BoxRec

Controversial wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:
That is a fair point about . Tyson having more power and a much different style than Holmes and Ali.
However, it's not like Tyson blew everyone out in the first round or even early.

Barry Washington had posted this earlier in the thread:
Tillis took him the full 10.
Green took him the full 10.
Ribalta made it to 10.
Smith took him the full 12.
Thomas made it to 6.
Tucker took him the full 12.
Biggs made it to 7.

Some of these were when Tyson was coming up and maybe the result would have been a lot different later on. Maybe not so much.

The point is, it's not a no-brainer by any stretch of the imagination that Norton is going to get blown out right away.

Styles make fights though. The above contains some very durable fighters, plus a few Tyson fought on the defensive from the opening bell. Norton was a slow starter, a bit like Floyd Patterson he was floored several times in the first few rounds in fights and normally come unstuck against big punchers. Tyson did tend to run out of ideas after a few rounds in fights when opponents didn't fall over but I just can't see Norton lasting more than 3.

I agree that styles are important. Norton didn't have a great chin, but it was as good as several fighters who went several rounds with Tyson. His awkward style may have gave Tyson some trouble early on.
Norton was floored several times in early rounds? In his prime, I can't think of any except for the Foreman fight.

Have to agree with Alp it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that Norton at his peak loses in a round to Tyson

Less than a year after his fine performance against Larry Holmes while losing a very close, disputed decision, Ken Norton was stopped in one round by Earnie Shavers. In other words, I doubt if Norton could be way over the hill by the time he fought Shavers not too long after he proved that he still was one of the best heavyweights in the world in his bout with Holmes.

I have been a boxing fan for a little over forty years. Taking all of that in account, I believe that Shavers was the hardest puncher than I have ever seen while watching boxing bouts in person or on television. In other words, it isn't any disgrace that Norton was stopped by Shavers.

- Chuck Johnston

We may not be that far apart in opinions here. I agree that Shavers was probably the hardest hitting fighter of all time. Certainly not a disgrace to get ko'd by him. Tyson while an extremely hard puncher, wasn't as hard hitting as Shavers. Perhaps Norton could suruvive for a short time if he got nailed against Tyson. That is assuming that tyson would mail him right away and that is quite an assumption.

I understand your point that Norton fought a great fight in 1978 against Holmes, so shouldn't he be pretty close to that level in 1979? I think this is a gray area that I have mentioned on other threads.

At first glance, you would think Norton's decline would have been much more gradual. However, you have to consider that he was 35; an age where fighters typically (not always) start to decline at a faster rate. Also, the Holmes fight itself probably took a lot out of Norton, especially at that age. Usually a combination of age and punishment will take it's toll on a fighter. Sometimes the decline is faster. I always thought that the Holmes fight increased Norton's decline.

There are other examples. Ali was clearly not the same fighter in 1976 as he was in 1975.
Not trying to take anything away from Shavers. Norton was probably still top 10 fighter when Shavers ko'd him. He had something left. He just was not the fighter that he once was.

Ambling Alp wrote:
I agree that styles are important. Norton didn't have a great chin, but it was as good as several fighters who went several rounds with Tyson. His awkward style may have gave Tyson some trouble early on.
Norton was floored several times in early rounds? In his prime, I can't think of any except for the Foreman fight.

I meant that Norton was floored several times in his entire career, and normally in the first two rounds.

Dutra (1x 2nd)
Gilmore (1x in 2nd)
Eastling (1x in 1st)
Brown (not sure if floored but badly staggered in 1st round)
Garcia (3x, once in 1st, twice in 8th, koed)
Foreman (3x in 2nd, koed)
Shavers (1x in 1st, koed)
LeDoux (2x in 10th)
Cooney (1x in 1st, koed)

Also when you consider 14 of Norton's opponents weighed 200lbs or less and 11 others in the 201-210lb region its not like he fought that many big heavyweights. Also Tyson and Norton were almost identical weights in the years given so if anything that would favour Tyson much more.

The fact is Norton was often beaten when he faced big punchers. At his peak Tyson was as deadly as they come, yes you can make arguments that Norton would give Tyson problems but Norton would no doubt get clobbered several times in the process, I just don't think Norton's chin would've taken Tyson's punches.

.

some fantastic arguments from both sides here am really in awe at some of the detail put fwd to advance the differing viewpoints.

Chuck its true Norton came off one of his best performances but I also feel the Holmes fight drained and hurt him physically and mentally...he was getting old at that point and the layoff if u can call it that hurt him against Shavers....he just seemed to look shot to me...I may well be very wrong here...I dont know....Shavers did come out very quick and with his power he did a real number on Norton a fantastic win....

As Alp says the decline of a fighter around age 35 can be sudden and pronounced...Ali still looked a semblance of his 70's self against Shavers yet the first fight with Spinks he seemed totally finished....of course 2 years later with Holmes he was beyond shot . Having a relative suffering from Parkinsons I maintain the Ali that fought Spinks was already suffering from onset of Parkinsons. The strange staring eyes and face....as you could see in benitez too....those last 2 losses are as irrelevent as 2 losses can be......

Controversial wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:
I agree that styles are important. Norton didn't have a great chin, but it was as good as several fighters who went several rounds with Tyson. His awkward style may have gave Tyson some trouble early on.
Norton was floored several times in early rounds? In his prime, I can't think of any except for the Foreman fight.

I meant that Norton was floored several times in his entire career, and normally in the first two rounds.

Dutra (1x 2nd)
Gilmore (1x in 2nd)
Eastling (1x in 1st)
Brown (not sure if floored but badly staggered in 1st round)
Garcia (3x, once in 1st, twice in 8th, koed)
Foreman (3x in 2nd, koed)
Shavers (1x in 1st, koed)
LeDoux (2x in 10th)
Cooney (1x in 1st, koed)

Also when you consider 14 of Norton's opponents weighed 200lbs or less and 11 others in the 201-210lb region its not like he fought that many big heavyweights. Also Tyson and Norton were almost identical weights in the years given so if anything that would favour Tyson much more.

The fact is Norton was often beaten when he faced big punchers. At his peak Tyson was as deadly as they come, yes you can make arguments that Norton would give Tyson problems but Norton would no doubt get clobbered several times in the process, I just don't think Norton's chin would've taken Tyson's punches.

.

Those knockdowns are deceiving. first you have to remember that Norton was late comer to boxing and had had a very brief amateur career. The fights against Dutra, Gilmore, Eastling, Brown and Garcia were early in his career. In fact dutra was only his 3rd pro fight and Gilmore was only his 4th.

He was past it vs Shavers and way past it vs LeDoux and Cooney.

Look at his fights from 1972- 1978. during this period he had experience but wasn't too oldThe only time he was every knocked down was against Foreman.
In those 22 fights, only one opponent weighed under 200.

Like most guys, I don't think norton had the chin to withinstand many of Tyson's haymakers. I am just saying that it isn't a forgone conclusion that Tyson would just steamroll right ever him within one round. It may take Tyson a few rounds before he would be able to take him down. Norton could be hard to hit and could weather one or two hard hard shots.
You also have to consider the possibility that Norton could land the big one first. He certainly wasn't as hard a puncher as Tyson but he could bang. He certainly was in the class of a Douglas or a Holyfield. It's not like Tyson had a great chin.

Norton was most susceptible to uppercuts, and while Mike had a good one he didn't know how to work on the inside to get it off. His success with that punch was predicated mainly on guys standing there trying not to get hit when he fired the right to the body/uppercut combo. I have to think Norton's jab would make it tough for Mike to just come out of his corner with his guns blazing and Kenny was strong enough to tie Mike up in close. I think Tyson's speed is more of a problem than his power, I like Mike by decision here but he obviously had the capability of ending things.

Ambling Alp wrote:It's not like Tyson had a great chin.

Maybe not great but he had a good chin.

Ambling Alp wrote:
Like most guys, I don't think norton had the chin to withinstand many of Tyson's haymakers. I am just saying that it isn't a forgone conclusion that Tyson would just steamroll right ever him within one round. It may take Tyson a few rounds before he would be able to take him down. Norton could be hard to hit and could weather one or two hard hard shots.
You also have to consider the possibility that Norton could land the big one first. He certainly wasn't as hard a puncher as Tyson but he could bang. He certainly was in the class of a Douglas or a Holyfield. It's not like Tyson had a great chin.

I never said one round, I said he would be lucky to see past 3 rounds. Of course in fantasy fight land we can all give different scenarios of possible outcomes. Norton had the style to cause fighters like Ali, Holmes and Young problems because they didn't really have the power to hurt him or style to put him under serious pressure.

Why do you think Tyson didn't have a great chin?

Jaywheel wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:It's not like Tyson had a great chin.

Maybe not great but he had a good chin.

I would classify his chin as great, his defense and head movement were very overrated. The shotsa he took were usually flush as can be, you really had to beat the dog shit out of him to get him out of there.

Controversial wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:
Like most guys, I don't think norton had the chin to withinstand many of Tyson's haymakers. I am just saying that it isn't a forgone conclusion that Tyson would just steamroll right ever him within one round. It may take Tyson a few rounds before he would be able to take him down. Norton could be hard to hit and could weather one or two hard hard shots.
You also have to consider the possibility that Norton could land the big one first. He certainly wasn't as hard a puncher as Tyson but he could bang. He certainly was in the class of a Douglas or a Holyfield. It's not like Tyson had a great chin.

I never said one round, I said he would be lucky to see past 3 rounds. Of course in fantasy fight land we can all give different scenarios of possible outcomes. Norton had the style to cause fighters like Ali, Holmes and Young problems because they didn't really have the power to hurt him or style to put him under serious pressure.

Why do you think Tyson didn't have a great chin?

I didn't mean to say you specifically thought Norton wouldn't get past the first round. It was an opinion that others had made.
As for Tyson's chin-To me a great chin means you can take a lot of hard shots by guys that have great power. They should be able to to have little problem withstanding shots by good but no great punchers.

Tyson was knocked out by Buster Douglas; someone with a great chin would not have been.
Tyson got stopped by Holyfield; someone with a great chin would not have been.

Yes it took several good shots by both Douglas and Holyfield, but a fighter with a great chin would have taken them. Both could punch, but neither had anywhere near the power of say a Louis, Liston, Shavers or Foreman.

Tyson had a good chin; but not a great one.

Ambling Alp wrote:

Controversial wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:
Like most guys, I don't think norton had the chin to withinstand many of Tyson's haymakers. I am just saying that it isn't a forgone conclusion that Tyson would just steamroll right ever him within one round. It may take Tyson a few rounds before he would be able to take him down. Norton could be hard to hit and could weather one or two hard hard shots.
You also have to consider the possibility that Norton could land the big one first. He certainly wasn't as hard a puncher as Tyson but he could bang. He certainly was in the class of a Douglas or a Holyfield. It's not like Tyson had a great chin.

I never said one round, I said he would be lucky to see past 3 rounds. Of course in fantasy fight land we can all give different scenarios of possible outcomes. Norton had the style to cause fighters like Ali, Holmes and Young problems because they didn't really have the power to hurt him or style to put him under serious pressure.

Why do you think Tyson didn't have a great chin?

I didn't mean to say you specifically thought Norton wouldn't get past the first round. It was an opinion that others had made.
As for Tyson's chin-To me a great chin means you can take a lot of hard shots by guys that have great power. They should be able to to have little problem withstanding shots by good but no great punchers.

Tyson was knocked out by Buster Douglas; someone with a great chin would not have been.
Tyson got stopped by Holyfield; someone with a great chin would not have been.

Yes it took several good shots by both Douglas and Holyfield, but a fighter with a great chin would have taken them. Both could punch, but neither had anywhere near the power of say a Louis, Liston, Shavers or Foreman.

Tyson had a good chin; but not a great one.

Ambling Alp wrote:
Yes it took several good shots by both Douglas and Holyfield, but a fighter with a great chin would have taken them. Both could punch, but neither had anywhere near the power of say a Louis, Liston, Shavers or Foreman.

Tyson had a good chin; but not a great one.

We are talking about the peak Tyson, around the 1988 era. The Tyson that faced Douglas in 1990 was a shell of a fighter, no head movement, no combination punches, he simply didn't train for the fight and hugely underestimated Douglas. By the time he fought Holyfield in 1996 and 1997 although still a dangerous fighter he wasn't the same force in my opinion.

Upto those fights Tyson was rarely in any trouble from any punch, the only times he looked like being hurt or troubled was the hook from Bruno, the uppercut from Tucker and the right hand from Smith, all big punchers and even then they were a long way from dropping him or having him in any serious trouble. His chin is underestimated if you ask me.

In all seriousness who is most likely to drop first, a peak Tyson from a Norton punch or a peak Norton from a Tyson punch?

I'm suspecting there is a problem in our syntax as to what each of us are using as the criteria to define "chin".

I agree with saad, you had to beat the dogshit out of Mike to get him to take a nap.

He was beat on for many rounds, and was not doing a very good job of protecting himself in those fights, partly because he probably didn't think he had to. He seemed to let the punches pile up until they inevitably took their toll.

If I think of the two best chins of all time, Ali and Chuvalo, neither of them were overly keen on just taking such punches, they both made attempts (even in there most porous defense modes) to protect what they thought needed some attending to. I think even those two if they allowed what Mike allowed, just might start to yawn a bit. Though I'm not saying he was on the par with them, I don't think he was far from their level.

It looked like Tyson didnt care, didn't worry, or didn't know how to protect himself in some of his worst showings. He showed far less head movement, which indeed may simply have signaled that he was confident their power was not going to be an issue. I tend to think he was just being an idiot, and ignoring all the great coaching he had been given, coaching that brought him to the top.

Was he ever starched with a single punch? And the series of punches that signaled the sandman's arrival at his doorstep was set up by many rounds of beatings. At least that's my recollection. Maybe I need to go back and watch the fights. I welcome reasons to lower my opinion of Mike.

I don't think all that much of Mike as some of you know. I don't think he deserves high points for being honorable, brave or smart. I often chime in that I believe he was over rated mostly due to those shortcomings.

But rugged? I'll give him that. In fact I think he lost interest in fighting when he recognized just how much he could take. In that dept a fighter is probably better served being an easy KO victim. He really did have to endure some helacious shots, and I think unlike most, he's cursed with having to remember them all.

BoxBuzz wrote:I'm suspecting there is a problem in our syntax as to what each of us are using as the criteria to define "chin".

I agree with saad, you had to beat the dogshit out of Mike to get him to take a nap.

He was beat on for many rounds, and was not doing a very good job of protecting himself in those fights, partly because he probably didn't think he had to. He seemed to let the punches pile up until they inevitably took their toll.

If I think of the two best chins of all time, Ali and Chuvalo, neither of them were overly keen on just taking such punches, they both made attempts (even in there most porous defense modes) to protect what they thought needed some attending to. I think even those two if they allowed what Mike allowed, just might start to yawn a bit. Though I'm not saying he was on the par with them, I don't think he was far from their level.

It looked like Tyson didnt care, didn't worry, or didn't know how to protect himself in some of his worst showings. He showed far less head movement, which indeed may simply have signaled that he was confident their power was not going to be an issue. I tend to think he was just being an idiot, and ignoring all the great coaching he had been given, coaching that brought him to the top.

Was he ever starched with a single punch? And the series of punches that signaled the sandman's arrival at his doorstep was set up by many rounds of beatings. At least that's my recollection. Maybe I need to go back and watch the fights. I welcome reasons to lower my opinion of Mike.

I don't think all that much of Mike as some of you know. I don't think he deserves high points for being honorable, brave or smart. I often chime in that I believe he was over rated mostly due to those shortcomings.

But rugged? I'll give him that. In fact I think he lost interest in fighting when he recognized just how much he could take. In that dept a fighter is probably better served being an easy KO victim. He really did have to endure some helacious shots, and I think unlike most, he's cursed with having to remember them all.

This is a nice post, my only disagreement would be that he didn't care. Mike had a very low Ring IQ and wasn't capable of making adjustments in a fight. In those fights were he was starched, LOL at him being a shell against Douglas, he pretty much was out of options and resigned himself to taking it like a man. At least that's how it looked to me against Buster, Evander & Lennox.

Controversial wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:
Yes it took several good shots by both Douglas and Holyfield, but a fighter with a great chin would have taken them. Both could punch, but neither had anywhere near the power of say a Louis, Liston, Shavers or Foreman.

Tyson had a good chin; but not a great one.

We are talking about the peak Tyson, around the 1988 era. The Tyson that faced Douglas in 1990 was a shell of a fighter, no head movement, no combination punches, he simply didn't train for the fight and hugely underestimated Douglas. By the time he fought Holyfield in 1996 and 1997 although still a dangerous fighter he wasn't the same force in my opinion.

Upto those fights Tyson was rarely in any trouble from any punch, the only times he looked like being hurt or troubled was the hook from Bruno, the uppercut from Tucker and the right hand from Smith, all big punchers and even then they were a long way from dropping him or having him in any serious trouble. His chin is underestimated if you ask me.

In all seriousness who is most likely to drop first, a peak Tyson from a Norton punch or a peak Norton from a Tyson punch?

Tyson in the 80s right up to 1991 had one helluva chin...he took some hellacious shots from one of the biggest HW punchers of the last 30 years in Ruddock, he also took as you already said full strength shots from Bruno, bonecrusher and tucker . What was notable in all of these fights was how Tyson came back immediately when hit with hard shots of his own and won the immediate argument. His ferocity and will to win was strongly allied to that natural ability to take a shot (ie his chin). . Once his interest in boxing declined he would take shots but no longer fight back or fight to win...I dont even include anything post 91 in my analysis of Tyson. His 40 something fight career up to 91 is enough for me.

The 4 years out killed his career and talents. After that it was just about money.

Controversial wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:
Yes it took several good shots by both Douglas and Holyfield, but a fighter with a great chin would have taken them. Both could punch, but neither had anywhere near the power of say a Louis, Liston, Shavers or Foreman.

Tyson had a good chin; but not a great one.

We are talking about the peak Tyson, around the 1988 era. The Tyson that faced Douglas in 1990 was a shell of a fighter, no head movement, no combination punches, he simply didn't train for the fight and hugely underestimated Douglas. By the time he fought Holyfield in 1996 and 1997 although still a dangerous fighter he wasn't the same force in my opinion.

Upto those fights Tyson was rarely in any trouble from any punch, the only times he looked like being hurt or troubled was the hook from Bruno, the uppercut from Tucker and the right hand from Smith, all big punchers and even then they were a long way from dropping him or having him in any serious trouble. His chin is underestimated if you ask me.

In all seriousness who is most likely to drop first, a peak Tyson from a Norton punch or a peak Norton from a Tyson punch?

The 1990 Douglas fights counts. There is no excuse for it. You are not being fair at all. You count the Cooney loss against Norton when Norton was 37 but then claim Tyson was a shell of himself in 1990. That is silly.

Of course it is more likely that tyson would deck norton than vice versa; I am just saying it's possiblity that Norton could do it. As the Douglas and Holyfield fights show, when Tyson got hit a lot by decent punchers who were not afraid of him he could be stopped.

As I have said several times, I am just saying it's not a done deal that Tyson would blow Norton out early. There are several other possibilites.
If they fought 10 times there would be several different outcomes. I think the most common would be Norton being fairly competitive early, then Tyson gradually takes control and stops him in the mid-late rounds.

Ambling Alp wrote:
The 1990 Douglas fights counts. There is no excuse for it. You are not being fair at all. You count the Cooney loss against Norton when Norton was 37 but then claim Tyson was a shell of himself in 1990. That is silly.

Of course it is more likely that tyson would deck norton than vice versa; I am just saying it's possiblity that Norton could do it. As the Douglas and Holyfield fights show, when Tyson got hit a lot by decent punchers who were not afraid of him he could be stopped.

As I have said several times, I am just saying it's not a done deal that Tyson would blow Norton out early. There are several other possibilites.
If they fought 10 times there would be several different outcomes. I think the most common would be Norton being fairly competitive early, then Tyson gradually takes control and stops him in the mid-late rounds.

I never said Norton wasn't past it against Cooney. The point of my post listing Norton's knockdowns was to show throughout his career Norton was floored several times in the early rounds, which shows he was a slow starter and his chin wasn't his best attribute. Not even a shot Tyson was starched in one round, even his last two stoppage defeats were more a case of Tyson giving up rather than his chin letting him down.

I disagree about Tyson vs Douglas. It is plainly obvious that Tyson didn't train his hardest, 99.9% of boxing fans thought Douglas had no chance of beating him and that came across with the way Tyson approached the fight, prepared and fought. It so happened to coincide with Douglas being in the best shape physically and mentally of his entire career. No way would the result have been the same had Tyson been in shape and up for the fight. Tyson's "bad" chin wasn't the reason he lost, he lost because he was simply outboxed and sucked up solid punches for 10 rounds.

Watch the highlights of the Tyson and Ruddock fight to see the bombs Tyson took, his chin isn't in doubt in my opinion, this is an "up for it" Tyson, not even comparable to his demeanour in the Douglas fight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUAG1bjht40

I don't really see your point with "if they fought 10 times", surely that argument can be used with any fight and you are still saying Tyson would stop him anyway.

Maybe it would go 6-10 rounds, its pure speculation by anyone, my theory is it wouldn't go past 3.

,

Ok, I think we have gone round and round on this long enough. I am guessing you are standing by what you have said and I am standing by what I have said. Glad that you, me, and everyone else could have a civil discussion about it. Time to move on.