BoxRec

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑03 Jan 2022, 19:02

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑01 Jan 2022, 16:18 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.

margaret thatcher wrote: ↑04 Jan 2022, 15:39 you seem to keep saying its close as it gets but only really seem to argue against ezz my man

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑05 Jan 2022, 12:23 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 wrote: ↑05 Jan 2022, 15:59 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.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑05 Jan 2022, 15:59 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.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑07 Jan 2022, 13:21

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑05 Jan 2022, 15:59 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.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Jan 2022, 15:15

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑07 Jan 2022, 13:21

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑05 Jan 2022, 15:59 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.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Jan 2022, 16:32 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.

Cojimar 1946 wrote: ↑10 Jan 2022, 04:23

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑07 Jan 2022, 16:32 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

bwu wrote: ↑09 Jan 2022, 21:22 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.

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑11 Jan 2022, 16:24 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.