BoxRec

Ken has come up in a couple of previous posts so I thought what the heck let's give him his own. Okay, on Ken
1) Magnificent physically; 6'3" about 215 or a little over. Good, but not great punch and chin. Very good hand speed, particularly with the jab.
2) Unquestionable courage.
3) Appeared to be very bright and usually fought like it. See Muhammad Ali, Jerry Quarry, and Duane Bobick. But occasionally made bizarre decisions like giving away the first 5 rounds of the Holmes fight or trying to fight off the ropes against Earnie Shavers. Also often took on intelligent fights like Jerry Quarry (Jerry was #3 at the time and Ken's victory put him back into contention after his losses to Ali and Foreman) and Duane Bobick (Ken's 1st round ko magnified his close loss to Ali and kept him at #1) But also took fights he shouldn't have like Earnie Shavers and Gerry Cooney.
3) Style, and this is the most important chapter of the Book of Ken Norton. He fought out of a crouch, with a crossed arms defense and dragged his right foot behind putting his weight on his left foot. This style was almost exaggerated sometimes to the point where he looked like he had a bum right leg.
4) Against boxers. His crossed arms defense and good hand speed and counterpunching served him well against jabs and straight rights to the head which are the punches boxers tend to use most. His footwork allowed him to pivot to counter side to side movement which you see from boxers. So he tended to do very well against boxers.
5) Against punchers. His crossed arm defense was less effective against punchers throwing left hooks, uppercuts and body punches. Plus the position of his hands tended to make it hard for him to fight in close. His stance, although he could pivot well in it, couldn't move well side to side or backwards. And against George Foreman the ability to get the hell out of the way was a biggie.
So that's my two cents worth on Ken Norton; good guy and good fighter.
What do you guys think? Good ahead tear me up and have a great weekend. :)
PS I do recognize that there are few pure boxers or punchers, i.e., Jerry Quarry had a great left hook and George Foreman had a great jab.

Norton was my favorite heavyweight of that era, at that time, and he wasn't half bad; he held his own well with far superior boxers, froze and got smashed against big punchers, and if you weren't a huge hitter and were much the smaller boxer, he'd tear you up. That said him being in the HoF is a definite all-time top ten entrant on the How asinine can it get list. He is there solely so it can be said that Ali fought a bunch of HoF-quality boxers. Can you offer a better reason why a guy 4-7-1 against Top Ten competition is in the Hall of Fame?

the guy beat a still tough muhammad ali who was only 31 at the time and nearly beat ali three times, prime or not. he also was a heavyweight champion, accept it or not. he was given the WBC title cause leon spinks rfused to fight him, and had that match taken place norton would havbe knocked him out. he was also a champion and top contender in the heavyweight divisions mosty competitive era. norton also proved he earned the title in the ring when he gave a prime larry holmes his toughest fight and nearly beat larry losing in a close split decision. larry went on to become a top 10 and maybe top 5 hevayweight of all time.

norton certianly deserves to get in over the likes of barry mcguien.

Norton is under-rated by many. His chin was not that bad at all and since Futch said he froze against punchers everyone rides that line, even though Futch predicted Ken would freeze against his big protege Duane Bobick and Norton then demolished him in one round! His slugfests with Kirkman, Quarry, the Garcia rematch, and his complete walk through of a prime Holmes's best shots (Larry wasn't a power puncher but he could bang) showed he had some whiskers.

Tag I think you captured in words perfectly what the eye sees when witnessing Nortons work. Based on that ability (translating mechanics to words) which I am simply devoid of, could you give you thoughts on a Frazier Norton theoretical? For all the reasons you and others give I would think it would be one major war with perhaps no predictable winner.

I don't think Frazier meets the threshold of the power that it takes to simply overwhelm Norton. And with that out of equation (at least in my mind) it leaves a brawl that would be top flite.

As everyone knows they agreed to never fight based on their friendship.

Anyone else with an opinion on this? It has probably been the fight that I have most often pondered on the what if list.

frazier had a lot more power in his left hook than gerry cooney.


prime vs prime frazier by KO in 5. depends though because if the fight took place, it would have been when frazier was past his prime.

So you don't see his particular defence as being all that effective for Fraziers style.

Hey Buzz, good to hear from you and the other guys. I would have to agree with Brockton. Frazier would have been another quickie loss for Ken. Joe would have simply jumped on Ken throwing one massive hook (and Joe, I think had probably the ultimate left hook) after another with Ken unable get out of way, defend himself, counter, or cover up. I think Ken is lucky to make it past the first round and no way does he make it past the third.

Everything you need to know about Ken Norton. :)

Well stated like I said last summer.

Perhaps we can get your words verified by a commission and get you one one of those highly coveted green chex that BoxRec is handing out these days.

I was a HUGE Norton fan during the 70's, but other than his fights against Ali, his resume is pretty weak. It's pretty hard to find any other wins over top competition except Young, which was close and some would say incorrect, and Quarry, who took the fight on about 10 days notice and ran out of gas after about 3 rounds.

Can anyone else find any other TOP HW's that Norton beat?

He was a very good HW, but far from a great one.

Norton beat Henry Clark, Muhammad Ali, Jimmy Young and Jerry Quarry to name a few. These are quality wins.

Cojimar 1945 wrote:Norton beat Henry Clark, Muhammad Ali, Jimmy Young and Jerry Quarry to name a few. These are quality wins.

Yes, he beat Ali, had a razor thin win over Young, beat a Quarry who took the fight on about a weeks notice and came in flabby and out of shape. However, as I stated, that's it as far as top HW's. Henry Clark was a fringe contender as were a few of Nortons other opponenets. No other wins against top HW's. Pretty weak resume.

Agreed. Norton trilogy vs. Ali is the lone reason for why he is held in such high regard. There have been better fighters than Norton who do not get the same kind of recognition because it so happened that their biggest wins weren't against a superstar like Ali.
Ken Norton was a very good fighter, but not a great one.

-KOKid-