BoxRec

While previously pondering the quality of Ken Norton's chin (rated "decent" and "fine" by many of you) I expressed puzzlement as to why an outstanding fighter like Norton fell apart so quickly and conclusively when facing some outstanding punchers.
Of course I'm referring to his early blowout losses against big belters Foreman, Shavers and Cooney. He also had an earlier stoppge defeat against hard-hitting Venezuelan Jose Luis Garcia.
It appears Norton had a somewhat selective chin. He withstood the best shots of Ali, Holmes, Quarry and Bobick among others, but collapsed early against huge punchers, despite having comparable, if not superior, ring skills.
Of course, Norton's 54-second loss to Cooney came at the tail end of his career when he was listed at 35 and the Irishman was 24. Maybe not a fair contest at that time.
So how would a prime Norton fare against the 1981 version of Cooney, who was just a year away from his encounter with Holmes?
I place Norton's prime from approximately 1975, when he stopped journeyman Rico Brooks, to the end of 1977, when he won a razor-thin decision over Jimmy Young for the vacant WBC title?
Included during that prime were KOs of Bobick, Quarry and Garcia in a rematch.
He went 9-1 (8 KOs) during that period, with only the rubber-match loss to Ali.
Would an experienced Norton, at the peak of his career, have used his greater skills and superior hand speed, to chop down the hulking but still green Cooney?
Or would Norton's mysterious suceptability to mammoth punchers surface anyway, causing him to quickly succumb to Gentleman Gerry's heavy left hooks as happened in 1981?

Excellent! This shows evolution of thought! And here I thought you were intransigent. But no more!

Norton by KO

I lent my truc out once......never saw it again.

I'd go with Norton.

BoxBuzz wrote:I lent my truc out once......never saw it again.

Much of what is said about Norton's chin has not been fair. Yes he was stopped by Garcia and that is an embarrassing loss. However, it's not quite as bad as it looks at first glance. Norton had been a pro for less than 3 years after picking up the sport late. He improved a lot after that fight. He was a completely different fighter when he whipped Garcia in the rematch.

Norton was actually 37 when he fought Cooney; that fight should be thrown out the window. He was 35 when he fought Shavers.

His prime was about 1973-1978; Foreman blew him out during that time but Foreman would have done that to almost anyone.

Norton's chin was probably better than Cooney's; Holmes' punches had greater effect on Cooney than Norton.
You would have to give Cooney the proverbal "puncher's chance". However, it is much more likely that Norton would win this. It may have been interesting for a few rounds, but Norton would probably have stopped him within 10 rounds. Though Cooney was not as clumsy as some think, Norton was a much more skilled fighter.

Il Duce wrote:As a Professional, 'Gentleman' Gerry Cooney did not show any problem with
absorbing punches until his bout with Larry Holmes.
.

Who had ever hit Cooney with a good punch who could hit at all?

Cooney's chin was shown to be pretty bad . . .Holmes practically never dropped guys early and he made Cooney do the worm in the 2nd, and continually hurt him with flush right hands. Whereas guys like Weaver, who would never be described as iron-jawed, walked through Larry's hardest Sunday punches in the early rounds of their fight.

Norton by KO.

Cooney was hapless defensively.

Il Duce wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Cooney was hapless defensively.

This would have been a 'who ever lands first wins' bout.

Both fighters could have gone down, maybe another George Foreman - Ron Lyle 'war'....

I don't know about that.
Norton didn't usually fight back effectively once he was seriously hurt. Exception the first Garcia bout.
Maybe it's because he never clinched or tied up his opponents when he got rocked. He never retreated with purpose. He just came unglued.
If Cooney put Norton down, he'd probably finish him off. No Foreman-Lyle back and forth.

I think the biggest problem with Cooney is that there just is not enough data to go on. The blow out wins over Lyle, Norton, and Young just proved that he had some ability, but how much was undetermined. They were all way past it.

The Holmes fight was only one fight, but it's the best we have to go on. Judging from that fight, I don't see how it can be said that Cooney had a bad chin and a bad defense. If both were true, he would not have made it until the 13th round. In Holmes' first 11 title defenses, only once did a fighter last longer. (Actually that Norton went the distance when Holmes won the title is an indication that his chin was decent as well.)
And it's not like the Holmes-Cooney fight was completely one-sided either. Holmes was certainly the better fighter, but Cooney was competitive. It is too bad that Cooney did have at least a couple of fights against guys like Dokes, Page, Coetzee etc.

As for Norton, it's too bad he did not retire after the Holmes fight. His reputation as not having a good chin is mostly based on fights when he was 35 or older. He was not regarded as having a bad chin at that time.

SenorPipino wrote:

Il Duce wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Cooney was hapless defensively.

This would have been a 'who ever lands first wins' bout.

Both fighters could have gone down, maybe another George Foreman - Ron Lyle 'war'....

I don't know about that.
Norton didn't usually fight back effectively once he was seriously hurt. Exception the first Garcia bout.
Maybe it's because he never clinched or tied up his opponents when he got rocked. He never retreated with purpose. He just came unglued.
If Cooney put Norton down, he'd probably finish him off. No Foreman-Lyle back and forth.

I think the second Garcia bout, Holmes fight, 2nd Ali fight, wars with O'Halloran and Cobb more than render that theory questionable . . .I agree he wasn't great about clinching because he was such a competitor and had a desire to trade when hurt, but he could recover and come back strongly when he was hurt.