Quarry vs Shavers

[tagjohnson]

I just saw Jerry Quarry's 1st ko of Earnie Shavers last night. A couple of things struck me. One, despite the ending Earnie Shavers was extremely tough; Quarry was good puncher and he absolutely teed off on Shavers for close to a minute of non-stop punching before Shavers went down and arose for the tko. Second, Earnie made almost no attempt to defend himself. Jerry cut loose and Earnie merely covered up and ducked. No movement away, no attempt to clinch or counterpunch, it was almost identical to Muhammad Ali's 15th round rally when Earnie fought for the title. Ali opened up and Earnie just stood there and covered up and took it. Makes you think what if? What if Ali had gone after Earnie early? What if Ken Norton (among others) had gone after Earnie early? Although two word "Jimmy Ellis" come to mind it's still a thought. Also what would have happened if Earnie had been even a halfway decent fighter? Questions like those, I guess that's why we're here. :)

[KOJOE90]

IAlso what would have happened if Earnie had been even a halfway decent fighter?

In my opinion Earnie was a decent fighter. As for his fight against Quarry he just got caught cold against a hard punching counterpuncher.

[silkov]

Shavers was a very good fighter and a great puncher.... against Quarry he had lots of problems with his management etc and got caught cold by a very focused Quarry. No shame in that.

[Sweet Scientist]

Earnie Shavers (and Quarry earlier) is one of the reasons that the '70's was the best decade for heavies...Can you imagine if the '2nd tier' heavyweights of today were as good as Shavers or Quarry? Shavers would pretty much clean out today's heavyweight division...Shavers came about as close as you could against an aging Ali, not to mention 2 competitive fights with Larry Holmes (Heavyweight Champion for 7 seconds )...I see Shavers as a guy who would have always been a current top ten contender of any era...and possibly champion in some, as he always would have had a 'puncher's chance'...Quarry had a hot night, he always seemed to excell against the up & coming propects...Shavers, Lyle, Mac Foster, Middleton to name a few without looking up his record...Shavers would have done better in a rematch, I think...young fighters must have cringed at the thought of fighting Quarry back then...George Foreman (or his management team) ducked Quarry for years on the way up, didn't want to be another young fighter derailed by Jerry...

[BoxBuzz]

Some think Shavers Power was bigger than Liston's and or Foremans.
I have heard some people I respect in the business say they think he had the biggest "single punch" power of all time.

And TagJohnson....your right it is precisely why we are here. Otherwise those "other people" would be deciding these important matters.

[Seamus]

Shavers later said that Quarry just caught him at the start of the fight and he never recovered. Against a slugger like Shavers it was the best possible strategy. No sense and feeling him out and seeing what round he knocks you cold in.

I think alot of people have never realised just how good Jerry Quarry really was. In his first fight with Frazier, he caught Smokin Joe flush on the chin in the 1st and had him heading to the canvas when instead Frazier hits the second rope and amazingly bounces back up on his feet. Then in his first fight with Ali, just watch how many shots he lands before he's stopped on cuts.

[The Great John L]

George Foreman (or his management team) ducked Quarry for years on the way up, didn't want to be another young fighter derailed by Jerry...

Excellent observation. I don't know how many times I've read that Quarry was very good but always failed against the top tier heavies, and big George is included in the list with Frazier and Ali. I truly beleive that Quarry had the counterpunching style and guts to beat George in the same manner that he beat Lyle. I think that Lyle was actually a little better technician than George, and Jerry actually handled him quite easily. And if Quarry got George into the second half of the fight, he certainly had the power and stamina to put him away.

The Quarry-Lyle fight was the first that I ever watched beginning to end, and I remember how good Quarry was that night. In one round he had Lyle hurt pretty bad, and Lyle had an excellent chin. It certainly was a great period for HW boxing in the 70's.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

sweetscientist wrote:

Shavers would pretty much clean out today's heavyweight division

now i could argue either side, but since everyones so pro shavers, i will play the bad guy and argue against shavers.

i disagree. i am going to play the critic role here. i do agree he might be a contender or champion in any era because like u said he has a punchers chance, but on top of his sledgehammer punch, he was a bad a finisher, and is lack on ability to finish would cause him to lose, as well as his bad stamina and not the best jaw. those are reasons he wouldnt clean out the heavyweight division today.

think this way, shavers in his prime lost to BOB STALLING WHO HAD A BELOW 500 RECORD. now come on, u cant just lose to a stiff liek that even on ur worse day when ur thought of so highly as shavers is.

shavers was stopped by ron stander early in his career. he then racked up 27 straight KOs against mostly club fighters. then knocked out a past his prime jimmy ellis, then knocked out a novice jimmy young. he then faced an agng jerry quarry who wanst at his best and quarry totally annihalted him in one round. when young got more experienced, they fought againn and this time they fought to A DRAW. shavers also lost a decision to a unkown bum names bob stallings. shavers had lyle out in the 2nd round, but his inability to finish caused him to lose his chance and lyle knocked him out in 6. he did comeback from an early KD in the 10th round to knockout roy williams later in the round. but he also was outpinted in his prime by a past his prime ali who would get beat by leon spinks in his next fight. that goes to show u how much ali had lost when he faced shavers. shavers inability to finish as well as ali conning prevented shavers from finishing ali in the 2nd round. shavers did KO norton, but norton wasnt the same fighter anymore after losing to holmes, but i will say this, norton always had trouble with big punchers so shavers might have knocked him out if norton was in his prime.
u say shavers gave holmes two competeive fights???
wrong, he gave him one competetive round. shavers was shut out in the first meeting for an easy decision win for holmes and was outclassed i the 2nd fight besides one round when he finally landed on holmes but he couldnt finish off holmes. holmes then took over and stopped shavers.
i felt after that shavers was finished, because he lost to tillis an was knokced out by mercado and tex cobb.

but as u see, he had trouble finishing guys wit hhis incredible power. and had bad stamina so if he didnt catch u, he could be outboxed and betaen. he also lost to some average fighters who wouldnt even cut it in todays heavyweight crop. if shavers isnt able to finish vitali klitschko, he might be outboxed and chris bryd if he doesnt get caught could easily outpoint shavers wit his defensive style. and how bout james toney, who is very smart nd great boxer, maybe he could stay away and outbo shavers. after all bob stallings did.

im not saying all these guys would have , im jsut saying going by his record, he wouldnt be as dominant as u think.

[BoxBuzz]

Nicely Written Brockton...Thanks.

With the big punchers, Shavers fitting this catagory easily, anything can happen. That "punchers chance" always looms. He would need quite the streak of luck to "clean out the division"

I do think he would be a factor. Heavy hitting precision punchers and great boxers would always be a struggle for him. Chris Byrd might be too fast. Big Klitch would likely catch him. He'd be more of a force now than in his own era it may be safe to say.

Could Peters end up being a modern day equivalent? We need to know more about his chin I guess.

His book "Welcome to the Big time" is pretty interesting. Not as a good a read to me as "Night Train" about Sonny Liston but overall worth the time.

[Sweet Scientist]

Shavers would pretty much clean out today's heavyweight division...

I stand behind my statement...There's not a heavyweight out there today that would be a cinch against a late '70's Shavers...and he can hit harder than any of them...

[silkov]

sweetscientist wrote:

Shavers would pretty much clean out today's heavyweight division

now i could argue either side, but since everyones so pro shavers, i will play the bad guy and argue against shavers.

i disagree. i am going to play the critic role here. i do agree he might be a contender or champion in any era because like u said he has a punchers chance, but on top of his sledgehammer punch, he was a bad a finisher, and is lack on ability to finish would cause him to lose, as well as his bad stamina and not the best jaw. those are reasons he wouldnt clean out the heavyweight division today.

think this way, shavers in his prime lost to BOB STALLING WHO HAD A BELOW 500 RECORD. now come on, u cant just lose to a stiff liek that even on ur worse day when ur thought of so highly as shavers is.

shavers was stopped by ron stander early in his career. he then racked up 27 straight KOs against mostly club fighters. then knocked out a past his prime jimmy ellis, then knocked out a novice jimmy young. he then faced an agng jerry quarry who wanst at his best and quarry totally annihalted him in one round. when young got more experienced, they fought againn and this time they fought to A DRAW. shavers also lost a decision to a unkown bum names bob stallings. shavers had lyle out in the 2nd round, but his inability to finish caused him to lose his chance and lyle knocked him out in 6. he did comeback from an early KD in the 10th round to knockout roy williams later in the round. but he also was outpinted in his prime by a past his prime ali who would get beat by leon spinks in his next fight. that goes to show u how much ali had lost when he faced shavers. shavers inability to finish as well as ali conning prevented shavers from finishing ali in the 2nd round. shavers did KO norton, but norton wasnt the same fighter anymore after losing to holmes, but i will say this, norton always had trouble with big punchers so shavers might have knocked him out if norton was in his prime.
u say shavers gave holmes two competeive fights???
wrong, he gave him one competetive round. shavers was shut out in the first meeting for an easy decision win for holmes and was outclassed i the 2nd fight besides one round when he finally landed on holmes but he couldnt finish off holmes. holmes then took over and stopped shavers.
i felt after that shavers was finished, because he lost to tillis an was knokced out by mercado and tex cobb.

but as u see, he had trouble finishing guys wit hhis incredible power. and had bad stamina so if he didnt catch u, he could be outboxed and betaen. he also lost to some average fighters who wouldnt even cut it in todays heavyweight crop. if shavers isnt able to finish vitali klitschko, he might be outboxed and chris bryd if he doesnt get caught could easily outpoint shavers wit his defensive style. and how bout james toney, who is very smart nd great boxer, maybe he could stay away and outbo shavers. after all bob stallings did.

im not saying all these guys would have , im jsut saying going by his record, he wouldnt be as dominant as u think.

Quarry was in top shape against Shavers... this was around the period where Quarry beat Lyle so no way was he past his best at this point.
Look at shavers vs Ellis, Young, Williams, Norton, Sims, Clarke, if you want to see his finishing... the guy was a great finisher. The reason why he didn't finish Holmes was because of Larrys great heart and guile which helped him get through the round but also remember that Earni was already badly cut when he floored Holmes and his vision was already affected. Had he not been cut things may have ended differently.
Certainly against Holmes he was one punch away from the title.

[KOJOE90]

Earnie Shavers (and Quarry earlier) is one of the reasons that the '70's was the best decade for heavies...Can you imagine if the '2nd tier' heavyweights of today were as good as Shavers or Quarry?

Very true, and you can add the names Ron Lyle and Jimmy Young to that list as well.

[silkov]

Earnie Shavers (and Quarry earlier) is one of the reasons that the '70's was the best decade for heavies...Can you imagine if the '2nd tier' heavyweights of today were as good as Shavers or Quarry?

Very true, and you can add the names Ron Lyle and Jimmy Young to that list as well.

And Ken Norton!... 8)

[iceman21287]

Earnie Shavers (and Quarry earlier) is one of the reasons that the '70's was the best decade for heavies...Can you imagine if the '2nd tier' heavyweights of today were as good as Shavers or Quarry?

Very true, and you can add the names Ron Lyle and Jimmy Young to that list as well.

And Ken Norton!... 8)

Personally, I consider Norton in a class by himself: tier 1.5

He wasn't as great as Ali, Frazier, or Foreman, but at the same time he was superior to Shavers, Quarry, Lyle, and Young. You can even make a solid case for Norton to be put in the same category as Ali, Frazier, and Foreman. He did beat Ali once, and many people think he beat him in the 2nd fight as well.

Think about this:

If judge John Thomas scores just 1 round for Norton instead of Ali in the rematch, then Norton wins consecutive fights against Ali. This, in my opinion, would have effectively ended Ali's career in 1973, a whole 8 years before his fight with Larry Holmes. Ali wouldn't be a 3-time champ...he wouldn't even be a 2-time champ. And on top of that, Ali wouldn't even be considered in the list of top heavyweights of the 1970's. He would have been forever remembered as the greatest fighter of the 1960's, a man whose career was cut short by circumstances beyond his control.

It really shows you how much power the judges actually have in hindsight. If he had seen just 1 round a little differently, Ali's whole career is changed, and Norton's as well.

[dnahar32]

Personally, I consider Norton in a class by himself: tier 1.5

He wasn't as great as Ali, Frazier, or Foreman, but at the same time he was superior to Shavers, Quarry, Lyle, and Young. You can even make a solid case for Norton to be put in the same category as Ali, Frazier, and Foreman. He did beat Ali once, and many people think he beat him in the 2nd fight as well.

Think about this:

If judge John Thomas scores just 1 round for Norton instead of Ali in the rematch, then Norton wins consecutive fights against Ali. This, in my opinion, would have effectively ended Ali's career in 1973, a whole 8 years before his fight with Larry Holmes. Ali wouldn't be a 3-time champ...he wouldn't even be a 2-time champ. And on top of that, Ali wouldn't even be considered in the list of top heavyweights of the 1970's. He would have been forever remembered as the greatest fighter of the 1960's, a man whose career was cut short by circumstances beyond his control.

It really shows you how much power the judges actually have in hindsight. If he had seen just 1 round a little differently, Ali's whole career is changed, and Norton's as well.

I think you mean the 3rd fight that Norton probably won. The second fight a good case could be made for Ali, but the 3rd one he clearly lost despite what the judges said.

I disagree about Ali retiring if he lost the second Norton fight. Ali, even if he lost the second close decision to Norton, would have been the money fight for any heavyweight and Foreman would have eventually fought Ali anyway. After what Foreman did to Norton, he would have underestimated Ali more if he lost both fights to Norton and considered it an easy defense against a name fighter, just like Moorer-Foreman. A faded, retread Ali drew buzz to his Vegas fight against Holmes so a younger Ali, even coming off 2 losses to Norton in your scenario, would have still been a money fight and gotten a title shot. He would have talked his way into one!

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

sweet scientist wrote

I stand behind my statement...There's not a heavyweight out there today that would be a cinch against a late '70's Shavers...and he can hit harder than any of them...

i admire ur admiration for shavers. i like shavers a lot too and he defintely would have been champ no a days and in the 80s but he wouldnt dominate as u think. most of the experts rate shavers highly in terms of power punching ability, but not as a fighter. because thats all he brought to the table was a sledge hammer punch. he didnt bring any good boxing skills, or stamina, or even the best chin. this is why he wouldnt dominate even our era.

how can u stand by ur statement when shavers gets knocked down and loses a decision in his prime to a guy who wouldnt even be a contender with todays crop in bob stallings. shavers was also knocked out by ron stander, and in a chance to show his true colors as a fighter, he was knocked out in one round by quarry. yes he did knock lyle down, but thats my point exactley, he could only knock him down with his incredible power, couldnt do anything else. lyle outfought him after that and shavers tried and lyle knocked him out. shavers beating on an old jimmy ellis, spent worn down ken norton and roy williams (who knocked shavers down) doesnt do enough to get the credit. right after he loss to holmes, he was knocked out by bernado mercado and by tex cobb, both not even top contenders for the 80s. against holmes, he was competetive for one round. if he never landed that punch, holmes would have dominated him for 23 rounds?? i think sometimes people because of his punching power overate him ass a fighter and they dont realize he didnt have any other stuff to go along with his punching power.

shavers was not a great finisher. he finished a old ellis, young novice jimmy young(who later drew him), roy williams,aging ken norton, and couldnt finish guys like lyle, holmes, tillis, vicent rondon, old muhammad ali, bernado mercado. and thebest finishers find a way to finish the best guys. shavers couldnt do that, he couldnt finish lyle, holmes, and old ali, and also couldnt finish some of the other contenders he had on the canvas. even guys liek tilis and mercado.

shavers was a all time great puncher, but not fighter. he was good enough if he were in the 80s to win an alphabet title and a title now. and he always had a punchers chance to win any fight. but his lack of finish ability would hurt him in a lot of big fights. he would not dominate because ucant dominate on punching power alone. guys like mike tyson brought more than just power punching ability to the table. shavers didnt.

[The Great John L]

Personally, I consider Norton in a class by himself: tier 1.5

He wasn't as great as Ali, Frazier, or Foreman, but at the same time he was superior to Shavers, Quarry, Lyle, and Young. You can even make a solid case for Norton to be put in the same category as Ali, Frazier, and Foreman. He did beat Ali once, and many people think he beat him in the 2nd fight as well.

Think about this:

If judge John Thomas scores just 1 round for Norton instead of Ali in the rematch, then Norton wins consecutive fights against Ali. This, in my opinion, would have effectively ended Ali's career in 1973, a whole 8 years before his fight with Larry Holmes. Ali wouldn't be a 3-time champ...he wouldn't even be a 2-time champ. And on top of that, Ali wouldn't even be considered in the list of top heavyweights of the 1970's. He would have been forever remembered as the greatest fighter of the 1960's, a man whose career was cut short by circumstances beyond his control.

It really shows you how much power the judges actually have in hindsight. If he had seen just 1 round a little differently, Ali's whole career is changed, and Norton's as well.

Hmmm, Norton got blown out by Shavers and Foreman, didn't fight Lyle (who probably would have also blown him out), won a very close and highly controversial decision over Jimmy Young. Also consider that when he beat Quarry, Quarry was well past his prime and was a late sub for Oscar Bonavena and was far from in condition. Yet Quarry still rocked Norton before running out of gas and getting stopped.

Remember his fight with Scott LeDoux? He dominated LeDoux for the first 7 rounds and then was hurt with a body punch at the end of the 7th or 8th round. As I recall he was dropped twice in the last round and was held to a draw.

I enjoyed watching Norton fight and he was a very good HW, but other than having a style that troubled Ali, his accomplishments were not great.

[silkov]

sweet scientist wrote

I stand behind my statement...There's not a heavyweight out there today that would be a cinch against a late '70's Shavers...and he can hit harder than any of them...

i admire ur admiration for shavers. i like shavers a lot too and he defintely would have been champ no a days and in the 80s but he wouldnt dominate as u think. most of the experts rate shavers highly in terms of power punching ability, but not as a fighter. because thats all he brought to the table was a sledge hammer punch. he didnt bring any good boxing skills, or stamina, or even the best chin. this is why he wouldnt dominate even our era.

how can u stand by ur statement when shavers gets knocked down and loses a decision in his prime to a guy who wouldnt even be a contender with todays crop in bob stallings. shavers was also knocked out by ron stander, and in a chance to show his true colors as a fighter, he was knocked out in one round by quarry. yes he did knock lyle down, but thats my point exactley, he could only knock him down with his incredible power, couldnt do anything else. lyle outfought him after that and shavers tried and lyle knocked him out. shavers beating on an old jimmy ellis, spent worn down ken norton and roy williams (who knocked shavers down) doesnt do enough to get the credit. right after he loss to holmes, he was knocked out by bernado mercado and by tex cobb, both not even top contenders for the 80s. against holmes, he was competetive for one round. if he never landed that punch, holmes would have dominated him for 23 rounds?? i think sometimes people because of his punching power overate him ass a fighter and they dont realize he didnt have any other stuff to go along with his punching power.

shavers was not a great finisher. he finished a old ellis, young novice jimmy young(who later drew him), roy williams,aging ken norton, and couldnt finish guys like lyle, holmes, tillis, vicent rondon, old muhammad ali, bernado mercado. and thebest finishers find a way to finish the best guys. shavers couldnt do that, he couldnt finish lyle, holmes, and old ali, and also couldnt finish some of the other contenders he had on the canvas. even guys liek tilis and mercado.

shavers was a all time great puncher, but not fighter. he was good enough if he were in the 80s to win an alphabet title and a title now. and he always had a punchers chance to win any fight. but his lack of finish ability would hurt him in a lot of big fights. he would not dominate because ucant dominate on punching power alone. guys like mike tyson brought more than just power punching ability to the table. shavers didnt.

Ellis was still good enough to give Frazier a decent fight in their second meeting... Norton was still good enough to beat Ledoux and Cobb in fights after he lost to Shavers. Norton lost to Shavers in a simular way to how he lost to Foreman some years before, it wasn't becuase he was shot but because Shavers and Foreman had simular styles and power.
Shavers had more power per punch than Foreman imo.
Also Tiger Williams was a feard puncher and fighter himself who was ducked by the other contenders so Shavers win over him is very good.
While Shavers didn't have the boxing skills of Ali or Holmes or Norton I think his skills are underrated... you don't give Ali and Holmes so much trouble if you are just a raw brawler with a big punch... Shavers knew what he was doing and was a much cleverer fighter than people give him credit for.

[tagjohnson]

Big mistake on my part. I meant to say if Earnie Shavers had been a decent DEFENSIVE fighter. He was obviously a more than just a decent fight. My bad, sorry guys sorry. I appreciate the input.

[Sweet Scientist]

sweet scientist wrote

I stand behind my statement...There's not a heavyweight out there today that would be a cinch against a late '70's Shavers...and he can hit harder than any of them...

i admire ur admiration for shavers. i like shavers a lot too and he defintely would have been champ no a days and in the 80s but he wouldnt dominate as u think. most of the experts rate shavers highly in terms of power punching ability, but not as a fighter. because thats all he brought to the table was a sledge hammer punch. he didnt bring any good boxing skills, or stamina, or even the best chin. this is why he wouldnt dominate even our era.

...well maybe... that's why he would do well...I see very few 'good boxing skills', or 'stamina' in that division today...Toney & Byrd would have the best chance...maybe...

how can u stand by ur statement when shavers gets knocked down and loses a decision in his prime to a guy who wouldnt even be a contender with todays crop in bob stallings.

...never saw the fight...but it had to be a 'fluke'...a 'lucky punch'...to be honest, I don't think I ever saw Stallings on film...don't know anything about him, other than his record on this sight...anybody can have an off night...maybe the decision was bad, who knows?

shavers was a all time great puncher, but not fighter. he was good enough if he were in the 80s to win an alphabet title and a title now. and he always had a punchers chance to win any fight.

I think he does better TODAY...the '80's had some excellent fighters who self destucted, or failed to reach their potential (Thomas, Page, etc.) who at their peak in the '80's could have beaten Shavers...today...I'm just not very impressed at all...I like James Toney...but fighting Shavers would be tough...If the late '70's Shavers came back tomorrow, I say he'd be in the top 3 immediately...he was more than a dumb 'Acorn'...

[iceman21287]

Personally, I consider Norton in a class by himself: tier 1.5

He wasn't as great as Ali, Frazier, or Foreman, but at the same time he was superior to Shavers, Quarry, Lyle, and Young. You can even make a solid case for Norton to be put in the same category as Ali, Frazier, and Foreman. He did beat Ali once, and many people think he beat him in the 2nd fight as well.

Think about this:

If judge John Thomas scores just 1 round for Norton instead of Ali in the rematch, then Norton wins consecutive fights against Ali. This, in my opinion, would have effectively ended Ali's career in 1973, a whole 8 years before his fight with Larry Holmes. Ali wouldn't be a 3-time champ...he wouldn't even be a 2-time champ. And on top of that, Ali wouldn't even be considered in the list of top heavyweights of the 1970's. He would have been forever remembered as the greatest fighter of the 1960's, a man whose career was cut short by circumstances beyond his control.

It really shows you how much power the judges actually have in hindsight. If he had seen just 1 round a little differently, Ali's whole career is changed, and Norton's as well.

Hmmm, Norton got blown out by Shavers and Foreman, didn't fight Lyle (who probably would have also blown him out), won a very close and highly controversial decision over Jimmy Young. Also consider that when he beat Quarry, Quarry was well past his prime and was a late sub for Oscar Bonavena and was far from in condition. Yet Quarry still rocked Norton before running out of gas and getting stopped.

Remember his fight with Scott LeDoux? He dominated LeDoux for the first 7 rounds and then was hurt with a body punch at the end of the 7th or 8th round. As I recall he was dropped twice in the last round and was held to a draw.

I enjoyed watching Norton fight and he was a very good HW, but other than having a style that troubled Ali, his accomplishments were not great.

True Norton lost to these fighters, but he did beat some other solid fighters. He KO'd solid 2-3 tier fighters in Boone Kirkman and Pedro Lovell. He also defeated Ron Stander. It's also good to remember that Norton was past his prime from the Holmes fight on. When Shavers KO'd him he was already 35, and when Cooney KO'd him he was 37. I think the reason why Norton was beaten so easily by Shavers was that he was mentally drained after another split decision loss in a championship fight. He just didn't have it in him anymore after the Holmes' loss. Ken Norton's only clear loss between the end of 1970 and the Shavers fight in 1979 was to George Foreman. You can make a case for Norton winning the 2nd and 3rd Ali fights, and the Holmes fight. Norton, IMHO, was clearly in his prime at a higher level than Shavers, Quarry, and the rest.

[iceman21287]

Personally, I consider Norton in a class by himself: tier 1.5

He wasn't as great as Ali, Frazier, or Foreman, but at the same time he was superior to Shavers, Quarry, Lyle, and Young. You can even make a solid case for Norton to be put in the same category as Ali, Frazier, and Foreman. He did beat Ali once, and many people think he beat him in the 2nd fight as well.

Think about this:

If judge John Thomas scores just 1 round for Norton instead of Ali in the rematch, then Norton wins consecutive fights against Ali. This, in my opinion, would have effectively ended Ali's career in 1973, a whole 8 years before his fight with Larry Holmes. Ali wouldn't be a 3-time champ...he wouldn't even be a 2-time champ. And on top of that, Ali wouldn't even be considered in the list of top heavyweights of the 1970's. He would have been forever remembered as the greatest fighter of the 1960's, a man whose career was cut short by circumstances beyond his control.

It really shows you how much power the judges actually have in hindsight. If he had seen just 1 round a little differently, Ali's whole career is changed, and Norton's as well.

I think you mean the 3rd fight that Norton probably won. The second fight a good case could be made for Ali, but the 3rd one he clearly lost despite what the judges said.

I disagree about Ali retiring if he lost the second Norton fight. Ali, even if he lost the second close decision to Norton, would have been the money fight for any heavyweight and Foreman would have eventually fought Ali anyway. After what Foreman did to Norton, he would have underestimated Ali more if he lost both fights to Norton and considered it an easy defense against a name fighter, just like Moorer-Foreman. A faded, retread Ali drew buzz to his Vegas fight against Holmes so a younger Ali, even coming off 2 losses to Norton in your scenario, would have still been a money fight and gotten a title shot. He would have talked his way into one!

Nope I was talking about the 2nd Ali fight. I wasn't saying whether I thought Norton won or not (I thought Ali won), I was just trying to show just how much power judges have. One of the judges, John Thomas, scored the 2nd Norton-Ali fight 6-5-1 for Ali. I was just trying to say that if he had seen just one of those rounds differently, than Norton would have won the 2nd fight by Split Decision instead of Ali...which IMO would have changed Ali's career. I completely agree with you that Norton won the 3rd fight, however. It was a shame that Norton didn't even get 1 judge on his side.

[The Great John L]

True Norton lost to these fighters, but he did beat some other solid fighters. He KO'd solid 2-3 tier fighters in Boone Kirkman and Pedro Lovell. He also defeated Ron Stander. It's also good to remember that Norton was past his prime from the Holmes fight on. When Shavers KO'd him he was already 35, and when Cooney KO'd him he was 37. I think the reason why Norton was beaten so easily by Shavers was that he was mentally drained after another split decision loss in a championship fight. He just didn't have it in him anymore after the Holmes' loss. Ken Norton's only clear loss between the end of 1970 and the Shavers fight in 1979 was to George Foreman. You can make a case for Norton winning the 2nd and 3rd Ali fights, and the Holmes fight. Norton, IMHO, was clearly in his prime at a higher level than Shavers, Quarry, and the rest.

Ummm, he beat Pedro Lovell, Ron Stander and Boone Kirkman? With all due respect, I cherish the 70's heavyweights, but you've helped support my view of Norton with that statment. Norton really had a pretty ordinary record except for the Ali fights and a close and contested win over Young. Now list some of the victories for Quarry and Shavers and it really is not a very fair comparison. As I said before, Norton was a very good fighter, but his resume just doesn't compare to most of the other late 60's early 70's heavies. Except of course for his ability to give Ali a great deal of trouble. And remember Quarry was a last minute replacement when he lost to Norton, was well past his prime and was clearly not in shape but still had Norton in trouble before running out of gas. In their primes, Quarry walks right over Norton, just like Foreman and Shavers did.

[BrocktonBlockbuster49]

yeah iceman using boone kirkman and pedro lovell "AKA spider rico in rocky"
are not helping nortons defense. u defintely forgot to mentionsome key contenders he beat.

if u want to argue in favor of norton u say this, he defeatedt muhammad ali when ali though not in his prime was 31 and still fit and when ali was in much better shape in the 2nd fight, norton still almost beat him. in the 3rd fight most people think norton won meaning norton wins the series 2-1 but ali in the 3rd fight was defintely washed up. in the first two fights, ali still had fight in him. norton was knocked out by foreman which only shows he had trouble aginst big punchers. Quarry may have been past his prime, but he was coming off a knockout win over shavers one year earlier and a knockout loss to joe frazier. norton also stopped quarry which is very hard to do whether quarry was at his best or not. norton also revenged his first loss by easily knocking out contender jose luis garcia. he then knocked out ron stander who was a good journeyman. after his ccontroversial 3rd fight against ali, he knocked out top contender undefeated duane bobick in 58 seconds. after stopping future title challenger lorenzo zanon, he defeated a prime jimmy young who was coming off a win over foreman and lyle. because of the young win, he was awarded the WBC title because leon spinks refused to face norton cause he would get knocked out.

then norton gave a man who is a top 10 heavyweight of all time, larry holmes, the toughest and most gruelling fight of his career and lost by one point split decision. norton could have easily got the decision and who knows what would have happened to larry. larry was also 28 and in the prime of his life.

i agree with iceman in that last loss to holmes ruined norton . it took everything out of him mentally. he was 35 and left everything in the ring and after having to recover from the 3rd ali decision, he lost another demoralizing decision to holmes. i think shavers may have always kayoed norton but after that shavers loss, norton couldnt even box anymore and it showed when he squaked by tex cobb in a close decision and drew with scott le doux. he then was nearly killed by cooney when he was a shell of his formerself.

bottom line: ken norton would give any boxer in heavyweight history a tough go, as he was able to beat a still tough muhammad ali, and nearly beatt a prime larry holmes, and beat jimmy young. he would give any boxer in history problems. however, norton had trouble with punchers and that was his worst style to face. foreman and shavers bot hbig punhcers flattened him. he was good at guys who moved away from him and boxed, not into him throwing big bombs.

nortons best contenders he beat:

Muhammad ali- ali was 41-1, and still had fight left, and after all he was muhammad ali, and only him and frazier can say they beat ali when ali had fight left in him. many think he beat ali all 3 times. or at leats 2 out of 3.

Jerry qaurry- still tough, had just knocked out shavers and gave frazier a decent fight. and qaurry he was knocked out by norton, and quarry is tough to stop.

jose luis garcia- had a KO win over norton, was a top 10 contender.

duane bobick- 38-0 # 1 contender. norton knocked him ot in 58 seconds.

lorenzo zanon- journeyman who challenged for the world title vs holmes.

jimmy young- top contender of 70s who beat ron lyle and george foreman and lost a disputed decision to ali.

Larry Holmes- Even thoug he did not win, he nearly beat one of the greatest heavyweight champions of all time in his prime. he lost by one point in a split decision. holmes toughest fight of career.





ron stander- good enough to get title shot, Kayoed shavers.

[iceman21287]

yeah iceman using boone kirkman and pedro lovell "AKA spider rico in rocky"
are not helping nortons defense. u defintely forgot to mentionsome key contenders he beat.

if u want to argue in favor of norton u say this, he defeatedt muhammad ali when ali though not in his prime was 31 and still fit and when ali was in much better shape in the 2nd fight, norton still almost beat him. in the 3rd fight most people think norton won meaning norton wins the series 2-1 but ali in the 3rd fight was defintely washed up. in the first two fights, ali still had fight in him. norton was knocked out by foreman which only shows he had trouble aginst big punchers. Quarry may have been past his prime, but he was coming off a knockout win over shavers one year earlier and a knockout loss to joe frazier. norton also stopped quarry which is very hard to do whether quarry was at his best or not. norton also revenged his first loss by easily knocking out contender jose luis garcia. he then knocked out ron stander who was a good journeyman. after his ccontroversial 3rd fight against ali, he knocked out top contender undefeated duane bobick in 58 seconds. after stopping future title challenger lorenzo zanon, he defeated a prime jimmy young who was coming off a win over foreman and lyle. because of the young win, he was awarded the WBC title because leon spinks refused to face norton cause he would get knocked out.

then norton gave a man who is a top 10 heavyweight of all time, larry holmes, the toughest and most gruelling fight of his career and lost by one point split decision. norton could have easily got the decision and who knows what would have happened to larry. larry was also 28 and in the prime of his life.

i agree with iceman in that last loss to holmes ruined norton . it took everything out of him mentally. he was 35 and left everything in the ring and after having to recover from the 3rd ali decision, he lost another demoralizing decision to holmes. i think shavers may have always kayoed norton but after that shavers loss, norton couldnt even box anymore and it showed when he squaked by tex cobb in a close decision and drew with scott le doux. he then was nearly killed by cooney when he was a shell of his formerself.

bottom line: ken norton would give any boxer in heavyweight history a tough go, as he was able to beat a still tough muhammad ali, and nearly beatt a prime larry holmes, and beat jimmy young. he would give any boxer in history problems. however, norton had trouble with punchers and that was his worst style to face. foreman and shavers bot hbig punhcers flattened him. he was good at guys who moved away from him and boxed, not into him throwing big bombs.

nortons best contenders he beat:

Muhammad ali- ali was 41-1, and still had fight left, and after all he was muhammad ali, and only him and frazier can say they beat ali when ali had fight left in him. many think he beat ali all 3 times. or at leats 2 out of 3.

Jerry qaurry- still tough, had just knocked out shavers and gave frazier a decent fight. and qaurry he was knocked out by norton, and quarry is tough to stop.

jose luis garcia- had a KO win over norton, was a top 10 contender.

duane bobick- 38-0 # 1 contender. norton knocked him ot in 58 seconds.

lorenzo zanon- journeyman who challenged for the world title vs holmes.

jimmy young- top contender of 70s who beat ron lyle and george foreman and lost a disputed decision to ali.

Larry Holmes- Even thoug he did not win, he nearly beat one of the greatest heavyweight champions of all time in his prime. he lost by one point in a split decision. holmes toughest fight of career.





ron stander- good enough to get title shot, Kayoed shavers.

Yep I guess using Kirkman and Lovell wasn't the greatest example of Norton's abilities

I still think the strongest argument for Norton's greatness is that between the end of 1970 when he was KO'd by Garcia and 1979 when he was KO'd by Shavers, Norton was only in 1 fight that he obviously lost. You can make a case for Norton winning in every fight between 1970 and 1979 except for Foreman's destruction of him.

Quarry never went more than 3 years I don't think without losing pretty convincingly.