Thoughts on KID NORFOLK

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 18 Mar 2006, 02:33

I just acquired a film of the Kid Norfolk/Bill Tate fight. I have read about Norfolk for years and was thrilled to finally get filmed documentation of him. My thoughts:

CROUCHING TIGER!!! Because of the huge size differential Norfolk had to spring from a crouch to be able to hit the towering Tate. His left hook is especially impressive as is his speed. After watching this bout I see clearly how he was able to blitz Tiger Flowers and KO him. Tate had major trouble fending him off and is rocked many times and forced to clinch. Imagine what it must have been like for poor Tiger.

It also deepend my conviction that Sam Langford is the greatest fighter who ever lived. That he beat Norfolk as easily as he did is astounding. Norfolk is built like a sherman tank and looks strong and fast as hell. Sam probably timed one of Norfolk's rushes with a perfectly executed counterpunch and KO'd him.

Harry Greb gets major props, too. Newspaper accounts vary on who won between him and Norfolk, but the bottom line is that Harry fought on even terms with this man, who was so fast, powerful and much bigger and stronger than the scrawny(comparatively) Greb. Harry went right after him for 10 rounds. So impressive.

sharkeysboy · Post by **sharkeysboy** » 18 Mar 2006, 09:47

Kid Norfolk is very cool. Agree completely about Sam L. Where'd you get that film. Is it available to the rest of us rabble?

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 18 Mar 2006, 14:20

If you could post a clip online that would be great . . .

RowanSmith · Post by **RowanSmith** » 18 Mar 2006, 15:56

Norfolk is terribly under-rated. He was just about as good as it got for 175 pounders from 1917-1922. In fact his defeat of Miske in 1917 should have given him the proper rights to claim that title. Some newspapers gave him that title, but most ignored it. Miske was the only white 175 pounder of championship caliber who would fight him though(not counting Greb of course). And Norfolk beat Miske twice. Maybe Dillon, levinsky and the rest knew what they were doing.
Re: Norfolk's bouts with Greb. The 1921 match was interesting. Norfolk was coming off an extended layoff, due to an eye injury suffered against Lee Anderson a few months prior(an injury whoch would be re-opened against Greb) and was woefully heavy(179). He hurt Greb and controlled the fight for the first six rounds. Greb roared back and took the later frames. The Pittsburgh papers were fairly split in their popular decision, the three reports I have 2-1 in favor of Norfolk. The second fight in Boston was all Norfolk. Both men weighed 172 and the Kid won the first five rounds before Harry fouled out in the sixth. But you are correct in giving props to the amazing Harry---he could have followed the lead of the other white contenders of the day and simply left Norfolk to his won devices, but he fought him--twice no less. Sam could be said for Miske--who fought him twice also.
I have a nice bio on Norfolk included in my upcoming book--due for a May release which paints a pretty good picture of the man and the fighter.
Interesting note about the Tate fight is that it was on the undercard of Dempsey Brennan. A fair amount of the next day press coverage dealing with that card talked about how bad Dempsey looked and how impressive Norfolk looked against the much larger Tate. This was what really gave rise to Norfolk's ambitions of fighting Jack. Ring Lardner went so far as to say that the Norfolk of that night would have creamed the Dempset of the same evening--in five rounds no less!

I also agree about Langford--the guy was incredible. He did to Norfolk what he did to many fighters--simply blew him away.

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 18 Mar 2006, 16:29

sharkeysboy wrote:Kid Norfolk is very cool. Agree completely about Sam L. Where'd you get that film. Is it available to the rest of us rabble?

Got it from a friend...with an oath that I wouldn't distribute it. Sorry about that. Not sure if it's because he uses it as a bargaining tool for boxing memorabilia or what. But I have to honor my oaths. You understand*s*

surf-bat · Post by **surf-bat** » 18 Mar 2006, 16:32

RowanSmith wrote:Norfolk is terribly under-rated. He was just about as good as it got for 175 pounders from 1917-1922. In fact his defeat of Miske in 1917 should have given him the proper rights to claim that title. Some newspapers gave him that title, but most ignored it. Miske was the only white 175 pounder of championship caliber who would fight him though(not counting Greb of course). And Norfolk beat Miske twice. Maybe Dillon, levinsky and the rest knew what they were doing.
Re: Norfolk's bouts with Greb. The 1921 match was interesting. Norfolk was coming off an extended layoff, due to an eye injury suffered against Lee Anderson a few months prior(an injury whoch would be re-opened against Greb) and was woefully heavy(179). He hurt Greb and controlled the fight for the first six rounds. Greb roared back and took the later frames. The Pittsburgh papers were fairly split in their popular decision, the three reports I have 2-1 in favor of Norfolk. The second fight in Boston was all Norfolk. Both men weighed 172 and the Kid won the first five rounds before Harry fouled out in the sixth. But you are correct in giving props to the amazing Harry---he could have followed the lead of the other white contenders of the day and simply left Norfolk to his won devices, but he fought him--twice no less. Sam could be said for Miske--who fought him twice also.
I have a nice bio on Norfolk included in my upcoming book--due for a May release which paints a pretty good picture of the man and the fighter.
Interesting note about the Tate fight is that it was on the undercard of Dempsey Brennan. A fair amount of the next day press coverage dealing with that card talked about how bad Dempsey looked and how impressive Norfolk looked against the much larger Tate. This was what really gave rise to Norfolk's ambitions of fighting Jack. Ring Lardner went so far as to say that the Norfolk of that night would have creamed the Dempset of the same evening--in five rounds no less!

I also agree about Langford--the guy was incredible. He did to Norfolk what he did to many fighters--simply blew him away.

I am rabidly looking forward to your book! How about Tommy Gibbons? He fought Norfolk and gave him a good trimming. Do you give him props, or are there circumstances concomitant that I'm unaware of?

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 18 Mar 2006, 18:30

I thought it was in one of his fights with Norfolk that Grebs eye was injured later leading to a partial loss of sight . Anyone have any info on this?

RowanSmith · Post by **RowanSmith** » 19 Mar 2006, 02:53

That has always been the popular story but I believe that Harry was having eye trouble before Norfolk in 1921. Anyway, i think it would be difficult to really pin down which fight or opponent was truly responsible for the damage to Harry's eye. I think the Kid Norfolk story was started by Fair who wrote "Give him to the Angels"--which is a very fanciful biography to say the least.

Expug · Post by **Expug** » 19 Mar 2006, 09:48

Thanks , it seems like it might be difficult to pinpoint when that injury might have happened . Harry was fighting so often.

tonyevs · Post by **tonyevs** » 19 Mar 2006, 15:06

Eye problems were and are still quite common.

More fights, poorer gloves and maybe just plain rough tactics all increased this occupational hazard, Archie Moore seemed to think the coloured fighters suffered more with this problem in the early years, he thought it was something to do with the cream they put in their hair to straighten it, maybe it was just the fact of the glove scraping the eye.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 21 Jul 2006, 12:33

Tommy Gibbons knocked Kid Norfolk out cold with his left hook.

BrocktonBlockbuster49 · Post by **BrocktonBlockbuster49** » 21 Jul 2006, 14:33

granberry wrote:Tommy Gibbons knocked Kid Norfolk out cold with his left hook.

norfolk was shot in 1924

RowanSmith · Post by **RowanSmith** » 21 Jul 2006, 23:54

granberry wrote:Tommy Gibbons knocked Kid Norfolk out cold with his left hook.

Actually the bout was stopped by the referee after Norfolk had fallen, in a daze, without actually being hit. Norfolk was blind in his right eye when he fought Gibbons--and at the end of the road. Certainly would have been more impressive if Gibbons had fought the Kid in say 1918-1921.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 22 Jul 2006, 00:01

RowanSmith wrote: Actually the bout was stopped by the referee after Norfolk had fallen, in a daze, without actually being hit.

I wonder what caused the "daze."

Certainly nothing Gibbons did.

RowanSmith · Post by **RowanSmith** » 22 Jul 2006, 02:12

granberry wrote:
RowanSmith wrote: Actually the bout was stopped by the referee after Norfolk had fallen, in a daze, without actually being hit.
I wonder what caused the "daze."

Certainly nothing Gibbons did.

I did not mean to insinuate that Gibbons had not inflicted the damage---just wanted to correct your original statement which was incorrect. Got anything else to add?

barry · Post by **barry** » 22 Jul 2006, 06:46

When is the next volume of your series on early Black fighters going to be out?

For anyone who don't know, Rowan(Kevin)Smith wrote the "Black Genesis: The History of the Black Prizefighter 1760-1870" which is the best book that I have read on the topic and era. I'm really anticipating and looking forward to the next volume as it will be covering one of my more favorite time periods of boxing history. What are the particulars of this next volume Kevin? I would imagine that Kid Norfolk will be covered in the next volume and if not in it then in the third volume.

If you guys have not read the first volume then I strongly recommend that you pick up a copy as it is an excellent and accurate read and it is honestly and truly one of the most important volumes ever written on boxing.

The series of 5 books about Black fighters written by Nat Fleischer was pretty good, but the volumes are full of inaccuracies and the series of books written by Arthur Ashe about Black Athletes which has a volume on Black fighters was ambitious, but not researched as good as it could and should have been, but that is not the case with Kevin's book...I know it has been greatly researched and a lot of the inaccuracies of before have been corrected by Kevin, but there is so much more to the book than that and it is just simply one of the best books ever written on the Black Athlete and I'm sure that the next volumes will be just as good!

Anyway, I just wanted to drop that info in as I am certain that any fan of Kid Norfolk, or of boxing history would not only really enjoy the book, but they will gain a great deal of knowledge from it as well.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 22 Jul 2006, 13:40

Barry,

The sections in the Nat Fleischer Black Dynamite Series are almost completely reprints of material that had appeared in the Police Gazette years earlier.

I have the imprssion that Fleischer must have bought or somehow acquired the original material from the earlier Police Gazette and used it.

Books written with an agenda, such as the current politically correct "Black good, White bad," are always of doubtful value.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 22 Jul 2006, 14:03

For me this has been one of the most interesting threads I've read on our forum in some time. They get real annoyed with me at the library because I always ask them for these books they don't have and they ultimately have to order. But on the other hand they are building up quite a nice inventory of boxing books. Eventually they will be willing to sell them and I will add them to my collection for pennies on the dollar.

granberry · Post by **granberry** » 22 Jul 2006, 14:31

BrocktonBlockbuster49 wrote:
granberry wrote:Tommy Gibbons knocked Kid Norfolk out cold with his left hook.
norfolk was shot in 1924

At one point in his career Tommy Gibbons had 14 straight knockouts.

Were all 14 of those fighters "shot" ?

barry · Post by **barry** » 22 Jul 2006, 21:49

>>>I simply don't read boxing books anymore. I'm much more interested in primary sources. There are a lot of newspaper reports on the internet now. Next time you go to the library, check out the microfilm section, BoxBuzz. It usually costs $1 an hour to use, and you can learn about fighters who came from your area. For instance, one time I was curious about Shorty Hogue, who comes from San Diego (or hereabouts), so I printed out his record from Boxrec, and searched the dates of when he fought. It's very rewarding, and easy to do.<<<

Wow Decagon...I cannot believe what I just read, but I have to say that I am glad that you have figured out and realized that you can find all that you ever wanted to know about fighters from doing some heavy-duty newspaper research and if you live near San Diego you should have a very good library that should have a pretty good microfilm collection! I have to say, which is something I have never said to you, but I'm impressed!

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 22 Jul 2006, 21:52

barry...a good word for Decagon? Praise Allah! My work here is done.

barry · Post by **barry** » 22 Jul 2006, 23:49

I have to say that it is very encouraging the hear that he is going the correct route of research as old newspaper research and other primary sources are the best kind of research a person can do on boxing!

barry · Post by **barry** » 22 Jul 2006, 23:57

Six months ago he said he really wouldn't waste his time doing the heavy-duty research, but from this quote "It's very rewarding, and easy to do" it seems that the research bug has bitten him. Hell, if more people would take the time to just sit down one day...take a fighters record for a blue-print and research the fighters hometown newspapers, they will find out that it will not only teach you almost all you could want to know about a fighter, but as Decagon stated, it is very rewarding when you have researched a fighters career and no matter what anyone might say, that kind of research is something that no one can take away from you and also a good way the be right most of the time.

KOJOE90 · Post by **KOJOE90** » 23 Jul 2006, 09:01

barry wrote:I have to say that it is very encouraging the hear that he is going the correct route of research as old newspaper research and other primary sources are the best kind of research a person can do on boxing!

Now that I live in Leicester I really need to do the same. It has a good history of Boxing does Leicester although the sport is dead hear now. :( I will have to join the local library.

I think I may start with Tony Sibson.

barry · Post by **barry** » 23 Jul 2006, 16:21

I would really like to have the sources to do some heavy-duty research on British fighting. Talk about an area of activity...starting early in the century Great Britain had fighters fighting 150+ to 300+ times in a career...many fighters, it seemed, fought nearly on a weekly basis...in fact the 30s and 40s boxing in the UK was as active, if not more so than nearly any place, or time in boxing history and Leicester would be an absolute wonderful area to research!

I have a ton of info on Sibson and pretty much on all UK fighting from the 60s to date, but I would really like to get into the 30s and 40s, which I only have a few issues of Boxing News during that time...and of course the monthly section that appeared in Ring.