Page 2 of 2
Posted: 28 Nov 2005, 22:40
by theone
walcott fought extremley hard puncher 6'2 200lb elmer ray beating ray twice and knocking ray down.
in going 30 rounds with ray, walcott was never floored!
Wlacott only beat Ray once; Ray one the other fight. Both fights were very close. Norton was a much better fighter than Ray.
walcott also took on HUGE puncher tommy gomez knocking gomez out in 3.
walcott also took on HUGE puncher tommy gomez knocking gomez out in 3.
Okay? What does this prove? Gomez was not as big, strong or good as Norton. He had been knocked out by lesser fighters before that and wasnt even ranked when he fought Walcott.
hein ten hoff was undefeated 6'5 220lbs walcott boxed circles around him
olle tanberg 6'3 208lbs was widely feared at the time, walcott knocked him out
walcott boxed circles around 6'2 218lb top contender joe baski
None of these guys were in Nortons class. If Ali,Holmes and Young couldnt box circles around Norton, Walcott wouldnt either.
walcott was chizzled 6' 197lbs
norton was chizzles 6'3 212lb
thats what 3" 15lbs gimme a break!!!!
Norton at his very best from 75 to 78 fought at around 220. Thats an advantage of 23 pounds of muscle. Not to mention a 6 inch reach advantage.
Posted: 29 Nov 2005, 01:21
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
Wlacott only beat Ray once; Ray one the other fight. Both fights were very close. Norton was a much better fighter than Ray.
ur mistaken,
walcott won a decision and knocked out elmer ray,
wanna know why ur mistaken??
walcott ko 3 elmer ray - in 1930s when both were green and well before there best. check out walcotts early record.
- ive read newspaper accounts and many say walcott was robbed vs elmer ray, but walcott knocked him down and outboxed him to win the rubber match
Posted: 29 Nov 2005, 01:26
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
norton was not at his best at 220lb.
- the fact that norton lost to a shot ali in 77 goes to show u something about his skill.
norton weighed 217lb in 3rd ali fight. norton didnt weigh 220 till holmes fight which was NOT his peak fight.
If Ali,Holmes and Young couldnt box circles around Norton, Walcott wouldnt either.
ali was slow and past his prime
- young has no where near the speed or incredible moves or walcott. holmes moves well but still doesnt have the moves, fakes, tricks of the LIGHTER SPEEDY SHIFTY WALCOTT.
walcott was a better ring technician than any one of those men.
i cant see the slower, less versatile norton being able to cope with walcotts tricks
Posted: 29 Nov 2005, 02:56
by Ezzard
Fantastic matchup.
Walcott is the greater fighter but I think Norton can win this one by a razor thin decision.
Posted: 29 Nov 2005, 07:50
by theone
walcott ko 3 elmer ray - in 1930s when both were green and well before there best. check out walcotts early record.
Gotcha. Missed that one.
Posted: 29 Nov 2005, 12:06
by BoxBuzz
Damni the one you keep peeking at their birth certificates.
Posted: 29 Nov 2005, 12:41
by RazorKO
Norton mid rounds KO.
Joe Walcott was knocked out by fat Abe Simon, lost to lightheavy Maxim as well as being knocked out by several other journeymen in his career plus being knocked out by old Joe Louis. With the exception of Garcia (In which Norton reversed the loss by brutally knocking him out) He only lost to the best and has a wins over Ali TWICE, Young, Quarry, Cobb who he beat when he was old and gave Holmes one hell of a fight. Norton carried far more power than Walcott, was faster than Walcott, had more endurance than Walcott and took a better punch than Walcott. Norton only lost to fighters to All time hard punchers like Shavers, Foreman and Cooney who carried the most 1 punch power in the history of boxing.
Posted: 29 Nov 2005, 15:14
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
RazorKO wrote:Norton mid rounds KO.
Joe Walcott was knocked out by fat Abe Simon, lost to lightheavy Maxim as well as being knocked out by several other journeymen in his career plus being knocked out by old Joe Louis. With the exception of Garcia (In which Norton reversed the loss by brutally knocking him out) He only lost to the best and has a wins over Ali TWICE, Young, Quarry, Cobb who he beat when he was old and gave Holmes one hell of a fight. Norton carried far more power than Walcott, was faster than Walcott, had more endurance than Walcott and took a better punch than Walcott. Norton only lost to fighters to All time hard punchers like Shavers, Foreman and Cooney who carried the most 1 punch power in the history of boxing.
u have no idea what ur talking about
- walcott lost to abe simon in 1940 WELL BEFORE HIS PRIME. walcot took the fight on 24 day notice with no training and highly malnourished, yet walcott still outboxed the big top contender easily for the first 5 rounds until walcott stumbled around in the ring in the 6th due to exaustion from no training and being malnourished and simon finished him off.
prime walcott destroys simon
Norton carried far more power than Walcott, was faster than Walcott, had more endurance than Walcott and took a better punch than Walcott
im sorry u need to watch more of walcott
- walcott defintley had more speed than norton, and was more far mobile and cute
- walcott most likely had more power than norton
- walcott had just as much endurance
- norton did not have e better chin than walcott, walcott was only knocked out twice in his prime by louis and marciano two top punchers in heavyweight history louis being the greatest. and walcott took heavy hitter elmer rays best punches.
walcott beat better competion than norton
walcott beat
- HOF joey maxim twice
- hevy hitting underated 6'2 200lb elmer ray twice
- decisioned and knocked down top contender jimmy bivins who hadnt lossed in 3 years
- BEAT JOE LOUIS in the first fight who still had a lot left
- twice beat HOF top 15 heavyweight ezzard charles
- knocked out very hard puncher tommy gomez
- knocked out hard punching curti sheppard and decisioned and knocked down top contender lee oma
- outboxed and nearly beat top 10 heavyweight rocky marciano until he got caught with one of the biggest punches in history
- also defeated solid big men like
6'2 220lb joe baski
6'5 220lb hein ten hoff
6'3 210lb ollie tangberg- a highly feared fighter at the time
but according to you gerrrie coatzee was a better puncher than rocky marciano and razor ruddock was a better puncher than joe louiis
Posted: 29 Nov 2005, 15:14
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
walcott KO 6 gerrie coatzee
Posted: 29 Nov 2005, 15:46
by josh576
i've been thinking about it and i do think that walcott would beat norton. norton never really did fight a boxer the calibre of walcott who was in their prime except for holmes and norton lost a thin SD. walcott was very sneaky and very smart. he had every trick under his sleave and a good chin. very close fight, though.
and i will always believe that old ali won the 3rd fight regardless of what anyone says.
Norton
Posted: 30 Nov 2005, 05:02
by Cojimar 1945
Ali was close to his prime when he fought Norton the first two times. He had yet to beat Frazier and Foreman.
Re: Norton
Posted: 30 Nov 2005, 06:33
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
Cojimar 1945 wrote:Ali was close to his prime when he fought Norton the first two times. He had yet to beat Frazier and Foreman.
- let me get some of whatever ur smokin son
cojimar are u Dr. Z on ESB??????
im suzie Q on ESB
Ali prime
Posted: 30 Nov 2005, 07:16
by Cojimar 1945
Ali was only 31 when he fought Norton and his most impressive wins came after the Norton fights. Without them his legacy would be enormously diminished.
Re: Ali prime
Posted: 30 Nov 2005, 07:23
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
Cojimar 1945 wrote:Ali was only 31 when he fought Norton and his most impressive wins came after the Norton fights. Without them his legacy would be enormously diminished.
norton beat a much slower lazier, less stamina, less reflexes overweight ali
Posted: 30 Nov 2005, 13:55
by RazorKO
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:RazorKO wrote:Norton mid rounds KO.
Joe Walcott was knocked out by fat Abe Simon, lost to lightheavy Maxim as well as being knocked out by several other journeymen in his career plus being knocked out by old Joe Louis. With the exception of Garcia (In which Norton reversed the loss by brutally knocking him out) He only lost to the best and has a wins over Ali TWICE, Young, Quarry, Cobb who he beat when he was old and gave Holmes one hell of a fight. Norton carried far more power than Walcott, was faster than Walcott, had more endurance than Walcott and took a better punch than Walcott. Norton only lost to fighters to All time hard punchers like Shavers, Foreman and Cooney who carried the most 1 punch power in the history of boxing.
u have no idea what ur talking about
- walcott lost to abe simon in 1940 WELL BEFORE HIS PRIME. walcot took the fight on 24 day notice with no training and highly malnourished, yet walcott still outboxed the big top contender easily for the first 5 rounds until walcott stumbled around in the ring in the 6th due to exaustion from no training and being malnourished and simon finished him off.
prime walcott destroys simon
Norton carried far more power than Walcott, was faster than Walcott, had more endurance than Walcott and took a better punch than Walcott
im sorry u need to watch more of walcott
- walcott defintley had more speed than norton, and was more far mobile and cute
- walcott most likely had more power than norton
- walcott had just as much endurance
- norton did not have e better chin than walcott, walcott was only knocked out twice in his prime by louis and marciano two top punchers in heavyweight history louis being the greatest. and walcott took heavy hitter elmer rays best punches.
walcott beat better competion than norton
walcott beat
- HOF joey maxim twice
- hevy hitting underated 6'2 200lb elmer ray twice
- decisioned and knocked down top contender jimmy bivins who hadnt lossed in 3 years
- BEAT JOE LOUIS in the first fight who still had a lot left
- twice beat HOF top 15 heavyweight ezzard charles
- knocked out very hard puncher tommy gomez
- knocked out hard punching curti sheppard and decisioned and knocked down top contender lee oma
- outboxed and nearly beat top 10 heavyweight rocky marciano until he got caught with one of the biggest punches in history
- also defeated solid big men like
6'2 220lb joe baski
6'5 220lb hein ten hoff
6'3 210lb ollie tangberg- a highly feared fighter at the time
but according to you gerrrie coatzee was a better puncher than rocky marciano and razor ruddock was a better puncher than joe louiis
What a load of bias, Jersy Joe doesnt hit harder than Norton. Norton has by far the heavier power in either his left and right. You just think of Walcott's left hook he hit Charles with and you automatically say hes a hard puncher. Walcott has never been known as a heavy puncher like Norton.
Walcott did not beat beter opposition. Norton fought in the golden era and has win(S) over the greatest himself as well as Quarry, Young who would would of ruled dominant over Walcott's pathetic era.
Walcott might of been more mobile, but Norton is good at cutting the ring ala Holmes, Ali and he would keep landing his right until Walcott is out as I cant see Walcott taking Norton's overhandright nor his jab which is very underated. Walcott was knocked out in the rematch against Marciano by 2 phantom punches, Marciano threw a right - left which didnt even hit Walcott in the 1st round and he was out.
Posted: 30 Nov 2005, 14:39
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
What a load of bias, Jersy Joe doesnt hit harder than Norton. Norton has by far the heavier power in either his left and right. You just think of Walcott's left hook he hit Charles with and you automatically say hes a hard puncher. Walcott has never been known as a heavy puncher like Norton.
Walcott did not beat beter opposition. Norton fought in the golden era and has win(S) over the greatest himself as well as Quarry, Young who would would of ruled dominant over Walcott's pathetic era.
Walcott might of been more mobile, but Norton is good at cutting the ring ala Holmes, Ali and he would keep landing his right until Walcott is out as I cant see Walcott taking Norton's overhandright nor his jab which is very underated. Walcott was knocked out in the rematch against Marciano by 2 phantom punches, Marciano threw a right - left which didnt even hit Walcott in the 1st round and he was out
- walcott simply wasnt aggresive he liked to shit back, thats why he didnt have more knockouts. but he packed a wollop in both hands
almost all of his knockouts or knockdowns were with one punch
his knockouts or knockdowns of joe louis, rocky marciano, ezzard charles, elmer ray, jimmy bivins, lee oma, harold johnson, etc were all one punch.
- norton never was a big puncher in his career, walcott proved he had a harder punch than norton
- norton beat a past his prime worn out quarry
Code: Select all
Young who would would of ruled dominant over Walcott's pathetic era.
young over marciano, louis,charles, walcott???
Walcott was knocked out in the rematch against Marciano by 2 phantom punches
wow what a crock of shit
watch the replay it clearly shows the right uppercut landing flush, please watch the rematch
u need to go back to ur gerrie coatzee fantasy land
Posted: 30 Nov 2005, 14:40
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
walcott TKO 6 coatzee
Posted: 30 Nov 2005, 21:26
by Irish
with this fool razor around Revolver has some competition.
Posted: 30 Nov 2005, 21:31
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
- o i would love to see how long revolver from ESB would last around here with his views.
Posted: 30 Nov 2005, 22:32
by evndrbsn
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:walcott TKO 6 coatzee
Brockton, I've been agreeing with you recently, but what is this?!?
Walcott KO 1 CoAtzee
Walcott KO 1 Ruddock
Posted: 30 Nov 2005, 22:35
by BrocktonBlockbuster49
evndrbsn wrote:BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:walcott TKO 6 coatzee
Brockton, I've been agreeing with you recently, but what is this?!?
Walcott KO 1 CoAtzee
Walcott KO 1 Ruddock
o yah defintley, dont forget
dave jaco TKO 7 razor ruddock
Posted: 01 Dec 2005, 14:38
by Ambling Alp
Rory McCloskey wrote:i think this is a wierd fight... i dont know as much about ken norton, as i do jersey joe.. i know jersey joe had some above average power, but preffered to box.. i do know that norton was the big bruising type who had the power to ko walcott.. but im not sure he could get enough shots on him to hurt him...
Ill take either Norton by KO 7-10 rounds
or Jersey Joe by UD/Sd..itll be a close one...
out of 10 fights.. id put my money on norton to win 6-4 maybe 7-3
I agree that this is a tough fight to call. A lot of different things could happen. There is a possibility of a ko from either guy, but the odds are it would go the distance.
If you haven't seen much of Norton, you may tend to overrate or underrate him based on the the fight saw him in. Of you only saw him in the first two Ali fights (both in 1973 when ali was past his best but still a great fighter), Holmes, Young,Quarry, or Bobick for example, you would probably think he was one of the all-time greats, maybe even top 10.
However, if you only saw him against Foreman, or late in his career against against Shavers or Cooney you wouldn't think much of him at all.
In the 3rd fight against Ali, he fought an ok fight, but the fight was his for the taking against an Ali who only had flahses of what he used to be able to do. He was too cautious, and let it become a close fight that could either way and the judges gave it to Ali. He should have won it convincingly.
Even his style of fighting varied from one fight to another. At times he seemed like a slugger (looking for one big haymaker), other times a swarmer (throwing a lot of punches), and others a boxer. Sometimes he was all three in the same fight. He was good but not great at all 3 styles.
You can pick out several fights from both Norton's and Walcott's career to either show they were great or not that good at all. Both could punch, but neither had great power, both could take a punch, but could be hurt by a great shot. Both were late bloomers who were at the top at an older age.
Norton was a little bigger, although Walcott always seemed to me to be bigger than the weights he was listed at. Obviously they both looked to be great shape.
Assuming we are excluding the early part of Walcott's career, I would say that if they fought 10 times each would win 5, with each scoring 1 KO. Some of their fights would be competitive, (when they were both at their best or equally mediocre). Some of their fights would exciting,some on the boring side.
Certainly a mathcup that would be hard to predict.
Posted: 19 Nov 2007, 20:31
by BoxBuzz
bump
Posted: 20 Nov 2007, 00:32
by Goodnight, Irene
Ugh...well, I had a more elaborate post on this thread but it was closed. In any event, I had Norton winning a narrow decision, on the back of his constant pressure & sharp body punching.
No one man hit dramatically harder than the other. Walcott could hit. So could Norton.
Posted: 20 Nov 2007, 01:20
by elmersalsa
