Theoretical: Ezzard Charles VS Ken Norton

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 26 Feb 2006, 18:32

Another Hypothetical.....

Some of the oldest guard may see this as a mismatch, I don't. There is a 25 pound weight differential here. 80 vs 73 inch reach difference as well. They each have wins over the greatest champions of all times. They each have losses to some great champions as well and competitive in most cases.

And they both have surprises in both the win and loss columns of their career. Can you honestly say that one of these guys is "just made" for the other?

Norton......
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=000168
Reach 80
Stance Orthodox
Height 6' 3
Trainer Eddie Futch
W 42 (33 ko's) | L 7 | D 1 | Total 50
Weight 210 when he beat Ali
Wins over Ali,Quarry,Young, Garcia, Cobb
Losses to Ali, Foreman, Holmes,Shavers

Charles
http://www.boxrec.com/boxer_display.php?boxer_id=009012
Reach 73”
Stance Orthodox
Height 6' 0
Trainer Ray Arcel
W 89 (50 ko's) | L 25 | D 1 | Total 115
Weight 185 when he beat Louis

Wins over Louis, Moore, Satterfield, Walcott, Burley, Maxim
Losses to Walcott, Johnson, Marciano, Bethea

Sherlock · Post by **Sherlock** » 26 Feb 2006, 18:51

I believe that Norton is really one of the best in theoretical matchups. He was of good size, powerful and well built and could box against the best of them. His obvoius chink in his armor was his chin, but I don't see Charles as powerful enough at heavy to kayo Norton.

Charles was a warrior, but Norton seems the favorite to me. I'd give the edge to Norton, via close majority decision. Can't see a knockout either way.

theone · Post by **theone** » 26 Feb 2006, 20:13

Nortons style would give Charles even bigger fits than it gave Ali. Norton, mid to late rounds TKO.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 26 Feb 2006, 20:44

theone wrote:Nortons style would give Charles even bigger fits than it gave Ali. Norton, mid to late rounds TKO.

norton will not stop charles

charles was able to outbox jersey joe walcott who was just as good and powerful as norton.

nortons style will give charles even bigger fits than it gave ali? ya just like norton's style did with jimmy young right?

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 26 Feb 2006, 20:55

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
theone wrote:Nortons style would give Charles even bigger fits than it gave Ali. Norton, mid to late rounds TKO.
norton will not stop charles

charles was able to outbox jersey joe walcott who was just as good and powerful as norton.

nortons style will give charles even bigger fits than it gave ali? ya just like norton's style did with jimmy young right?

Well Norton did get two of the judges in that one. So Nortons style did give Jimmy fits.....wouldnt you say? And Jersey Joe did beat Charles....it seems your taking the weak side of this argument to some degree BB.

Though your point about outboxing Walcott is well taken....at least by me.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 26 Feb 2006, 21:03

BoxBuzz wrote:
BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
theone wrote:Nortons style would give Charles even bigger fits than it gave Ali. Norton, mid to late rounds TKO.
norton will not stop charles

charles was able to outbox jersey joe walcott who was just as good and powerful as norton.

nortons style will give charles even bigger fits than it gave ali? ya just like norton's style did with jimmy young right?
Well Norton did get two of the judges in that one. So Nortons style did give Jimmy fits.....wouldnt you say? And Jersey Joe did beat Charles....it seems your taking the weak side of this argument to some degree BB.

Though your point about outboxing Walcott is well taken....at least by me.

my arguement was not to defend charles, but to point out that norton is not the only one who will give the other fits. charles style will also cause a lot of problems for norton too.

this will be a very close fight that will go the distance.

ali and holmes werent able to floor norton so i doubt a similiar puncher like charles will knock norton out

walcott(who i believe hit harder than norton) was able to knock charles out, but that was by a powerful sneaky sucker punch that virtually no one in history could throw besides walcott.

charles also was able to go the distance with marciano and take some big shots along the way without even going down. so i doubt that norton will stop charles

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 26 Feb 2006, 21:12

Norton by decision. Better jab and work-rate win him this one in a close fight.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 26 Feb 2006, 21:18

the one,

the only thing im argueing with you is norton stopping charles.

i just dont see how one can make a case that either one will be stopped in this fight.

charles fought elmer ray who was like a slightly less version of norton except a bigger puncher. and huge punching ray was not able to floor in the 20 rounds charles went with him. walcott a bigger hitter than norton did not floor charles in any of there other fights besides that one classic punch he landed in there 3rd fight. thats 51 rounds charles went without being floored by walcott. charles went 15 rounds with marciano taking huge punishment without even going down let alone stopped. old but still dangerous joe louis wasnt even able to floor charles. big puncher nino valdes was unable to floor charles. all time puncher bob satterfield landed big punches on charles in the first round, but charles took them.

i think its quite clear that norton will not stop charles

theone · Post by **theone** » 26 Feb 2006, 21:30

i and holmes werent able to floor norton so i doubt a similiar puncher like charles will knock norton out

Ali and Holmes hit harder than Charles. They were natural heavyweights who were bigger, stronger and better punchers than Charles. Charles was not at all similiar.

walcott(who i believe hit harder than norton) was able to knock charles out, but that was by a powerful sneaky sucker punch that virtually no one in history could throw besides walcott.

Norton was bigger. stronger and punched harder than Walcott. The only reason you think Wal;cott was so great is because it makes your hero Marciano look better for beating him.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 27 Feb 2006, 02:49

..pay no attention to this one, folks....the buzzbomb sets these things up just to irritate me.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 27 Feb 2006, 02:56

norton did not punch harder than walcott. I defintley think walcott was the harder puncher than norton. guys like walcott and pattersons punching power is a level above ken nortons.

the one,

- the only reason u pick norton here, is because u are a nuthugger to modern post 1960 heavyweights.

Ali and Holmes hit harder than Charles. They were natural heavyweights who were bigger, stronger and better punchers than Charles. Charles was not at all similiar.

they did not hit harder than charles. just because they are bigger doesnt mean they hit harder. charles had a lot of snap in his punches, and like ali was a a top notch cutter. charles busted peoples faces up.

i think holmes hit the hardest of the 3, but charles punching power was on even terms with ali.

see the pat valentino fight where charles knocks out the very durable valentino with the best 1-2 combo i have ever seen.

see the 1st rex layne fight where charles knocks layne out in the 11th with an incredible 1-2 combo which sends layne flying across the ring.

also see charles-satterfield fight where charles knocks satterfield out COLD with 1 left hook.

Too bad we dont have the archie moore or elmer ray knockouts on film. the moore knockout was a devatasting one punch KO.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 27 Feb 2006, 04:19

Decagon wrote:The only reason Norton gave Ali fits is that Ali couldn't move the way he did in his prime. A prime Charles dances cirlces around Norton, and his fornicating Frankenstein right foot. Charles boxes the shit out of him, too.

good point,

also i noticed holmes fought a rather flat flooted fight vs norton. holmes seemed to move around a lot more in the early 80s than vs norton.

theone · Post by **theone** » 28 Feb 2006, 19:59

A prime Charles dances cirlces around Norton, and his fornicating Frankenstein right foot. Charles boxes the shit out of him, too.

Charles did not have the height or reach to box Notron silly. Norton was very good a cutting off the ring in that awkward style of his. He certainly moved around the ring better than Marciano, who got to Charles. Charles would not be physically strong enough to keep Norton from muscling him into the corner or the ropes.

guys like walcott and pattersons punching power is a level above ken nortons.

Based on what? Please explain.

the only reason u pick norton here, is because u are a nuthugger to modern post 1960 heavyweights.

I'm judging the fighters individually, not by era. But since you mentioned it, no era produced better heavyweights in history than the mid sixties to the mid seventies.

also see charles-satterfield fight where charles knocks satterfield out COLD with 1 left hook

Big deal. Alot of guys knocked him out before and after Charles did including Jake Lamotta!

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 28 Feb 2006, 21:39

walcott and patterson defintley had more power than norton. both walcott and patterson either floored or knocked out world class fighters.

walcott floored louis 3 times, ezzard charles, elmer ray 3 times in there 3rd fight, jimmy bivins, harold johnson, great chinned joey maxim, great chinned rocky marciano. all these guys are great fighters who walcott floored.

most of these knockdown were all by ONE punch, rather than combos. it was either the sneaky right hand or powerful left hook.

fact is, walcotts lack of finishing power, lack of agression, and habit of staying back doing cute tricks rather than attack were reasons why he didnt knock these guys out.

walcott was a guy who packed very good power in both hands to knock anyone down, but he completley lacked the finishing touch. the only fighter walcott ever tried to knockout and slug it out with was marciano which is why walcott fought so well because he finally let his hands go.

and to the grand finale.......

walcott knocked out hall of famer ezzard charles with just 1 punch. only time charles was ever knocked down for the count in his prime. charles may not have had the best chin, but he was damm hard to knockout and many of the big punchers of that era failed to knockdown charles. yet with 1 punch, charles knocked ezz out cold.

u think norton could knock out charles with 1 punch?

patterson knocked down world class fighters like archie moore, jerry quarry, eddie machen, ingemar johanssen, jimmy ellis(incorrectley ruled slip).

if u see some of pattersons highlights, when he conneted he put guys lights out. he had so much speed and snap in his punches. some of his knockouts were devastating.

patterson knocked down eddie machen 5 times and beat him up so badly that describing the fight as "machen being outclassed" would be an understatement.

patterson told my dad years ago he carried machen in later rounds.

now tell me, when did norton show any devastating knockouts against world class fighters. what good fighter did norton ever knockdown let alone out besides overated duane bobick?

now u tell me how norton showed he had more power than patterson and norton

theone · Post by **theone** » 28 Feb 2006, 22:10

The world class fighters that Norton fought were a much tougher crew to ko.. If Norton fought mostly cruiserweights and blown up lightheavies his ko ratio would be higher.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 28 Feb 2006, 22:26

Nortons style was a little bit similar to Archie Moores and Charles beat Moore 3 times. When I watch Charles fight the thing I notice that he does well is his feinting. He could really tie an opponent in knots, keep em off balance thats how I feel he was succesful against Heavyweights,when he was probably really a natural Lightheavy. He had a very slender frame. Im thinking that the angels and feints he gave Moore might have made it tough for moore to throw punches from that crossed arm stance of his . Norton had a similar stance . So Id say Charles has a good chance of winning a dec. One thing though,its always interesting to look at who is in the corner when sizing up these fantasy matches this one could be Ray Arcel vs. Eddie Futch. If Futch got through to Kenny to punch right through Ezzards feints. He could give Ezzard a tougher time. Futch was great at coming up with a strategy.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Mar 2006, 02:12

theone wrote:The world class fighters that Norton fought were a much tougher crew to ko.. If Norton fought mostly cruiserweights and blown up lightheavies his ko ratio would be higher.

walcott's proved his power against much better fighters than norton did. walcott knocked down/out harold johnson, joe louis, rocky marciano, ezzard charles, jimmy bivins, elmer ray. Norton NEVER knocked down a fighter of this caliber. walcott on the other hand did. when norton faced the top guys, he was unable to knock them down, LET ALONE knock them out. walcott wasnt a big finisher, but at least he was able to floor them all.

quarry was a washed up fighter who norton landed at will, yet he couldnt even put down.

YET in quarrys prime, floyd patterson was able to floor quarry with 1 punch

now tell me who has more power?

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Mar 2006, 02:15

walcott was very similiar to norton and charles soundily outboxed him in the first 2 fights, and many ringsiders thought charles won the 4th fight.

Jaclem · Post by **Jaclem** » 01 Mar 2006, 02:53

...add johnny haynes...6'4"...214 pounds....kayo by charles in 8 rounds..charles wgt...179 pounds.....joe baksi....6'2.5"...210.5 pounds..kayo by charles (baksi asks ref to stop fight) 11 rounds...charles 178 pounds...(both 1949)

what so many people don't realize is that charles was at his best as a light heavy when he was beating heavyweights....much as robinson was defeating middleweights when he was a welter.

ken norton was a pretty good fighter....if he had pressed charles ezzard would have kayoed him.....otherwise charles by a decision....in what would not be one of ezzard's hardest fights...and i'm basing this one before charles won the heavyweight title.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Mar 2006, 03:12

I think charles was at his best AS A HEAVYWEIGHT in 1948 and 1949 when he was weighing 175-180lb and dominating the likes of elmer ray, archie moore and jersey joe walcott.

also joe louis was 6'2 218lb when charles destroyed a well past it but still dangerous louis. charles was giving up 36lb.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Mar 2006, 03:19

Decagon wrote:What does that have to do with a prime Ken Norton?

that the size advantage wont be too much of a factor, because it will be offset by charles superior skill and speed

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 01 Mar 2006, 03:22

elmer ray is a very underated heavyweight. Herbert goldman rates elmer ray in his top 20 heavyweights of all time. Ray was defintley one of the best heavies never to win a title. He was a boxerpuncher who had great power and arsenal of punches, as well as sound boxing skills and solid defense. he also had perfect size for a heavyweight 6'2 200lb. i rate ray in my top 30 heavies of all time.

charles dominated and knocked out ray, this kind of preformance is what a peak charles was capable of.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 01 Mar 2006, 08:20

Damn....Jaclem gives away the ending before anyone even gets to see the fight. Although I agree the cornerman battle puts some additional intrigue to the discussion.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 02 Mar 2006, 14:48

This is an interesting matchup. I do think some people underestimate Norton. first of all, he could take a punch. During his career, people weren't saying that he couldn't take a punch.

He wasn't the hardest hitting puncher, but he could hit. He hit hard enough to hurt Charles.

The Quarry fight is evidence that he could hit, not that he couldn't. He didn't knock down Quarry and Patterson did is misleading. He beat up Quarry basdly until the fight was stopped. If the fight wouyld have continued, Norton would have put q1uarry down. Patterson wasn't even able to beat Quarry, much less stop Quarry.

And it's not accurrate to say that Quarry was washed up. He sure didn't seem that way going into the fight. He was not even 30 and was still considered a top 10 contender.
He also hurt Holmes a few times in their fights and Holmes wasn't hurt often.

Charles wouldn't be able to dance around Norton. Norton was good at cutting off the ring. He certainly did it against fighters who were better movers than Charles.

On the other hand, sometimes Norton wasn't aggressive enough and didn't take control of a fight when it was their for the taking.
Charles was also a very smart fighter and probably could a lot of different things that would confuse Norton.

This is really a toss up figh that could go either way.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 02 Mar 2006, 14:50

quarry was defintley past his prime vs norton, it was very noticeable on film. he was also overweight coming into the fight.

patterson was robbed in 1st fight with a prime qaurry, and i thought patterson edged quarry in the rematch as well