BoxRec

dempseyfire wrote:You are wrong about Foreman. He had great strength but there are tons of boxers who have been incredibly strong and powerful and wern't George Foreman. .

I agree, just look at Frank Bruno, big, powerfull, huge puncher, ramrod left jab. But he was NO George Foreman. Boxing is more complex than that.

dempseyfire wrote:Foreman was a great athlete, and he had very good speed and reflexes for such a big man. Watch his jab vs Chuvalo and Frazier, and his finishing combination on Norton. The athleticism combined with his power was what made him so dangerous. In his 40s he was much slower of hand and foot . he could still snap the left jab but his other punches lacked the velocity and snap he'd enjoyed in his youth. And if you watch young and old Foreman fights back to back, you can see his stamina in his 20s was much better, even with his balls to the wall style he employed..

Spot on DF.

dempseyfire wrote:Foreman is a salesman . . .he will say anything.

True, I like big Geirge but has come out with some rubbish from time to time. Many, many Boxers in their twilight years claim they are better than when they were in their mid 20's but their performances in the ring tell a different story, 99% of the time.

Just the other month Earnie Shavers whilst training for an exhibition in Manchester (last month?) claimed that he was now hitting harder than he ever did. Does anyone here actually believe this to be true? I know I don't.

DaveV17 wrote:Alp wrote: "I have asked you several times where your proof is that Foreman was stronger in his 40 than his 20's. the best you can come up iwth is that George said so. George says a lot of things that weren't true."

Where is your proof that he was weaker?

Alp wrote:"You arguements have no logic. Athletes are better because you say they are bigger and stronger. Yet you say that Holyfield is still good because he relies on speed and accurracy. Logic follows that fighters from years ago who relied on speed and accurracy could beat todays athletes that rely on size and strength."

Can you read? I said Holyfield is not as good now because he relied on speed and accuracy when he was young. A fighter who relies on speed probably won't be as good when he is old as a fighter who relied on strength. Come on Alp, read the posts and quit making up stuff.

You will have to ask Holyfield about the techniques, he is the one who said he could beat all who came before him. I just quoted him.

Yes I can read. No I didn't make anything up. I will try to explain again.
You constantly go on and on about size/strength and ignore almost everything else. We point out the many other important factors which a fighter needs and how faulty your reasoning is. You ingore that. We point out example after example of smaller more skilled fighter beating bigger fighters. You ingore it time after time.
Then you yourself mention that Holyfield didn't rely on strength and wasn't huge for his era! Yet Holyfield was obviously successful.

This is what myself and others have been saying all a long. Yes size can be an advantage. If everything else is about even, yes the bigger man will more often than not win. However, size is just one part of the equation.
The bigger man sometimes isn't stronger (or have the better chin).
The stronger man sometimes isn't the harder puncher.
The harder puncher sometimes isn't the better fighter.

You have to look at factors such as jab,speed,defense,chin, punching accurracy, finishing off a hurt opponent etc. and compare strengths and weaknesses of both fighters. You also have to also look at the intangibles like boxing smarts and determination.

Therefore, a skilled smaller fighter from era is sometimes better (and often would beat) a bigger fighter from another era. Look at the current crop of big heavyweights. They are even bigger than the heavyweights in Holyfield's prime but are obviously inferior to Holyfield and his top rivals from the 1990's.

I do think the 1990's was a good era for heavyweights. It was certainly better than the 1940's. It was better than the 1980's and much better than this decade. It just wans't as good as the 1970's. Was every heavyweight in the 1970's great? Of course not. However there were more great heavyweights and as well as very good heavyweights than at any other time, before or since.

It's silly to bother mentioning Holyfield quote about new skills if you can't even name them yourself. Because Holyfield says so, doesn't make it true.
Btw, Foreman has said that Ali was the best fighter he ever fought. He also has tremendous respect for Frazier and Norton. He doesn't think much of Tommy Morrison.

edit

Of course I can't prove as a scientific fact they are inferior to the heavyweights of the 1990's. This an opinion, like when you say the 1990's are better than the 1970's.

I was making another point why bigger isn't always better. I didn't think that even you would actually be impressed by the current group of heavyweights.

I have heard Foreman say numerous times on TV that he thinks Ali was the best fighter he ever fought. I can't believe you haven't. He also said many times on TV that he had great respect for Fraizer and Norton.
He also talks about his respect for these guys on the video "Champions Forever."
I have seen him say on TV that he wasn't impressed with Morrison. He also said that Morrison ran from him.
The silly things that have been resurfacing lately that Foreman said about the Ali fight were said many years ago. Since then, Foreman had said many times that they weren't true and that he was just making excuses. He has also said that he couldn't believe that Ali said had the speed that he did at that age. (He was 32.)

edit

Like you, I haven't read Foreman's book. If he is now saying that, well I don't believe him. I guess we can both choose to believe or not believe different things he said. I don't believe for a second deep down that he really thinks he was better in his 40's than he was in in his 20's. I do believe him when he says Ali was the best he ever fought and that he tought highly of Frazier and Norton. I have heard him say negative comments about Morrison on HBO (I believe one time was in the post match interview after their fight but I could be mistaken.)
I would bet everything I have that he doesn't believe Morrison was as good as several of the heavyweights from the 1970's.
If you believe different things that George has said than I do, then so be it.

When you stated one of the many opinions that I found ridiculaus, I challenged you on it. Myself and others would often make points to the contrary, which you usually ignored.
I never said, prove the 1990's was better than the 1970's. I just challenged you and mentioned things that inducates that the 1970's was stronger.

When you kept on going on about the silly notion that age doesn't mean anything, I asked some examples of top athletes in their mid 40's, which of course you couldn't do because there are none. Athletes simply aren't as good in their 40's and 20's (assuming they trained as hard in their 20's). I have never know any adult in my entire life who doesn't think this.

By the way, I never said bigger is better, just that if other factors are reasonably close than the bigger man will have an advantage.

You have got to be kidding. You have been going on and on at nausem about size for almost two weeks now. You have defended total stiffs, citing their size. You have dismissed smaller heavyweights, citing their size. So and so never beat anyone over 220 or whatever. (regardless of how may quality guy under that weight he beat, or that the best heavyweights were under 220 time).

You think Norton would get destroyed early by Morrison. They are about the same size and Norton had much better skills.
Yet all you can talk about what you consider to Morrison strengths and what you consider to be Norton's weaknesses. I have pointed out again and again Nortons' strengths and Morrisons weaknesses and just ignore it as if it's irrelevant. Why is that? Could it possibly be that you are biased against fighters from the 1970's fighters?
You wonder why so may people think the 1970's was a great heavyweights so great? They weren't close to the big heavyweights that we have now. Almost everyone can see that.

You have said many times that athletes are getting better as reason that the heavyweights were better in the 1990's than the 1970's. Yet you wouldn't say that you are impressed with the current heavyweights.
Once agains that doesn't make since. The current heavyweights would have to be the best group of all time.
Of course not even you believes that which undercuts your arguemnt that athletes and heavyweight boxers in partiuclar are getting better and better.
Was everyone that Ali fought great? Of course not. Coopman,Dunn were stiffs and a few others weren't much better. However, Liston,Foreman and Frazier were great. Norton and Patterson were very good. Several others were pretty good as well.

edit

Foreman and Holmes did indeed achieve some success in their comebacks though perhaps not to the extent some people are suggesting. However, I would still have to disagree with the assertion that the 70s were a strong era at heavyweight. I have heard this but closer investigation seemed very disappointing. The division did not have great depth and many of the fighters of this time did very badly in crossover matchups despite some success by Holmes and Foreman. As I mentioned earlier, an old Floyd Patterson was competitive against the supposedly great 70s fighters. If it was such a great era than why cant they handle Patterson?

First to answer Dave V 17:
Norton being knocked early by Foreman,Shavers, and Cooney is certainly not overwhelming evidence that Norton couldn't handle Morrison.

First of all, Morrison isn't even close to level of puncher that Foreman and Shavers were. They may have been the hardest two punchers in the history of boxing.
Morrison took 9 rounds to stop punching bag Joe Hipp and past his prime and glassjawed Carl Willaims. His punches had no effect on Lennox Lewis who didn't exactly have an iron jaw.
He couldn't even stop journeyman Sherman Griffin.
He never stopped anyone close to the level of a prime Norton.

2.Norton was past his best against Shavers and way past his best against Cooney. People that know boxing know that age and hard fights take their toll. This comparable to thinking that going by the Louis-Marciano, fight means Louis wasn't that good.

3. You see little evidence from Norton's fights that he could handle Morrison's power? In the Holmes fight, Norton went toe to toe for 15 rounds and was never even knocked down. Holmes stopped his nest 8 contenders. Holmes proved he could punch against good fighters. Morrison never did that.

I have asked several times who Morrison ever stopped that was as hard to stop as a prime Norton and never get an answer.

And then we have Norton's strenghts Morrison's weaknesses.
"Morrison didn't always run out of gas and didn't always get knocked out"
That's quite a ringing endorsement.
Well, he did in the only two big fights of his career. He got crushed by Lewis and Mercer, who was no bigger puncher than Norton.

If a journeyman like Michael Bentt can knockout a prime Morrison, why can't Norton?
If Ross Purritty can decked a prime Morrison twice, why can't Norton knockout Morrison?
If a washed up Carl Williams can deck a prime Morrison, why Norton knock out Morrison?

there is a better chance that Norton will nail Morrison early than vice versa. Dave V 17 keeps ignoring that. Norton had a much better defense that Morrison.
Norton also had a good jab to keep Morrison at bay.

In a toe to toe slugging match (Morrison's only chance) Nortons power against Morrison's chin is more of an advantage than Morrison's power against Norton's chin.
Morrison will get nailed more often because of his poor defense.
Norton is about the same size and has far better skills, stamina,defense,and chin.
Morrison has virtually no chance of winning a decision.

If Morrison is fighting a prime Norton, his chances are slim.

I don't really expect Dave to answer all of these points. They have all been mentioned before and he ducks them.
Is he better at ducking questions or was Morrison better at ducking quality opponents?



coljimar 1945- Patterson was only 32 when he fought Quarry and 33 when he fought Ellis. He was only slightly past his prime. Patterson was a great fighter. It'sd not surprising that a slightly past his prime great fighter would be about even with a prime good fighter. That is about what one would expect. That is nothing compared to a 45 year old Foreman winning the title and a 45 year old Holmes coming within one round of doing it. Patterson was 37 when he beat Bonavena. That was a nice win but not that surprising. About all that shows is that Patterson was better than Bonavena, which I doubt anyone would dispute. It certainly doesn't compare to a 45 year old winning the title. Patterson fought Ali soon after he fought Bonavena and was stopped in 7 rounds.

It's simply not a valid comparison to compare how Patterson did in the 1970's as to how well Foreman and Holmes did in the 1990's. It's no contest.
The 1970's heavyweights had more depth than at any other decade. During the 1980's everyone was saying that the heavyweight divison was so weak, because the great fights of the 1970's were still fresh in their minds.
You had Ali,Frazier and Foreman, 3 top 10 all time heavyweights in one decade. Then you have Holmes at the end of the decade, another top 10 of all time. Then you have Norton who is at least Top 30. There was also a supporting cast of Ellis,Quarry,Shavers,Lyle,Young, Bugner etc. , all of whom were better than some world champions of other eras. There several fringe contenders who would normally be top contenders.
Of course all of these guys had weaknesses, but they all have some great strengths as well.

edit

Joe Hipp was durable? wow. Thats a joke. He never went the distance one time in his career against a decent opponent. Not once.

Williams did move a lot when he was in his prime. Even then he got knocked out by Tyson in 1 and Weaver in 2. He was 34 years and obviously past his prime when he fought Morrison. He had lost 10 months early to a journeyman. He lost his next fights after fighting Morrison.

I do agree that styles are important. This would favor Norton. Morrison had a vulnerable chin and no defense. Norton could hit harder than Williams who decked Morrison twice,Purrity who decked him,Mercer who crushed him. If a prime Morrison can't get past the first round against Micheal Bentt, the chances look good for Norton.
Very good chance that Norton would him out early. Morrison's only remote chance is a punhcers chance early. It's more likely that Norton stops Morrison early.
If the fight goes the dstance, Morrison has no chance of winning a decision. Norton is better than Morrison at virtually every aspect.

You still think it was a big deal for Morrison to have not been knocked out by a 44 year old Foreman. I guess considering what else Morrison did in his career, that is a big deal. People that know boxing that Foreman wasn't anywhere near as hard of puncher as he was when he younger. There is no fountain of youth. Wake up to reality.

No I didn't say that Joe Louis got knocked out in one round by Marciano. I was pointing out that he was no where near the fighter he was when he was younger. Neither was Norton when he fought Cooney.
I haven't "made up" one thing.

"At 35 or 37 if a fighter could ever fight against a hard puncher, he should be able to last a round"
I know you don't much about boxing history, but Jack Dempsey, Emile Griffith, Tim Witherspoon,Eddie Machen, and Max Schmeling all got knocked out in the first round. All showed in other fights that they could fight hard punchers. Unlike Norton, all were close to their primes when they got knocked out.

Actually the Ali fights are another indication that Norton was hard to knockout. Ali stopped Frazier,Lyle,Liston,Foreman,Patterson (twice) Quarry (twice),Bonavena,Ellis. In three fights with Norton, he was never close to being knocked out.

Against Holmes, Norton went 15 rounds in war and wasn't even knocked down. Holmes then stopped his next 8 contenders. Outside of the hardest hitting champion ever, (Foreman) Norton was never even knocked down in his prime.

You haven't gone point for point with my comments because you can't.
I have shown you the courtesy of answering your comments and you have ducked literally dozens of mine (and others). Your appalling lack of understanding of aging, boxing skills, and boxing history have led to say many things are silly.
You don't care what I think? I'm crushed. (Though not as crushed as Morrison was against Lewis,Mercer, and the legendary Michael Bentt.)

edit

People age differently. Some fighters are considered past it at much younger ages than others. Floyd Patterson may not have been chronologically all that old but he turned professional at a very young age and had been fighting for many years by the time he faced these guys. He fought for the title for the first time in 1956.

I agree that people do age differently. A lot of amount of punishment in tough fights can accerlate a fighters decline.
However, in this case, I just don't see why it's such a surprise that Patterson was about even with Quarry and Ellis when he fought them.
Patterson certainly wasn't shot at the time he fought them. He was still relatively close to as good as he ever was. Some people think he was even better. (Though I disagree with that myself)
Patterson was certainly much closer to his best when he fought Quarry,Ellis and Bonavena than Foreman and Holmes were when they fought in their mid 40's.
If you watch Foreman is his 40's it's pretty obvious that he wasn't nearly as good as he was in his 20's, which makes sense. Same with Holmes.

DaveV17 wrote:AA wrote:""At 35 or 37 if a fighter could ever fight against a hard puncher, he should be able to last a round"
I know you don't much about boxing history, but Jack Dempsey, Emile Griffith, Tim Witherspoon,Eddie Machen, and Max Schmeling all got knocked out in the first round. All showed in other fights that they could fight hard punchers. Unlike Norton, all were close to their primes when they got knocked out."

Exactly, None of them got destroyed by EVERY puncher they fought. Norton FROZE when he saw a hard puncher, the other guys you named did not. They just got caught, that can happen to anyone. But only completing 1 round in THREE fights against punchers makes it obvious that Ken Norton could not fight a guy who punched hard. Norton's trainer, Eddie Futch, one of the most respected men in boxing history said that Norton froze against big punchers.

Your comments about guys like Joe Hipp and Ross Purity tell me all I need to know about your boxing experience and knowledge. If and when you ever understand boxing styles, you will see why Morrison is all wrong for Ken Norton.

Exactly. Dempsey, Griffith,Witherspoon,Machen and Schmeling all got knocked out in the first round. It doesn't mean they couldn't take a punch. Obviously they could.
However, if Dempsey,Witherspoon, Machen, and Schmleing would have fought Shavers and Cooney when they were well past their prime, they would have got crushed as well. And guess, what? No one would have thought anything about it because it wouldn't have meant anything. Just like it doesn't mean anything that Norton lost when he was past it.
You keep pointing out that it happended to Norton 3 times. So what, Norton wasn't the same fighter when he fought Shavers and Cooney as he was in his prime.
Watch his fights with LeDoux and Cobb in (his fights right before he fought Cooney) and then watch his fights with Young and Holmes. He had clearly deterioriated a lot by the time he fought Cooney.When and if you ever understand aging you may understand that at a certain point fighters will decline.
Norton was much easier to hit, didn't have as good recuperative powers as when he was younger. If he was in his prime, he also would have been much more likely to have nailed Shavers or Cooney first.

How someone can go on and about how bad Norton's losses to brutal punchers like Foreman and Shavers and then ignore Morrison's many embarrassing performances is mind boggling.

A 35 year old Morrison or 37 year old Morrison against Shavers and Cooney would have been over very quickly.
Would a prime Morrison been able to last 15 rounds against Holmes? Or go the distance against Ali 3 times? I don't even think you would think that.

I agree that sytles are important. However, you have to look at both fighters strengths and weaknesses. All you ever do is say Morrison was a big puncher and that Norton couldn't handle big punchers and thats that. Well there is a lot more to it than that.
I will once again bring up the keep points that you keep ducking:

1. If Norton lands a big punch before Morrison lands his best shot can Morrison handle it? Well he could handle it against several fighters that couldn't hit as hard as Norton so the easy answer is no. Morrison couldn't handle Norton's power. If he gets nailed he is in big trouble.
2. Who has the better defense and is more likely to avoid more punches and getting hit by a big punch? Norton of course. Morrison had little defense.
3. What if the fight goes a few rounds or even the distance? Who would win? Again an easy question. Norton did almost everything better than Morrison and of course better stamina.
4. On the remote chance that Morrison lands the big one early (his only realistic at winning) is it a foregone conclusion that Norton wouldn't survive. No. Who did Morrison ever stop that was close to a prime Ken Norton? Again an easy answer. No one. He never proved he was anywhere near as hard of a puncher of a Shavers or Foreman or even harder than Holmes or Bobick.

If you understand boxing styles, you should see why Norton's is all wrong for Morrison.

That you have no concept to aging shows a lack of boxing knowledge.
That you can watch tapes of Foreman in his 20's and his 40's and somehow think the fighter in his 40's reveals a lot about your boxing knowledge.
Pointing to a knockout that Shavers suffered when had 6 months of experience as an indication that the 1970's heavyweights weren't that great reveals of boxing knowlwedge.

And yes, your comments about the "durable" Joe Hipp and journeyman Ross Purrity reveals a lot about your boxing knowledge.

Lastly, that you duck most of my points because you say they are too "ridiculaus" to respond is very telling about your boxing knowledge.

Neither Foreman or Holmes beat Tyson, Lewis or Holyfield so why would you say what Patterson did cannot be compared with what they did? They did not defeat the divisions best fighters so are you claiming the difference is that they were farther past it?

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Neither Foreman or Holmes beat Tyson, Lewis or Holyfield so why would you say what Patterson did cannot be compared with what they did? They did not defeat the divisions best fighters so are you claiming the difference is that they were farther past it?

Alp said, and I quote "Patterson was certainly much closer to his best when he fought Quarry,Ellis and Bonavena than Foreman and Holmes were when they fought in their mid 40's.
If you watch Foreman is his 40's it's pretty obvious that he wasn't nearly as good as he was in his 20's, which makes sense. Same with Holmes."

edit

DaveV17 wrote:AA wrote:
"1. If Norton lands a big punch before Morrison lands his best shot can Morrison handle it? Well he could handle it against several fighters that couldn't hit as hard as Norton so the easy answer is no. Morrison couldn't handle Norton's power. If he gets nailed he is in big trouble.

Who did Norton knock out with one big punch? Duane Bobick was his best and that one was duplicated by John Tate, and Kallie Knoetze. Besides, Norton would see Morrison, realize he was facing a puncher, Norton would freeze, he wouldn't be fighting. One round knockout for Morrison.

2.AA wrote:" Who has the better defense and is more likely to avoid more punches and getting hit by a big punch? Norton of course. Morrison had little defense.

Morrison was not a defensive genius, but Morrison was not knocked out in the first or second round by every puncher he faced. Ken Norton was. Norton fought 3 punchers, he lasted one full round TOTAL. I can not think of anyone else with that kind of record.

3. AA wrote: "What if the fight goes a few rounds or even the distance? Who would win? Again an easy question. Norton did almost everything better than Morrison and of course better stamina."

If the fight went over 3 rounds, Norton would have the advantage. Norton would have had the advantage against Foreman, Shavers, and probably Cooney IF he could have made it past 3 rounds. He DID NOT, he didn't even come close to making it 3 rounds.

AA wrote: "4. On the remote chance that Morrison lands the big one early (his only realistic at winning) is it a foregone conclusion that Norton wouldn't survive. No. Who did Morrison ever stop that was close to a prime Ken Norton? Again an easy answer. No one. He never proved he was anywhere near as hard of a puncher of a Shavers or Foreman or even harder than Holmes or Bobick."

Norton is probably unique in boxing history in his inability to handle punchers. THREE PUNCHERS on his record, he lasted ONE FULL ROUND. There is just no history of Norton surviving against a puncher. Even his trainer, Eddie Futch said that Norton froze when he saw a puncher.

AA wrote:"If you understand boxing styles, you should see why Norton's is all wrong for Morrison."

If you meant that Norton would be crushed by Morrison in one round, you are correct, if you are dreaming that Norton had the style to beat Morrison, well, I won't even comment.

Ken Norton fought 50 professional Heavyweight fighters in his career.

But only 3 of them could punch hard??

Keep posting this crap, you are about to be swallowed by the hole you are digging yourself.

DaveV17 wrote:AA wrote:
"1. If Norton lands a big punch before Morrison lands his best shot can Morrison handle it? Well he could handle it against several fighters that couldn't hit as hard as Norton so the easy answer is no. Morrison couldn't handle Norton's power. If he gets nailed he is in big trouble.

Who did Norton knock out with one big punch? Duane Bobick was his best and that one was duplicated by John Tate, and Kallie Knoetze. Besides, Norton would see Morrison, realize he was facing a puncher, Norton would freeze, he wouldn't be fighting. One round knockout for Morrison.

Actually, the question was how would Morrison handle getting hit with a big shot, not anything about getting stopped with one shot, which is not a common occurrence. In fact, you’re mistaken about Norton stopping Bobick with one big shot. He stunned Bobick with a shot in the throat and then dropped him with a number of followup overhand rights. And it took Tate a few dozen solid shots to stop Bobick. However, as I recall Bobick was pretty much stopped by a single shot from Knoetze, who was a VERY hard puncher.

Same old story. Bring up mostly the same points. I counter them, and then you act as if I didn't and you bring up mostly the same points again.
Keep focusing on Nrton's knockout losses to fighters who hit a lot harder than Morrison, two of which were when he past his best.
Keep ignoring Morrison embarrassing performances.
Getting knocked out by Shavers and Cooney when you are 37 is somehow embarrasing. However, Morrison's ko loss to a scrub like Micheal Bentt somehow shouldn't even be discussed. Whatever.

You ask who did Norton stop? Well at least this isn't as old as your other points. I will answer you, even though you won't ever answer me who Morrison ever stopped.
Besides Bobick (whose career was at least as impressive as Morrison's) Norton stopped Quarry and Henry Clark, both who had much better chins than Morrison.
He also stopped lesser fighters who had better chins than Morrison, such as Stephens,Zanon, and Middleton.

Norton hit harder than Williams who decked Morrison.
Norton hit harder than the the great Ross Purrity who decked Morrison twice.
Norton hit harder than Mercer, who knocked Morrison out.
Norton certainly hit harder than the legendary Michael Bentt, who knocked out Morrison in one round.

Morrison got whipped by Lewis, the only big puncher in his prime that Morrison ever fought.

Yes Norton got knocked by Foreman, Shavers when he was 35, and Cooney when he was 37. That makes him unique in boxing history for his inability to handle big punchers? Umm, ok.

I asked you before if you really thought Norton was the same fighter when he fought LeDoux and Cobb (whom he fought right before he fought Cooney) as he was earlier in his career. Of course you didn't answer it. He was way past it.

For the umpteenth time how was Norton able to go 15 rounds with Holmes? Holmes stopped his next 8 challengers. Who did Morrison ever stop again? Oh that's right, you don't answer that question.

No I'm not dreaming that Norton had the style and would beat Morrison. I am looking at the strengths and weakness of both fighters and coming up with the most likely scenario: Norton would win.

Ross Purrity can get a draw with Morrison and Michael Bentt can knock Morrison out in one round, but somehow there is no way that Norton could beat Morrison? I guess Norton just didn't have Purrity and Bentt's tricky styles that gave so many good fighter's problems. If you don't want to comment on this, fine with me.

edit

DaveV17 wrote:AA wrote:"However, Morrison's ko loss to a scrub like Micheal Bentt somehow shouldn't even be discussed. Whatever.
."

Getting caught early by Bentt happened. Lots of fighters, as you pointed out, have been stopped in one round, one time in their career. BUT, nobody said that Bentt froze at the sight of a big puncher so he had little in common with Ken Norton. It is interesting that you consider Bentt a "scrub". Bentt won a few NY Golden Gloves titles, was 6-3, 226 pounds in good shape, fought internationally as an amateur, but he is a scrub to you?

Styles make fights, just because A beats B and B beats C does not mean A beats C. Norton was a good fighter when his opponent did not have a big punch and when Norton could go forward. When the opponent punched hard and Norton could not go forward, he was a knockout victim.

I have never claimed Morrison is an all time great, He was just a quick handed fighter with knockout power. He had the perfect style to knock out Ken Norton early and brutally. Norton would freeze at the sight of Morrison, and Morrison would knock him out. But, don't take my word for it, Eddie Futch said Norton froze everytime he fought a puncher. [/b]

Norton didn't "freeze" against Foreman and Shavers. That's a big myth perpetrated by one comment by Eddie Futch and blown completely out of proportion.

Vs Foreman he was counterpunching beautifully and fighting fairly well until he got caught. He showed no signs of being stiff at all.

Vs Shavers he actually went and took the fight to Earnie and then got caught a good shot against the ropes.

Norton fought and beat a good number of punchers and beat them.

As he would do to Tommy 'weakchin/no stamina' Morrison.

Oh I see. When you get knocked out in the first round to a novice like Michael Bentt, it is no big deal.
It happens. However seldom does it happen to a good fighter in his prime to someone as bad as Michael Bentt. It's a strong indication that you aren't that good, and can be knocked out easily.
Norton was only knocked out once in his prime and that was to George Foreman, someone who hit far harder than Morrison ever dreamed of.
However, when you are past it and get knocked out by Earnie Shavers and Gerry Cooney, thats a big deal, because after all Eddie Futch said he froze.
Would love to see Morrison at the age of 37 ( a year less than he is now) fight Cooney. How many seconds do you think Morrison would last?
Would love to see Morrison at the age of 35 fight Shavers. How many seconds would Morrison last in that one?

Did Norton "freeze" against Bobick or Holmes?
Funny how he seldom "freezes" when he is in prime.

Bentt was a scrub or a tomato can or whatever term you want to give to someone that wasn't very good. He a total of 11 fights before he fought Morrison, and had beaten absolutely no one.
Yet he knocks out Morrison in the first round.
After that, Bentt get beaten badly by the phenomenal Herbie Hide.

Why in the world would Norton "freeze" at the sight of Tommy Morrison? He never knocked out a quality opponent in his whole career. He had a vulnerable jaw, was easy to hit, and not very good stamina. How terrifying.

You can keep using your tired styles make fights line, but it doesn't carry weight if you are unwilling to consider Norton's strengths and Morrison's many weaknesses.

When you get knocked out by unranked novice with record 12(6KO)-2-1 who's only got up from middleweight less than 2 years ago, that tells you all you need to know about Norton. The Ring didn't rank him among All-Time Top10 Glass Jaws for nothing.