BoxRec

I subscribe to the belief that Ken Norton was far from being a great heavyweight. Is there a truly great heavyweight who could not compete with such a large percentage of the best fighters in the heavyweight division, let alone never having a truly decisive victory over a top heavyweight?

Norton simply could not cope with the big punchers of the heavyweight division, getting stopped in short order by George Foreman, Earnie Shavers and Gerry Cooney in addition to being knocked out by Jose Luis Garcia in the eighth round. Yes, Norton did stop Jerry Quarry, a very good puncher and a top fighter during his prime years, but the latter was a mere shell of himself at the time of his bout with Norton. Also take note that Norton never fought Joe Frazier and Ron Lyle, both top fighters and tremendous punchers

During his career, Norton could only match up with top heavyweights who were cuties, which included Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes and Jimmy Young. In addition to his three bouts with Ali, Norton also fought Holmes and Young one time each. That means Norton was competitive in only five bouts with truly top fighters during his career, all of the bouts being very close. Norton won bouts with Ali and Young while losing two bouts with Ali and a bout with Holmes. That means Norton had a record of two wins and three losses in competitive bouts with top fighters. When including his bouts with Foreman, Shavers and Cooney in his record while facing top fighters, Norton won two (none by stoppage) and lost five (three by early stoppages). Moreover, he never won in a decisive manner in a bout with a top fighter.

- Chuck Johnston

Your not being fair to Norton at all. He was much farther from his prime when he fought Cooney than Quarry was when he and Norton fought.
You should be including the Quarry fight and excluding the Cooney fight, not the other way around.

He was a very inexperienced pro when he fought Garcia the first time. Look at what happened the 2nd time; he beat him easily.

Ali and Holmes were a lot more than just cuties.
Winning 2 out of 5 vs Ali, Young and Holmes with all of them being close fights is pretty damn good. I doubt there are a more than 15 guys who could have done that.

Ambling Alp II wrote: Winning 2 out of 5 vs Ali, Young and Holmes with all of them being close fights is pretty damn good. I doubt there are a more than 15 guys who could have done that.

Damn straight, good point

Chuck1052 wrote:I subscribe to the belief that Ken Norton was far from being a great heavyweight. Is there a truly great heavyweight who could not compete with such a large percentage of the best fighters in the heavyweight division, let alone never having a truly decisive victory over a top heavyweight?

Norton simply could not cope with the big punchers of the heavyweight division, getting stopped in short order by George Foreman, Earnie Shavers and Gerry Cooney in addition to being knocked out by Jose Luis Garcia in the eighth round. Yes, Norton did stop Jerry Quarry, a very good puncher and a top fighter during his prime years, but the latter was a mere shell of himself at the time of his bout with Norton. Also take note that Norton never fought Joe Frazier and Ron Lyle, both top fighters and tremendous punchers

During his career, Norton could only match up with top heavyweights who were cuties, which included Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes and Jimmy Young. In addition to his three bouts with Ali, Norton also fought Holmes and Young one time each. That means Norton was competitive in only five bouts with truly top fighters during his career, all of the bouts being very close. Norton won bouts with Ali and Young while losing two bouts with Ali and a bout with Holmes. That means Norton had a record of two wins and three losses in competitive bouts with top fighters. When including his bouts with Foreman, Shavers and Cooney in his record while facing top fighters, Norton won two (none by stoppage) and lost five (three by early stoppages). Moreover, he never won in a decisive manner in a bout with a top fighter.

- Chuck Johnston

While I don't disagree with your facts or assessment Chuck, I do disagree with what qualifies as being a "great heavyweight".
2-3 against Muhammad Ali, Larry Holmes and Jimmy Young seems great to me! Even 2-5 seems great!

I know Ken Norton went to the grave believing that he beat The Greatest 3 times. He pat himself on the back.

It is probable that Ken Norton's brain trust carefully matched him during his prime years, limiting his bouts with big punchers in the process. I am not blaming Norton's brain trust if they were doing it. If I was Norton's manager, I would do the same thing.

During their respective careers, Ken Norton has a far impressive win-loss record than Jimmy Young did. Young had 34 wins (11 by stoppage), 19 losses (two by TKOs) and 2 draws. In addition, Young had a relatively short shelf life as a top fighter and was a virtual opponent afterwards. Yet a vintage Jimmy Young matched up well against a greater variety of top fighters than Norton did. While facing top fighters during his prime years, Young had two lopsided decision wins over Ron Lyle, a notable win by decision over George Foreman, close losses by decision to Muhammad Ali and Norton, and a draw and a loss by stoppage in two bouts with Earnie Shavers.

I am not saying that Young was a great fighter. He was not one. Neither was Norton.

- Chuck Johanston

I don't consider Ken Norton an all time great fighter, neither a top 20 all time great heavyweight, but, he was pretty good.

At least, one could say he beat the great Muhammad Ali 3 times. He just got dicked in the last two.

Chuck1052 wrote:It is probable that Ken Norton's brain trust carefully matched him during his prime years, limiting his bouts with big punchers in the process. I am not blaming Norton's brain trust if they were doing it. If I was Norton's manager, I would do the same thing.

During their respective careers, Ken Norton has a far impressive win-loss record than Jimmy Young did. Young had 34 wins (11 by stoppage), 19 losses (two by TKOs) and 2 draws. In addition, Young had a relatively short shelf life as a top fighter and was a virtual opponent afterwards. Yet a vintage Jimmy Young matched up well against a greater variety of top fighters than Norton did. While facing top fighters during his prime years, Young had two lopsided decision wins over Ron Lyle, a notable win by decision over George Foreman, close losses by decision to Muhammad Ali and Norton, and a draw and a loss by stoppage in two bouts with Earnie Shavers.

I am not saying that Young was a great fighter. He was not one. Neither was Norton.

- Chuck Johanston

Norton didn't fight Lyle, but he took on a lot of tough competition. I never once during Norton's prime that he he had a bad chin. That all started after he got blown out a couple of times at the end of his career.
Young for a few years was a really good fighter, borderline great. He was fed to the wolves when he was a young fighter which is a biog part of his unimpressive win/loss record. Norton and Young had a great fight.

You can nitpick anyone career. How many guys were better than Norton? I would say you rate him as high as #15.

Look at the guys who mid-tier heavyweight champions:
Sharkey lost to Levinksy,Johnnie Risko and had a draw with Tom Heeney. Got ko'd by Carnera.
Baer lost to the title to braddock and to Willie Davies. Split fights with Farr, Schaaf and Risko.
Schmeling lost to Steve Hamas and Gypsey Daniels.
Walcott lost to many times yet always seems to get a free pass.
Charles lost to Valdes and Layne.
Patterson got blown out by Johannson and Liston and lost close decisions against Quarry and Ellis.

Norton was not quite as good as the guys that we argue about for the top 10. However, he was not that far behind them.

Hey Alp.......
....so if my 2 year old car has 500,000 miles on in and I want the mechanic to fix it for free and they balk, they are being crybabies?

And.....if my 50 year old car has under 1,000 miles on it....I can brag about how good those studebakers were built as I drive around in it today?


I do think Quarry at 30 had some miles. Just sayin......

Kenny was surely a later starter.


Not everyone is an Archie Moore....on the other hand....

Not everyone is a Riddick Bowe, or Aaron Pryor. I think it's ok to factor some odd time lines, and not call it whining.

BoxBuzz wrote:Hey Alp.......
....so if my 2 year old car has 500,000 miles on in and I want the mechanic to fix it for free and they balk, they are being crybabies?

And.....if my 50 year old car has under 1,000 miles on it....I can brag about how good those studebakers were built as I drive around in it today?


I do think Quarry at 30 had some miles. Just sayin......

Kenny was surely a later starter.


Not everyone is an Archie Moore....on the other hand....

Not everyone is a Riddick Bowe, or Aaron Pryor. I think it's ok to factor some odd time lines, and not call it whining.

Quarry didn't have 500,000 miles, so to speak. In boxing terms, he probably not even a 100,000.
In the fights where his opponent was hurting him,(ie Ali and Frazier) the fights didn't last that long. It's not like he had a lot of 15 round wars.
He was not that far removed from beating Shavers.
He was still highly rated. He was ranked 5th going into the Norton fight. That is more important than being a titleholder now.

This fight was a big deal. It was a really good win for Norton.

lorenzo1791 wrote:Quarry was fat and flabby.

Quarry took the fight on very short notice as a substitute for another fighter.

Quarry had Norton hurt early, let him get away, and ran completely out of gas after a few rounds.

I give zero credit to Norton for "beating" this Quarry.

No no no, you've got it all wrong. Quarry was in his absolute prime when Norton beat him, not shopworn at all. You have to realize that no fighter 30 years old or younger can have any sort of an excuse for losing a fight, well except you-know-who of course.

It's not like he was sitting in the stands eating a hotdog and was called out to fight Norton.
He took the fight three weeks in advance. That is not very short notice at all given that he just had a fight a week before that. How badly of shape could Quarry possibly have got in one week that in three weeks he couldn't overcome it? It makes no sense.

I always bring up age because it's the first thing to look at. If he was old, then right off the bat you can point to that.

Yes you could conceivably be shopworn when you are 30 years old. Doesn't happen a lot but it could.
Did it it happen in Quarry's case? No.
It's not like he was a fighter from the 20s or 30s who had well over 100 fights.
It's not like he had several long battles. He didn't.
If he was shopworn, he probably wouldn't have been rated so highly.
If he had be so shopworn, then he probably have been almost as shopworn in 1973. Yet that is when he won two of biggest fights. And he didn't take that much punishment in them.

Saying he is shopworn is revisionist history. Just about all of the evidence points to Quarry not being shopworn.

IMHO both norton and frazier tend to get
overrated today.

Ambling Alp II wrote:It's not like he was sitting in the stands eating a hotdog and was called out to fight Norton.
He took the fight three weeks in advance. That is not very short notice at all given that he just had a fight a week before that. How badly of shape could Quarry possibly have got in one week that in three weeks he couldn't overcome it? It makes no sense.

I always bring up age because it's the first thing to look at. If he was old, then right off the bat you can point to that.

Yes you could conceivably be shopworn when you are 30 years old. Doesn't happen a lot but it could.
Did it it happen in Quarry's case? No.
It's not like he was a fighter from the 20s or 30s who had well over 100 fights.
It's not like he had several long battles. He didn't.
If he was shopworn, he probably wouldn't have been rated so highly.
If he had be so shopworn, then he probably have been almost as shopworn in 1973. Yet that is when he won two of biggest fights. And he didn't take that much punishment in them.

Saying he is shopworn is revisionist history. Just about all of the evidence points to Quarry not being shopworn.

Glad to see you're not contributing to this:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Hopefully it won't go into a tangent about Quarry being past his prime or Norton deserving the decision against Ali.

Now let's get back to Quarry and Ali...

Jerry Quarry had said he was drunk when he got the call to fight Ken Norton.
Alos he had about 3 weeks notice(or less),that is true,
but he had to arrange or get some to prepare the fight camp
and travele,make personal appearences etc.

Caractacus wrote:Jerry Quarry had said he was drunk when he got the call to fight Ken Norton.
Alos he had about 3 weeks notice(or less),that is true,
but he had to arrange or get some to prepare the fight camp
and travele,make personal appearences etc.

Ken Norton beat him. That's the end of it. He was 3 years older than Jerry Quarry.

Norton did a number on Ali 3 Times. The only man in history that the Greatest couldn't beat.

Caractacus wrote:Jerry Quarry had said he was drunk when he got the call to fight Ken Norton.
Alos he had about 3 weeks notice(or less),that is true,
but he had to arrange or get some to prepare the fight camp
and travele,make personal appearences etc.

OK, that changes everything.

hhaehre wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:It's not like he was sitting in the stands eating a hotdog and was called out to fight Norton.
He took the fight three weeks in advance. That is not very short notice at all given that he just had a fight a week before that. How badly of shape could Quarry possibly have got in one week that in three weeks he couldn't overcome it? It makes no sense.

I always bring up age because it's the first thing to look at. If he was old, then right off the bat you can point to that.

Yes you could conceivably be shopworn when you are 30 years old. Doesn't happen a lot but it could.
Did it it happen in Quarry's case? No.
It's not like he was a fighter from the 20s or 30s who had well over 100 fights.
It's not like he had several long battles. He didn't.
If he was shopworn, he probably wouldn't have been rated so highly.
If he had be so shopworn, then he probably have been almost as shopworn in 1973. Yet that is when he won two of biggest fights. And he didn't take that much punishment in them.

Saying he is shopworn is revisionist history. Just about all of the evidence points to Quarry not being shopworn.

Glad to see you're not contributing to this:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Hopefully it won't go into a tangent about Quarry being past his prime or Norton deserving the decision against Ali.

Now let's get back to Quarry and Ali...

Go back and reread the thread. I knew where this thread would probably head, but I tried to keep this about Norton. Pretty much sick of the same old stuff about Quarry and the three Ali fights.
I brought up several of Norton's other fights. I wanted this to be about his whole career and not get bogged down with Quarry and Ali.
I would be happy to discuss his fights with Young, Foreman, Holmes etc.

Where to rate Norton is hard to say. He has to be behind Louis, Ali, Foreman, Johnson, Frazier, Holmes, Dempsey,Marciano, Holyfield, Lewis, Liston, Tyson, and Jeffries. That is 13 guys. The usual suspects when people make their Top 10 List.

I would also rate him behind Tunney and Bowe, but I'm sure there those who disagree with that.
However, after these guys there are many who are roughly even.
Langford, Wills, Jeannette, McVey, Sharkey, Schmeling, Baer, Charles, Walcott, Patterson and Norton are all fairly close. I would also include Corbett and Fitzsimmons, who have pretty much forgotton these days.

So he probably should be rated somewhere between #16 and #28, which is a bit of a range.
All of the guys in this group had some big wins and great performances. However they also lost enough and/or had bad performances that have to be considered as well.

We often debate the Top 10. However, rating this group (16-28) is more challenging and something is not done often.

Norton makes my top 20. It's a common boxing myth he couldn't beat big punchers (like Tyson only beat guys who were "intimidated" by him); Garcia, Kirkman, O'Halloran, Lovell were not all time greats, but they all had knockout power, they all laid hands on Kenny, and Norton beat them all (Garcia in the rematch). Plus it's not like Ali and Holmes were frikkin' Paulie Mags in the punch department.

Foreman, Shavers, and Cooney were three of the biggest punchers of all time (Shavers and Foreman are arguably #1 and #2), and Norton lost to two of them past his prime.

As one goes, another arrives! I see Lorenzo is our resident poster with nothing to contribute except these mocking one-line ripostes so lame that every child on the internet can write them.

I think I speak for everyone when I say I shall be reading his insightful, enlightening comments on boxing with great interest.

Because everyone here has seen your kind so many times before. This sneering, route one most obvious gag act is so simple an algorithm could be programmed to write it.

You're a grown man. Why don't put your LOLs to one side and make solid arguments?

I'm a big fan of Norton but he is clearly not an ATG, his body of wins is simply not enough to elevate him to that status. If he could have added Frazier or Holmes to his w column then definitely but as it was I would call him the best non ATG of the 70's division.

I really see him as Tarver like. Prepared and rehearsed and focused to perform remarkably well against one of the best fighters in his weight class at the time. But lacking the ability to take that "boutique" set of skills and apply it across the board.

He would not have done well against Frazier, performed poorly against Foreman, could not quite muster a win against Holmes, Shavers or Cooney truly lost to Young but gave Ali Hell.

Now those losses are against a wide group of skill sets. Unusual record to say the least. But a very good fighter.....but his ability against one fighter catapults him probably somewhat artificially into

a realm he probably should not be considered in.

He never fought Frazier, so we can't count that against Norton since it never happened.
No he couldn't muster a win against Holmes. He lost a close decision in a great fight. He gave Larry Holmes hell. He really was the only one to do that against a prime Holmes.
How many guys in the history of the sport do you really think would have done better? Four or five?

He was probably past it against Shavers. Cooney? Come on.
Young? Well I scored it for Young too, but it was close. And it was a great fight. If you are trying to prove that Norton was not that good, that isn't a fight a fight to show someone.

How about the Bobick fight? That was a big fight at the time and now people completely dismiss it.