "Contemporaries" (only those help your case) of Charles, taking one opponent that they beat that started their career later, and then comparing him to a "contemporary of" Norton. That is absurd.

I could do that in reverse and even use common opponents. Norton beat Quarry, who beat Patterson, who beat Machen, who beat Valdes who beat.... Charles.

Or go the other way. Charles lost to Walcott, who lost to louis, who lost to Schmeling who lost to Sharkey, who lost to Dempsey who lost to Fireman Flynn. Guess they were all better than Charles. As silly as that is, at least common opponents are being used.
You can do that kind of crap if you want to cherry pick.

Nobody is saying that every heavyweight form Norton's time was better than every heavyweight from the time of Charles.
But it was the best era. A 42-year old Foreman also gave a prime Evander Holyfield all that he could handle by the way. A past it Joe Bugner was able to beat Greg Page.

People think Norton's era was the best because they have actually watched the fights. I can't believe that you have not seen Holmes-Norton. Unbelievable.

If want to argue for Charles, fine. Point out his big wins and great performances. Do the same for Norton. Look at their losses. Weigh their ups and downs against each other.

[cfang]

I don't even know where to start.

There was more than an era between Charles and Norton. More like three. there were 18 years between Charles 2nd fight with Marciano and Norton's first fight with Ali. That is a long time.
They have no common opponents. You are taking specific supposed "Contemporaries" (only those help your case) of Charles, taking one opponent that they beat that started their career later, and then comparing him to a "contemporary of" Norton. That is absurd.

I could do that in reverse and even use common opponents. Norton beat Quarry, who beat Patterson, who beat Machen, who beat Valdes who beat.... Charles.

Or go the other way. Charles lost to Walcott, who lost to louis, who lost to Schmeling who lost to Sharkey, who lost to Dempsey who lost to Fireman Flynn. Guess they were all better than Charles. As silly as that is, at least common opponents are being used.
You can do that kind of crap if you want to cherry pick.

Nobody is saying that every heavyweight form Norton's time was better than every heavyweight from the time of Charles.
But it was the best era. A 42-year old Foreman also gave a prime Evander Holyfield all that he could handle by the way. A past it Joe Bugner was able to beat Greg Page.

People think Norton's era was the best because they have actually watched the fights. I can't believe that you have not seen Holmes-Norton. Unbelievable.

Good post Alp



If want to argue for Charles, fine. Point out his big wins and great performances. Do the same for Norton. Look at their losses. Weigh their ups and downs against each other.

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't even know where to start.

There was more than an era between Charles and Norton. More like three. there were 18 years between Charles 2nd fight with Marciano and Norton's first fight with Ali. That is a long time.
They have no common opponents. You are taking specific supposed "Contemporaries" (only those help your case) of Charles, taking one opponent that they beat that started their career later, and then comparing him to a "contemporary of" Norton. That is absurd.

I could do that in reverse and even use common opponents. Norton beat Quarry, who beat Patterson, who beat Machen, who beat Valdes who beat.... Charles.

Or go the other way. Charles lost to Walcott, who lost to louis, who lost to Schmeling who lost to Sharkey, who lost to Dempsey who lost to Fireman Flynn. Guess they were all better than Charles. As silly as that is, at least common opponents are being used.
You can do that kind of crap if you want to cherry pick.

Nobody is saying that every heavyweight form Norton's time was better than every heavyweight from the time of Charles.
But it was the best era. A 42-year old Foreman also gave a prime Evander Holyfield all that he could handle by the way. A past it Joe Bugner was able to beat Greg Page.

People think Norton's era was the best because they have actually watched the fights. I can't believe that you have not seen Holmes-Norton. Unbelievable.

If want to argue for Charles, fine. Point out his big wins and great performances. Do the same for Norton. Look at their losses. Weigh their ups and downs against each other.

I don't think people these days by large feel that Norton's era was the best heavyweight era. The 1990s are now generally seen as the stronger era with far better depth. You may not agree but the current consensus is that the 1990s were better. As I've pointed out previously, even among people who lived through the era many older fans didn't see it as a great era. It currently has an advantage over Charles era because there are more fans alive today who remember it than there are fans from Charles era. There are also more fights from that era preserved to watch today.

It's not cherrypicking to point out that objectively fighters from that era were not very impressive against fighters from the previous era or the subsequent era. Many fighters from earlier eras like stuck around and enjoyed success and fighters from the Dokes/Tubbs/Witherspoon era generally easily dispatched fighters who were left over from the Ali/Norton era. I don't know if Ken Norton and Joe Bugner can be considered from the same era. Their careers overlap but Bugner is almost 7 years younger and fought until 1999 whereas Norton retired in 1981. It would be like saying Evander Holyfield and Vitali Klitschko are from the same era or Rocky Marciano and Sonny Liston.

A lot of evidence seems to point to the era benefiting tremendously due to the presence of Ali. Joe Frazier was held to be great due to beating Ali and in turn Foreman was considered great due to beating guys who beat Ali. If Ali isn't around Norton and Frazier can't enhance their legacies via beating him. Ali was past his best for part of the 1970s and frequently out of shape so it's reasonable to question how much success guys like Norton, Lyle, Shavers, Young, etc deserve for what they achieved against him. In the first fight with Norton Ali was pretty clearly out of shape. That might have contributed to the outcome. Had he come in to the first fight in the shape he was for fight 2 maybe Norton loses.

In addition to Charles being lineal champion and making 8 title defenses something Norton couldn't manage in an era where Leon Spinks became champion he also beat more than twice as many top 10 heavyweights, something like 11/12 to Norton's 4/5. That's also a pretty big edge in his favor.

[Cojimar 1946]

Also as far as era comparisons go I think it's extremely implausible that fighters from the pre-steroid era would be able to compete as they existed with fighters from the 1990s/2000s/2010s where PED use was rampant. PEDs have been shown to dramatically boost athletic performance (probably one reason why there are no records in sports standing from the pre-steroid era). Fighters from an era where steroids don't exist are pretty clearly going to be at a significant disadvantage against juicers like Holyfield.

[Ambling Alp II]

I don't even know where to start.

There was more than an era between Charles and Norton. More like three. there were 18 years between Charles 2nd fight with Marciano and Norton's first fight with Ali. That is a long time.
They have no common opponents. You are taking specific supposed "Contemporaries" (only those help your case) of Charles, taking one opponent that they beat that started their career later, and then comparing him to a "contemporary of" Norton. That is absurd.

I could do that in reverse and even use common opponents. Norton beat Quarry, who beat Patterson, who beat Machen, who beat Valdes who beat.... Charles.

Or go the other way. Charles lost to Walcott, who lost to louis, who lost to Schmeling who lost to Sharkey, who lost to Dempsey who lost to Fireman Flynn. Guess they were all better than Charles. As silly as that is, at least common opponents are being used.
You can do that kind of crap if you want to cherry pick.

Nobody is saying that every heavyweight form Norton's time was better than every heavyweight from the time of Charles.
But it was the best era. A 42-year old Foreman also gave a prime Evander Holyfield all that he could handle by the way. A past it Joe Bugner was able to beat Greg Page.

People think Norton's era was the best because they have actually watched the fights. I can't believe that you have not seen Holmes-Norton. Unbelievable.

If want to argue for Charles, fine. Point out his big wins and great performances. Do the same for Norton. Look at their losses. Weigh their ups and downs against each other.

I don't think people these days by large feel that Norton's era was the best heavyweight era. The 1990s are now generally seen as the stronger era with far better depth. You may not agree but the current consensus is that the 1990s were better. As I've pointed out previously, even among people who lived through the era many older fans didn't see it as a great era. It currently has an advantage over Charles era because there are more fans alive today who remember it than there are fans from Charles era. There are also more fights from that era preserved to watch today.

It's not cherrypicking to point out that objectively fighters from that era were not very impressive against fighters from the previous era or the subsequent era. Many fighters from earlier eras like stuck around and enjoyed success and fighters from the Dokes/Tubbs/Witherspoon era generally easily dispatched fighters who were left over from the Ali/Norton era. I don't know if Ken Norton and Joe Bugner can be considered from the same era. Their careers overlap but Bugner is almost 7 years younger and fought until 1999 whereas Norton retired in 1981. It would be like saying Evander Holyfield and Vitali Klitschko are from the same era or Rocky Marciano and Sonny Liston.

A lot of evidence seems to point to the era benefiting tremendously due to the presence of Ali. Joe Frazier was held to be great due to beating Ali and in turn Foreman was considered great due to beating guys who beat Ali. If Ali isn't around Norton and Frazier can't enhance their legacies via beating him. Ali was past his best for part of the 1970s and frequently out of shape so it's reasonable to question how much success guys like Norton, Lyle, Shavers, Young, etc deserve for what they achieved against him. In the first fight with Norton Ali was pretty clearly out of shape. That might have contributed to the outcome. Had he come in to the first fight in the shape he was for fight 2 maybe Norton loses.

In addition to Charles being lineal champion and making 8 title defenses something Norton couldn't manage in an era where Leon Spinks became champion he also beat more than twice as many top 10 heavyweights, something like 11/12 to Norton's 4/5. That's also a pretty big edge in his favor.

Yet again, most of your reasoning is absurd.

[Cojimar 1946]

I don't even know where to start.

There was more than an era between Charles and Norton. More like three. there were 18 years between Charles 2nd fight with Marciano and Norton's first fight with Ali. That is a long time.
They have no common opponents. You are taking specific supposed "Contemporaries" (only those help your case) of Charles, taking one opponent that they beat that started their career later, and then comparing him to a "contemporary of" Norton. That is absurd.

I could do that in reverse and even use common opponents. Norton beat Quarry, who beat Patterson, who beat Machen, who beat Valdes who beat.... Charles.

Or go the other way. Charles lost to Walcott, who lost to louis, who lost to Schmeling who lost to Sharkey, who lost to Dempsey who lost to Fireman Flynn. Guess they were all better than Charles. As silly as that is, at least common opponents are being used.
You can do that kind of crap if you want to cherry pick.

Nobody is saying that every heavyweight form Norton's time was better than every heavyweight from the time of Charles.
But it was the best era. A 42-year old Foreman also gave a prime Evander Holyfield all that he could handle by the way. A past it Joe Bugner was able to beat Greg Page.

People think Norton's era was the best because they have actually watched the fights. I can't believe that you have not seen Holmes-Norton. Unbelievable.

If want to argue for Charles, fine. Point out his big wins and great performances. Do the same for Norton. Look at their losses. Weigh their ups and downs against each other.

I don't think people these days by large feel that Norton's era was the best heavyweight era. The 1990s are now generally seen as the stronger era with far better depth. You may not agree but the current consensus is that the 1990s were better. As I've pointed out previously, even among people who lived through the era many older fans didn't see it as a great era. It currently has an advantage over Charles era because there are more fans alive today who remember it than there are fans from Charles era. There are also more fights from that era preserved to watch today.

It's not cherrypicking to point out that objectively fighters from that era were not very impressive against fighters from the previous era or the subsequent era. Many fighters from earlier eras like stuck around and enjoyed success and fighters from the Dokes/Tubbs/Witherspoon era generally easily dispatched fighters who were left over from the Ali/Norton era. I don't know if Ken Norton and Joe Bugner can be considered from the same era. Their careers overlap but Bugner is almost 7 years younger and fought until 1999 whereas Norton retired in 1981. It would be like saying Evander Holyfield and Vitali Klitschko are from the same era or Rocky Marciano and Sonny Liston.

A lot of evidence seems to point to the era benefiting tremendously due to the presence of Ali. Joe Frazier was held to be great due to beating Ali and in turn Foreman was considered great due to beating guys who beat Ali. If Ali isn't around Norton and Frazier can't enhance their legacies via beating him. Ali was past his best for part of the 1970s and frequently out of shape so it's reasonable to question how much success guys like Norton, Lyle, Shavers, Young, etc deserve for what they achieved against him. In the first fight with Norton Ali was pretty clearly out of shape. That might have contributed to the outcome. Had he come in to the first fight in the shape he was for fight 2 maybe Norton loses.

In addition to Charles being lineal champion and making 8 title defenses something Norton couldn't manage in an era where Leon Spinks became champion he also beat more than twice as many top 10 heavyweights, something like 11/12 to Norton's 4/5. That's also a pretty big edge in his favor.

Yet again, most of your reasoning is absurd.

I don't think there is anything absurd about seeing Charles championship reign and far deeper resume as a big advantage in his favor. He beat more than twice as many top 10 heavyweights as Norton. Moreover, Norton pretty clearly benefits from Ali's presence given his win over and out of shape Ali is by far his biggest claim to fame. Without that what are we left with exactly? Also, since when did title defenses and championships not matter?

[Ambling Alp II]

OK, I will try to explain this to you.

One mistake you are making is that you considering everyone in the top 10 to be even. there is often a huge difference between one guy ranked in the top 10 and another that is ranked in the top 10. It's not like everyone in the top 10 are about even. They aren't.

Second, you are acting like every era is even. Sometimes they very quite a bit. If you actually watched Norton's fights and Charles fights you would see this. Not saying that every guy that Norton beat was better than every guy that Charles beat. Just saying on balance, Norton's biggest wins were more impressive.

You are giving Charles just as much credit for beat Lee Oma as you are giving Norton for beating Ali. And beat say Nick Barona and Oma combined trumps beat Ali, in your calculations. Again absurd.

You are saying Ali was "out of shape" when Norton beat him? He still was better at the time than anyone Charles ever beat at heavyweight.

Beside Ali, Norton also beat Jimmy Young in a great fight. Watch that fight. That's a bigger deal than beating Oma, or Layne, or Barone or Pat Valentino etc.
He beat Jerry Quarry pretty easily. That is a much bigger deal than beat almost anyone Charles beat.

The sheer amount of title defense don't mean anything. Who you beat is more important. So stop doing that. Starting watching fights. Ever heard of Youtube? Watch Norton against Ali, Quarry, Young, Holmes. Watch Charles as well.

[Wee Tommy]

Charles winning the poll 21-6.

Pretty clear cut. I feel the same.

[bwu]

Yet again, I find myself delaying in participation because each time I think I have something to offer, someone else has already made the point.

I favor Charles, but it's close. I hate to go negative, but the problem for me is Norton's loss to Foreman. He was, to my eye, intimidated and demolished. For all the faults of Ezzard at heavyweight, he doesn't have any loss so devastating during his prime.

While it isn't necessarily dispositive in this discussion, I think Charles would win a head to head match-up and admittedly, that informs my opinion a bit. Norton reminded me a little of Archie Moore with the cross-armed defense and as we all know, Ezzard had Archie's number. Yes, I know that series was at light heavy, but styles make fights.

So as not to end on a bad note, I wish we had a Ken Norton on the scene today. Can you imagine how big he would be in this era? A college educated Marine, multi-time Father of the Year, star of TV/movies and self-help advocate. He would be a superstar among superstars.

[Cojimar 1946]

OK, I will try to explain this to you.

One mistake you are making is that you considering everyone in the top 10 to be even. there is often a huge difference between one guy ranked in the top 10 and another that is ranked in the top 10. It's not like everyone in the top 10 are about even. They aren't.

Second, you are acting like every era is even. Sometimes they very quite a bit. If you actually watched Norton's fights and Charles fights you would see this. Not saying that every guy that Norton beat was better than every guy that Charles beat. Just saying on balance, Norton's biggest wins were more impressive.

You are giving Charles just as much credit for beat Lee Oma as you are giving Norton for beating Ali. And beat say Nick Barona and Oma combined trumps beat Ali, in your calculations. Again absurd.

You are saying Ali was "out of shape" when Norton beat him? He still was better at the time than anyone Charles ever beat at heavyweight.

Beside Ali, Norton also beat Jimmy Young in a great fight. Watch that fight. That's a bigger deal than beating Oma, or Layne, or Barone or Pat Valentino etc.
He beat Jerry Quarry pretty easily. That is a much bigger deal than beat almost anyone Charles beat.

The sheer amount of title defense don't mean anything. Who you beat is more important. So stop doing that. Starting watching fights. Ever heard of Youtube? Watch Norton against Ali, Quarry, Young, Holmes. Watch Charles as well.

That argument seems to fall apart if you go beyond Norton's win over Ali though. His win over Ali at least on paper is better than any individual win Charles has but Charles seems to hold the edge in every other regard. If we rated guys simply on the basis of their best win you could make a case for Michael Moorer, Buster Douglas, and Hasim Rahman all being better than Larry Holmes given their best wins trump his. Hasim Rahman and Michael Moorer might even rate above Joe Louis by that criteria.

When we get to their next best wins though that argument seems to fall apart. After Ali, Norton's best wins are probably as follows. Jimmy Young, Tex Cobb, faded Quarry, and Duane Bobick. Those are the only other ranked opponents he beat. For Joe Louis his corresponding best wins would probably be Jersey Joe Walcott, Joe Baksi, faded Joe Louis, and Rex Layne or Jimmy Bivins. Here logic and video doesn't really back up Norton's opponents being better

[Controversial]

Charles for me

[Ambling Alp II]

OK, I will try to explain this to you.

One mistake you are making is that you considering everyone in the top 10 to be even. there is often a huge difference between one guy ranked in the top 10 and another that is ranked in the top 10. It's not like everyone in the top 10 are about even. They aren't.

Second, you are acting like every era is even. Sometimes they very quite a bit. If you actually watched Norton's fights and Charles fights you would see this. Not saying that every guy that Norton beat was better than every guy that Charles beat. Just saying on balance, Norton's biggest wins were more impressive.

You are giving Charles just as much credit for beat Lee Oma as you are giving Norton for beating Ali. And beat say Nick Barona and Oma combined trumps beat Ali, in your calculations. Again absurd.

You are saying Ali was "out of shape" when Norton beat him? He still was better at the time than anyone Charles ever beat at heavyweight.

Beside Ali, Norton also beat Jimmy Young in a great fight. Watch that fight. That's a bigger deal than beating Oma, or Layne, or Barone or Pat Valentino etc.
He beat Jerry Quarry pretty easily. That is a much bigger deal than beat almost anyone Charles beat.

The sheer amount of title defense don't mean anything. Who you beat is more important. So stop doing that. Starting watching fights. Ever heard of Youtube? Watch Norton against Ali, Quarry, Young, Holmes. Watch Charles as well.

That argument seems to fall apart if you go beyond Norton's win over Ali though. His win over Ali at least on paper is better than any individual win Charles has but Charles seems to hold the edge in every other regard. If we rated guys simply on the basis of their best win you could make a case for Michael Moorer, Buster Douglas, and Hasim Rahman all being better than Larry Holmes given their best wins trump his. Hasim Rahman and Michael Moorer might even rate above Joe Louis by that criteria.

When we get to their next best wins though that argument seems to fall apart. After Ali, Norton's best wins are probably as follows. Jimmy Young, Tex Cobb, faded Quarry, and Duane Bobick. Those are the only other ranked opponents he beat. For Joe Louis his corresponding best wins would probably be Jersey Joe Walcott, Joe Baksi, faded Joe Louis, and Rex Layne or Jimmy Bivins. Here logic and video doesn't really back up Norton's opponents being better

Right off the bat, I am going to ask you a question and I hope that you don't duck it. Have you finally seen Norton's fights with Ali, Quarry, Young and Holmes?

Again, not saying the win over Ali is the end all be all. However, it is a huge factor. When rating a fighter, the first thing you should look at is who is the best fighter that he beat. Right off the bat, Norton has a significant edge.

Quarry was not faded. There was nothing to indicate that. He was actually rated higher than Norton going into the fight.
Norton beat him badly. So yes, a win over Quarry is a much bigger deal than beat Rex Layne. Joe Baski? Really?

Obviously going 2-2 vs Walcott has to count for something. so does beating even that version of Louis.

Lets make it simple. Best opponent s that they defeated (at the time of the fight)

1. Best for Norton? Obviously Ali. That easily Walcott's Charles best win -Walcott
2. Norton beat Young. That version of Young was actually better than the version of Louis that Charles beat.
3. Norton beat Quarry. Charles 3rd best win? Who do want to go with? Rex Layne? He certainly wasn't as good as Quarry.

If the top three defeated opponents favor one guy, you have to stop and think that maybe that guy (Norton) has a case.

Obviously there are other things that favor Charles which is why it is a close call.

[Ambling Alp II]

Yet again, I find myself delaying in participation because each time I think I have something to offer, someone else has already made the point.

I favor Charles, but it's close. I hate to go negative, but the problem for me is Norton's loss to Foreman. He was, to my eye, intimidated and demolished. For all the faults of Ezzard at heavyweight, he doesn't have any loss so devastating during his prime.

While it isn't necessarily dispositive in this discussion, I think Charles would win a head to head match-up and admittedly, that informs my opinion a bit. Norton reminded me a little of Archie Moore with the cross-armed defense and as we all know, Ezzard had Archie's number. Yes, I know that series was at light heavy, but styles make fights.

So as not to end on a bad note, I wish we had a Ken Norton on the scene today. Can you imagine how big he would be in this era? A college educated Marine, multi-time Father of the Year, star of TV/movies and self-help advocate. He would be a superstar among superstars.

I think you make some good points. (Though who you think would win head doesn't count here. Only who was better.)

The Foreman fight has to count against Norton. Absolutely. The big question is how much?
Charles never got embarrassed that badly. On the other hand, he never had to deal with anything remotely like a prime George Foreman. Foreman did the same thing to Joe Frazier.
But yes it is worth mentioning.

[Wee Tommy]

If someone wants to factor in who they think would win head to head into their choice of fighter, in an informal internet poll, who are you to say otherwise, Alp?

[Ambling Alp II]

Well, I started the thread and mentioned it right off the bat.
Maybe I could have made it more clear.

What I wanted this to be about what the two guys actually did. Not the fantasy fight stuff with the two guys that never actually happened. Just look at he guys, weigh their ups and downs of their careers against each other. That is a lot more interesting.

[Wee Tommy]

Well, I started the thread and mentioned it right off the bat.
Maybe I could have made it more clear.

What I wanted this to be about what the two guys actually did. Not the fantasy fight stuff with the two guys that never actually happened. Just look at he guys, weigh their ups and downs of their careers against each other. That is a lot more interesting.

Charles won hands down. Do you agree?

[Cojimar 1946]

Right off the bat, I am going to ask you a question and I hope that you don't duck it. Have you finally seen Norton's fights with Ali, Quarry, Young and Holmes?

Again, not saying the win over Ali is the end all be all. However, it is a huge factor. When rating a fighter, the first thing you should look at is who is the best fighter that he beat. Right off the bat, Norton has a significant edge.

Quarry was not faded. There was nothing to indicate that. He was actually rated higher than Norton going into the fight.
Norton beat him badly. So yes, a win over Quarry is a much bigger deal than beat Rex Layne. Joe Baski? Really?

Obviously going 2-2 vs Walcott has to count for something. so does beating even that version of Louis.

Lets make it simple. Best opponent s that they defeated (at the time of the fight)

1. Best for Norton? Obviously Ali. That easily Walcott's Charles best win -Walcott
2. Norton beat Young. That version of Young was actually better than the version of Louis that Charles beat.
3. Norton beat Quarry. Charles 3rd best win? Who do want to go with? Rex Layne? He certainly wasn't as good as Quarry.

If the top three defeated opponents favor one guy, you have to stop and think that maybe that guy (Norton) has a case.

Obviously there are other things that favor Charles which is why it is a close call.
[/quote]

Have seen the fights with Ali, Quarry and parts of the Holmes fight, have not seen his fight with Young. I don't think we can conclude much from one win vs a great fighter given all the cases of fighters considered great losing to far less accomplished opponents. If a fighter's top win is a big factor in rating them than people would be arguing Moorer, Douglas, Rahman should rank ahead of guys like Holmes and Louis but that's not the case. Norton's win over Ali shouldn't be a bigger factor in rating him than Rahman's win over Lewis or Moorer's over Holyfield.

Moreover, wouldn't this logically extend to the fighters that beat them. If Rahman is great for beating Lennox Lewis doesn't it logically follow that the guys who beat him and the men who beat his conquerers are also great. So under this criteria Oleg Maskaev is great and the guys who beat Maskaev are also great, etc. According to this logic Shavers is great for beating Norton and Bob Stallings is great for beating Shavers, etc.

I think Quarry was past it when he fought Norton. He was relatively young but he had faced a large number of formidable opponents and he got hit quite a bit. Going into the Norton fight he had faced
Floyd Patterson (2X)
Jimmy Ellis
George Chuvalo
Joe Frazier (2x)
Muhammad Ali (2x)
Ron Lyle
Larry Middleton
Mac Foster
etc
To make matters worse he apparently came into the fight out of shape due to being a late replacement. He was 207 vs Norton and his best weight was around 196-200. Moreover, I don't think Quarry even in his prime was better than a number of guys Charles beat. Were talking about a guy who lost to Chuvalo and Machen.

[Ambling Alp II]

You have seen part of the Norton-Holmes fight? Wow. I mean wow. It is one of the greatest heavyweight fights of all time. You could make a serious argument that it was the greatest heavyweight fight of all time. It is hard to to take someone seriously who has not seen this.
You need to watch it. You need to watch the Norton-Young fight. Might as well watch the Bobick fight, which didn't even go a round.

For the one millionth time, I am not saying that the win over Ali is the end all, be all. But it has to be a major factor when rating Norton. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise.
Comparing Norton to Rahman and Moorer is absurd. Rahman and Moorer should get some credit for their big win, like Norton should for his. However, it stops there. Norton went beyond this. Rahman and Moorer didn't.
Rahman and Moorer got beaten badly in their rematches against Lewis and Holyfield. They looked awful.

Norton gave Ali close fights in the 2nd and third fights.
Rahman and Moorer really don't have that much else to brag about. They really don't have any other wins or great performances that are that notable. Certainly nothing that compares with what Norton in other fights.

Norton beat Quarry. Nobody thought Quarry was past it before the fight. That is revealing. In fact, I never heard anyone claim that Quarry was past it until about 30 years after the fight. Love how you note that Quarry took the fight at late notice. He took it with three weeks notice. Yet you earlier wanted to count Williams loss to Satterfield, when Williams took the fight literally on the night of the fight. (Nice of you to mention that Quarry beat Larry Middleton. Norton beat Middleton as well. )
Norton also beat Young in a great fight. And there was the Holmes fight. Combined, all this dwarfs Rahman and Moorer's career.

One great win by itself doesn't makes a fighter a legend. One bad loss/bad performance makes him a stiff. But it all counts. (Excluding fights where one guy was nowhere near his prime) You have to weigh, the good, the bad, and everything in between.

Again, watch the Holmes-Norton fight from start to finish. It is required viewing for a real boxing fan.