Who Hit harder Ken Norton or Jersey Joe Walcott?

[SuzieQ49]

This got me thinking when someone chose norton in another thread.

1. I did some research, outside of mediocre duane bobick, Ken Norton never even FLOORED a Ring Magazine top 10 fighter. Ultimatley he did not carry his power up to the world class level. Walcott on the otherhand displays bigger displays of power on film than Norton, knocking out and knocking down hall of famer world class fighters multiple times, and all walcott needed was one punch to knock you out. Norton did not have that kind of one punch power.

Back in 2003 Ring Magazine made a top 100 punchers of all time list, Walcott came in at # 63, norton DID NOT make the list

Both had some impressive knockouts over journeyman...but lets see how they did once they stepped up

Nortons best knockouts

TKO 1 Duane Bobick- Ring Magazine top 10
TKO 5 Jerry Quarry- Fat out of shape 207lb with a drug problem taking this fight on one weeks notice. Quarry was NOT in the ring magazine top 10 at the time of this fight.
TKO 5 Jose Luis Garcia- NOT in the top 10 anymore
KO 5 Ron Stander- NOT in the top 10


Walcotts best knockouts

KO 7 Ezzard Charles- Ended a 3 year winning streak and ended Charles long reigning heavyweight crown with one perfect punch
KO 3 Harold Johnson- Hall of Famer and top 10 Ring Magazine at the time
KO 10 Hatchetman Sheppard- Top 10 Ring Magazine
TKO 3 Tommy Gomez- Top 10 Ring Magazine


Norton flooring Ring Magazine Top 10

Duane Bobick 1x

The other Ring Magazine top 10 he fought Ali 3x, Holmes, Young, Foreman, Garcia 1st time, Ledoux, Shavers, Cooney....HE NEVER FLOORED ANY OF THESE MEN


Now Walcott Flooring Ring Magazine top 10

Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis 3x, Harold Johnson, Elmer Ray 3x, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim, Lee Oma, Hatchetman Sheppard, Ezzard Charles, Omelio Agramonte 3x, Tommy Gomez,


Walcott holds the clear edge here Flooring 11 different Ring Magazine top 10 heavyweight contenders, to Norton's 1. Walcott also knocked down 5 different Hall of Famers while norton knocked down ZERO hall of famers.

[turpinr]

for a fighter who's best punch prior to beating charles was supposedly a sneaky right hand,his left hook was beautiful ,both in timing and power.

walcott for me:good

[mr. magoo]

This topic was on another thread about a year ago, and I argued hammer and tong with Marciano_Frazier over this.

I have chosen Norton on the basis that he Ko'd or stopped more fighters in less professional bouts, leaving himself with the higher win/ko ration. This does not always mean everything, but there is more. When I look at Norton's opponent list on boxrec, he fought a lot more fighters who were over 200 lbs than Jersey did, and during what many considered as a more competitive era. If we look at most of the fighters that went the distance with Norton, we see names like Muhammad Ali, Jimmy Young, Tex Cobb, etc. Looking at these records one can conclude that those fighters survived the combined artillery of Sonny Liston, George Foreman, Earnie Shavers, Joe Frazier, and Gerry Cooney among others. Walcott's one punch KO over Charles was a picture perfect shot, however he only managed to do this once in 4 meetings with the guy, leaving me with the indication that it was a one time deal and not a representation of great punching power. Just to give us some scale, Michael Nunn once scored a first round KO over all time great Sumbu Kalambay with the first landed shot of the fight. Nunn was no puncher.

[mcvey]

This got me thinking when someone chose norton in another thread.

1. I did some research, outside of mediocre duane bobick, Ken Norton never even FLOORED a Ring Magazine top 10 fighter. Ultimatley he did not carry his power up to the world class level. Walcott on the otherhand displays bigger displays of power on film than Norton, knocking out and knocking down hall of famer world class fighters multiple times, and all walcott needed was one punch to knock you out. Norton did not have that kind of one punch power.

Nortons best knockouts

TKO 1 Duane Bobick- Ring Magazine top 10
TKO 5 Jerry Quarry- Fat out of shape 207lb with a drug problem taking this fight on one weeks notice. Quarry was NOT in the ring magazine top 10 at the time of this fight.
TKO 5 Jose Luis Garcia- NOT in the top 10 anymore
KO 5 Ron Stander- NOT in the top 10


Walcotts best knockouts

KO 7 Ezzard Charles- Ended a 3 year winning streak and ended Charles long reigning heavyweight crown with one perfect punch
KO 3 Harold Johnson- Hall of Famer and top 10 Ring Magazine at the time
KO 10 Hatchetman Sheppard- Top 10 Ring Magazine
TKO 3 Tommy Gomez- Top 10 Ring Magazine

Think I would go with Arnold Cream, though his win over Johnson can be discounted ,as you know Suzie it was a physical problem that led to the stoppage ,you sneaky little Seal you.

Walcott's ko over Charles and his dumping of Marciano in the first round are text book examples of perfectly executed punches.and should be standard viewing for aspiring boxers imo.

[SuzieQ49]

,as you know Suzie it was a physical problem that led to the stoppage ,you sneaky little Seal you.

NOPE I did lengthy research on this with MF and Fogster and we all found out that harold johnson was knocked down in the 2nd round from hard walcott shots and johnson fell on his back hurting his back. BUT THE THING HERE IS johnson hurt his back FROM getting sent to the canvas by hard walcott shots. So this victory was very legite. Walcott was dominating johnson before he hurt his back. An Old Historian(he wishes me not to say his name) his poster name here is Albinored who was around at the time in 1950s, said Walcott legite knocked johnson out. Philadelphia Boxing History website reported Johnson was floored in the 2nd round, and very groggy from walcott shots in the 3rd round.



I have chosen Norton on the basis that he Ko'd or stopped more fighters in less professional bouts

But shouldn't we judge how they did vs elite world class opposition? shouldnt we judge by film? On film when Walcott landed his best punch his opponent(usually HOFs) when down hard and fast....Norton on the otherhand never displayed one punch power the way Walcott did.

Back in 2003 Ring Magazine made a top 100 punchers of all time list, Walcott came in at # 63, norton DID NOT make the list


Norton flooring Ring Magazine Top 10

Duane Bobick 1x

The other Ring Magazine top 10 he fought Ali 3x, Holmes, Young, Foreman, Garcia 1st time, Ledoux, Shavers, Cooney....HE NEVER FLOORED ANY OF THESE MEN


Now Walcott Flooring Ring Magazine top 10

Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis 3x, Harold Johnson, Elmer Ray 3x, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim, Lee Oma, Hatchetman Sheppard, Ezzard Charles, Omelio Agramonte 3x, Tommy Gomez,


Walcott holds the clear edge here Flooring 11 different Ring Magazine top 10 heavyweight contenders, to Norton's 1. Walcott also knocked down 5 different Hall of Famers while norton knocked down ZERO hall of famers.

[SuzieQ49]

It seems going by Film, Record, and Historians opinion....there seems no plausible way to rate norton over walcott as a puncher. Norton was NEVER known as a puncher(only he claimed so himself in his autobiography), while walcott was seen as a deadly puncher in his era

[mr. magoo]

I think you're confusing the topic of your thread which is " who hit harder ", vs " who was the better puncher. "

If we're going by who was a better puncher, then I'd pick Ray " Boom Boom " Mancini over both of them. When discussing actual power and punching ability however, that brings up a whole different argument.

[SuzieQ49]

Then we have to bring film into the equation....When Norton landed his best punch on film vs World Class fighters, they DID NOT go down. When Walcott landed his best punch on film vs Hall of Fame World Class fighters, they went down hard and fast. Fact of the Matter is Walcott did not need multiple punchers to floor opponents like Norton did, Walcott needed just ONE punch to put top ranking challengers down each time, either his counter right hand or powerful left hook(a much harder punch than anything norton showed on film)

[Holmes' Jab]

Walcott.

[mr. magoo]

Then we have to bring film into the equation....When Norton landed his best punch on film vs World Class fighters, they DID NOT go down. When Walcott landed his best punch on film vs Hall of Fame World Class fighters, they went down hard and fast. Fact of the Matter is Walcott did not need multiple punchers to floor opponents like Norton did, Walcott needed just ONE punch to put top ranking challengers down each time, either his counter right hand or powerful left hook(a much harder punch than anything norton showed on film)


I think you need to look at the perameters of the fighters you're comparing and perhaps you'll get the answer you're looking for. Walcott isn't knocking out Muhammad, Jimmy Young or Tex Cobb either. And I have serious reservations concerning his ability to do something as dramatic as breaking Ali's jaw.

Here let's simplify this even more:

FIGHTERS KO'D OVER 200 LBS:

NORTON - 21

WALCOTT - 5

Of the 5 200 pounders who Walcott stopped, the vast majority were Journeyman or tomato cans, and one of them even had a record of 1-4.

[groove]

Bobick 215 pounds, Quarry 207 pounds, Garcia 213 pounds, Stander 229 pounds. Norton also broke Ali's jaw with his lightweight punch :lol:

Charles 182 pounds, Johnson 180 pounds, Sheppard 191 pounds (he's the big heavy 5'11''), Gomez 182 pounds. 50s heavies were really small compared to Norton's era.

[SuzieQ49]

FIGHTERS KO'D OVER 200 LBS:

NORTON - 21

WALCOTT - 5

Of the 5 200 pounders who Walcott stopped, the vast majority were Journeyman or tomato cans, and one of them even had a record of 1-4.


Well guess what....Outside of Duane Bobick...not one of those other 200lbers Norton kayoed were in Ring Magazine top 10, making them all Journeyman level fighters. So were back to ground zero. Btw I would hardly call Ollie Tandberg a tomato can, if you ever read some newspaper articles of the 1940s they were dubbing Tandberg as the the man to bring the heavyweight title back to europe and declared him the divisions most dangerous big threat after he beat the snot out of leading contender joe baksi. Walcott utterly destroyed the man no one wanted to fight.

I dont think 200lb is a good barometer to check....I think Ring magazine top 10 is a bettter way. If you want to go by size, then watch Walcott vs 6'2 213lb Louis on film, watch how easy louis goes to to the floor after walcott tags him with one punch each time.


Norton flooring Ring Magazine Top 10

Duane Bobick 1x

The other Ring Magazine top 10 he fought Ali 3x, Holmes, Young, Foreman, Garcia 1st time, Ledoux, Shavers, Cooney....HE NEVER FLOORED ANY OF THESE MEN


Now Walcott Flooring Ring Magazine top 10

Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis 3x, Harold Johnson, Elmer Ray 3x, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim, Lee Oma, Hatchetman Sheppard, Ezzard Charles, Omelio Agramonte 3x, Tommy Gomez,


Walcott holds the clear edge here Flooring 11 different Ring Magazine top 10 heavyweight contenders, to Norton's 1. Walcott also knocked down 5 different Hall of Famers while norton knocked down ZERO hall of famers.


NOW THATS A HUGE different in numbers right there...Norton did not carry his power up



Walcott isn't knocking out Muhammad, Jimmy Young or Tex Cobb either.


Walcott would have floored Ali and Young defintley....Walcott also would have floored holmes and easily knocked out ledoux(who norton couldnt even floor)

[mcvey]

NOPE I did lengthy research on this with MF and Fogster and we all found out that harold johnson was knocked down in the 2nd round from hard walcott shots and johnson fell on his back hurting his back. BUT THE THING HERE IS johnson hurt his back FROM getting sent to the canvas by hard walcott shots. So this victory was very legite. Walcott was dominating johnson before he hurt his back. An Old Historian(he wishes me not to say his name) his poster name here is Albinored who was around at the time in 1950s, said Walcott legite knocked johnson out. Philadelphia Boxing History website reported Johnson was floored in the 2nd round, and very groggy from walcott shots in the 3rd round.



But shouldn't we judge how they did vs elite world class opposition? shouldnt we judge by film? On film when Walcott landed his best punch his opponent(usually HOFs) when down hard and fast....Norton on the otherhand never displayed one punch power the way Walcott did.

Back in 2003 Ring Magazine made a top 100 punchers of all time list, Walcott came in at # 63, norton DID NOT make the list


Norton flooring Ring Magazine Top 10

Duane Bobick 1x

The other Ring Magazine top 10 he fought Ali 3x, Holmes, Young, Foreman, Garcia 1st time, Ledoux, Shavers, Cooney....HE NEVER FLOORED ANY OF THESE MEN


Now Walcott Flooring Ring Magazine top 10

Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis 3x, Harold Johnson, Elmer Ray 3x, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim, Lee Oma, Hatchetman Sheppard, Ezzard Charles, Omelio Agramonte 3x, Tommy Gomez,


Walcott holds the clear edge here Flooring 11 different Ring Magazine top 10 heavyweight contenders, to Norton's 1. Walcott also knocked down 5 different Hall of Famers while norton knocked down ZERO hall of famers.
Well,I havent done any research on it , I understood he had a back/neck injury ,but will concede the point with no qualms.Looking at the short list you provided another thing strikes me ,how many top punchers of his era Walcott fought,I mean Ray Sheppard,Gomez for starters.You have to wonder how good Walcott might have been if Roxborough and Black had gone with him instead of Louis.

[SuzieQ49]

50s heavies were really small compared to Norton's era.

Walcott also fought leading heavyweight contenders # 4 rated 6'1 218lb Joe Baksi, Champion 6'2 213lb Joe louis 2x, # 3 rated 6'3 208lb Lee Q Murray, Undefeated European Champion 6'6 220lb Hein Ten Hoff, and European sensation 6'3 210lb Ollie Tandberg, tough strong boston fringe contender 6'5 220lb Johnny Skhor, These would be big men in the 1970s.

[SuzieQ49]

how many top punchers of his era Walcott fought,I mean Ray Sheppard,Gomez for starters.You have to wonder how good Walcott might have been if Roxborough and Black had gone with him instead of Louis.


Good Point. Pontius did a thread a while back, and it was found out of all heavyweight champions....Walcott fought and beat more "Punchers" than any heavyweight champion besides Ali and Lennox.

Rex Layne
Tommy Gomez
Hatchetman Sheppard 2x
Tiger Jack Fox 2x
Rocky Marciano 2x
Joe Louis 2x
Elmer Ray 3x
Lee Q Murray
Lorenzo Pack
Hein Ten Hoff

All these men were the biggest punchers of the era who walcott fought, and most of the men on this list appear in Rings top 100 punchers of all time list

[groove]

ofcourse a great smaller fighter is gonna beat a big heavy bum but norton wasn't fighting 200+ pound bums like walcott / archie moore. he was fighting the likes of ali, holmes, quarry etc. i've seen what patterson did to small great heavies like archie moore.

[SuzieQ49]

Ya Joe Louis and Lee Q Murray were quite the bums

[groove]

an old louis - gimme a break. that wasn't joe louis like that wasn't the same ali who lost to leon spinks. re marciano - getting mixed up with the 2 threads LOL. Walcott fought a much better version of Louis.

[SuzieQ49]

Joe Louis still had alot left in 1946-1948...checkout his 1 round knockout over top contender Tami Mauriello if you dont believe me. Louis still had blazing handspeed, deadly combinations, elegant jab, and terrific skills to go along with his 6'3 213lb frame.


I think a better comparison would be 1946-1948 Joe Louis to the 1971-1973 Muhammad Ali

[mr. magoo]

Well guess what....Outside of Duane Bobick...not one of those other 200lbers Norton kayoed were in Ring Magazine top 10, making them all Journeyman level fighters. So were back to ground zero. Btw I would hardly call Ollie Tandberg a tomato can, if you ever read some newspaper articles of the 1940s they were dubbing Tandberg as the the man to bring the heavyweight title back to europe and declared him the divisions most dangerous big threat after he beat the snot out of leading contender joe baksi. Walcott utterly destroyed the man no one wanted to fight.

I dont think 200lb is a good barometer to check....I think Ring magazine top 10 is a bettter way. If you want to go by size, then watch Walcott vs 6'2 213lb Louis on film, watch how easy louis goes to to the floor after walcott tags him with one punch each time.


Norton flooring Ring Magazine Top 10

Duane Bobick 1x

The other Ring Magazine top 10 he fought Ali 3x, Holmes, Young, Foreman, Garcia 1st time, Ledoux, Shavers, Cooney....HE NEVER FLOORED ANY OF THESE MEN


Now Walcott Flooring Ring Magazine top 10

Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis 3x, Harold Johnson, Elmer Ray 3x, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim, Lee Oma, Hatchetman Sheppard, Ezzard Charles, Omelio Agramonte 3x, Tommy Gomez,


Walcott holds the clear edge here Flooring 11 different Ring Magazine top 10 heavyweight contenders, to Norton's 1. Walcott also knocked down 5 different Hall of Famers while norton knocked down ZERO hall of famers.


NOW THATS A HUGE different in numbers right there...Norton did not carry his power up






Walcott would have floored Ali and Young defintley....Walcott also would have floored holmes and easily knocked out ledoux(who norton couldnt even floor)


I don't think that Walcott floors Young, Ali or Holmes. I also think that you're hiding behind ring ratings and all time standings, when you know as well as I do that they don't necessarily reflect a fighter's actual physical abilities when compared to a lesser rated fighter of a stronger era.

It is reasonable to say that Walcott was superior to Norton from a technical punching standpoint as well as acheiving what he did given what he had to work with. But, that is clearly not your position here. Your thread was designed to determine who ACTUALLY HIT HARDER, and the facts simply don't support that it was Walcott. A 45% KO percentage against men who were generally between 175-195 lbs and rather extensive histories of being KO'd themselves, does not size up well to a career consisting of a 66% KO percentage against fighters who averaged between 195-250, and during an era where comp was generally considered as superior.....

Your examples of Walcott flooring ( and still losing ) to a past prime Louis along with ring ratings does not bolster a very strong argument. Do you think that ring ratings are the be all end all? The publication was founded by one of the most selectively biased historians in the sports history. I don't care what the ring rated a man in 1950.. Even a shot Quarry who had fallen from the ratings in the mid 70's would have had my vote to be a top rater when being among peers like Don Cockell Roland Lastarza and several others that I can think of..

[Minotauro]

Walcott hit harder.

[My2Sense]

People keep pointing to the Quarry fight to illustrate Norton's power.

Quarry's best weight was around 195. He really was a bloated up cruiserweight, and not only that his punch resistance was gone (see his previous fight with Frazier). Norton plastered him at will and couldn't put him down once, only stopped him on cuts.

Norton was always known as a solid, heavy puncher, but with the exception perhaps of the Bobick fight, he seldom showed explosive one-shot power that Walcott was known for, no matter who he fought or their size.

[MrMarvel]

66 percent knockout record against 1970s heavyweights versus 45 percent knockout record against 1940s heavyweights. It would be irrational to select Jersey Joe Walcott.

[mr. magoo]

66 percent knockout record against 1970s heavyweights versus 45 percent knockout record against 1940s heavyweights. It would be irrational to select Jersey Joe Walcott.


Thread closed.....

...........The End............

[SuzieQ49]

I dont think Maghoo realizes that knockout percentage has diddly poo to do with punching power. Bob Satterfield who hit 10x harder than Ken Norton had a much lower KO percentage, yet no one in the world(other than chris ****** and Mr. Marvel) would argue norton hit harder than satterfield

Even a shot Quarry who had fallen from the ratings in the mid 70's would have had my vote to be a top rater when being among peers like Don Cockell Roland Lastarza and several others that I can think of..

Your downgrading Lastarza that much? You realize quarry in his prime lost to a shot eddie machen. I dont think quarry ever beat a slick defensive boxer in his life(jimmy Ellis)....I think Lastarza is a horrible matchup for a prime quarry....and the drugged up fat way out of shape late sub quarry of 1975 would get horribly embarrased by roland.

[SuzieQ49]

Thread closed.....

...........The End............


You just agreed with Revolver.....your credibility shot down many points

[SuzieQ49]

People keep pointing to the Quarry fight to illustrate Norton's power.

Quarry's best weight was around 195. He really was a bloated up cruiserweight, and not only that his punch resistance was gone (see his previous fight with Frazier). Norton plastered him at will and couldn't put him down once, only stopped him on cuts.

Norton was always known as a solid, heavy puncher, but with the exception perhaps of the Bobick fight, he seldom showed explosive one-shot power that Walcott was known for, no matter who he fought or their size.

good point

[SuzieQ49]

Who Hit harder Archie Moore or Ken Norton?



Maghoo I trapped you...now you cannot use any of your "Norton knocked out bigger fighters" or "norton had better knockout percentage" to illustrate your point. I really don't think you could make any case at all that norton hit harder than moore.








ps I think Walcott hit alot harder than Archie Moore

[SuzieQ49]

"my fights with Walcott were tougher. Walcott hit harder than Marciano"- Ezzard Charles 1954

[mr. magoo]

=SuzieQ49;3928439]I dont think Maghoo realizes that knockout percentage has diddly poo to do with punching power. Bob Satterfield who hit 10x harder than Ken Norton had a much lower KO percentage, yet no one in the world(other than chris ****** and Mr. Marvel) would argue norton hit harder than satterfield

I don't think YOU realize that the physical dynamics of punching power go a bit beyond mere wins over men who were hall of famers in a dissimilar era. And what evidence do you have to prove that Satterfield hit harder than Norton other than just your having said so?

Your downgrading Lastarza that much? You realize quarry in his prime lost to a shot eddie machen. I dont think quarry ever beat a slick defensive boxer in his life(jimmy Ellis)....I think Lastarza is a horrible matchup for a prime quarry....

1. Quarry was not peak when he fought Machen.. He was still a work in progress.

2. I am not maintaining that Quarry head to head would necessarily beat Lastarza, but a better fighter he surely is. Not long before Quarry met Norton, he had gone on streak which included wins over prime versions of Shavers and Lyle. Thats better than what a lot of 50's contenders did.


and the drugged up fat way out of shape late sub quarry of 1975 would get horribly embarrased by roland.

Here is where you might need to do a little polishing up on your boxing knowledge my man....Oh yes, I know that at 22 years old you think you know everything, but believe me you don't... Quarry was a counter punching genius while Roland was a defensive boxer.. This makes for a very fan displeasing fight, and stylistically an edge for Quarry.. Ellis was nothing like Lastarza.

[mr. magoo]

"my fights with Walcott were tougher. Walcott hit harder than Marciano"- Ezzard Charles 1954

Who cares what he said. I'd be more impressed if it was Ali that Walcott had nailed and the testimony went like this " no man has ever done that to my jaw before. I couldn't eat nothin' or kiss nobody for a month "

[mr. magoo]

You just agreed with Revolver.....your credibility shot down many points

Do you have any idea how many times I sat back and watched your credibility get shot strait to hell, and by multiple posters? The concensus of this board is that you have a well established history of applying double standards, half truths, botched facts, and flat out lies.. Its a miracle anyone even wastes their time responding to you anymore.. You're also borderline illiterate. Sorry, but I'm just expressing what I see.

[SuzieQ49]

Left Hook was right about you. First of all, your one of the dumbest posters on the site in terms of lack of expertise on a particular era....you never bring anything worthy to this site, you have never done anything good for this site, you have no knowledge, your eye when it comes to film is horrible, your bias, the evidence you use to present your facts is considered very amatuerish by most posters here behind your back....I have brought to this site rare videos on youtube, articles on rare 1940s-50s heavyweights, and expertise on a particular era. You on the otherhand have nothing to bring to the table. You think your so smart, you try to put down other peoples "illiteracy" when in fact you should realize the only thing illiterate is your boxing mind. Your not the only one with a college degree, and using "big" words does not make you look any smarter.


You are nothing but a milk toast dressed in a silly dress....with the ugliest fattest fuck of a wife I have ever seen in my life....does it feel good lying waking up next to that cow everyday? I bet you make yourself throw up every morning having to look at that face. Btw I am in great lakes chicago right now, let me know where in chicago you live if you got guts, Ill come right by and beat the ever loving shit out of you then i will stuff your hog of a wifes face right into a bag of shit....There, that was one long run on sentence with no puncuation. That should be ilitterate enough for you.


Must be hard waking up next to porky the pig every morning.....

[Russell]

It's funny how Norton's faulted for not knocking Ali out or some such. Frazier had the guy down once in three fights and no one's faulting Joe as not being a great puncher.

Ali was one of the hardest to touch fighters of all time, and when you DID manage to hit him the guys chin was still fucking cosmically tough.

Anyway, even watching a ancient Norton hit Cobb you can tell the guy could bang. Sure looked to me that his punches had more affect on Cobb then, say, Holmes did over 15.

[SuzieQ49]

What makes you think Norton could bang? cause of his size, he was never known as a puncher. Only after his book came out and Norton referred to himself in the book as having a "devastating overhand right"(Sensationalism) that people started believing Norton was a puncher.

Jersey Joe on the otherhand was always known for his punching power by press during his era, and by contemporaries..Walcott earned a place in Ring Magazine top 100 punchers of all time list and Kenny Norton did not.and on film really showed he packed power in one fist. They replayed Charles-Walcott II last night and I swear every punch walcott landed, charles knees buckled, I counted charles knees buckle in the short highlights at least 7 times from either a walcott hook or counter right. Im shocked he stayed on his feet this fight. Even Modern Boxing experts like Teddy Atlas said on ESPN Classic "Walcott was a tremendous puncher, could knock you out with one punch".



Kenny Norton, a great boxer vs other boxers...but not a puncher, and against big punchers he froze up because he couldnt fight on the back foot

[Bokaj]

You are nothing but a milk toast dressed in a silly dress....with the ugliest fattest fuck of a wife I have ever seen in my life....does it feel good lying waking up next to that cow everyday? I bet you make yourself throw up every morning having to look at that face. Btw I am in great lakes chicago right now, let me know where in chicago you live if you got guts, Ill come right by and beat the ever loving shit out of you then i will stuff your hog of a wifes face right into a bag of shit....There, that was one long run on sentence with no puncuation. That should be ilitterate enough for you.


Must be hard waking up next to porky the pig every morning.....

That's really over the top. You're better than that Suzie.

[GPater11093]

Left Hook was right about you. First of all, your one of the dumbest posters on the site in terms of lack of expertise on a particular era....you never bring anything worthy to this site, you have never done anything good for this site, you have no knowledge, your eye when it comes to film is horrible, your bias, the evidence you use to present your facts is considered very amatuerish by most posters here behind your back....I have brought to this site rare videos on youtube, articles on rare 1940s-50s heavyweights, and expertise on a particular era. You on the otherhand have nothing to bring to the table. You think your so smart, you try to put down other peoples "illiteracy" when in fact you should realize the only thing illiterate is your boxing mind. Your not the only one with a college degree, and using "big" words does not make you look any smarter.


You are nothing but a milk toast dressed in a silly dress....with the ugliest fattest fuck of a wife I have ever seen in my life....does it feel good lying waking up next to that cow everyday? I bet you make yourself throw up every morning having to look at that face. Btw I am in great lakes chicago right now, let me know where in chicago you live if you got guts, Ill come right by and beat the ever loving shit out of you then i will stuff your hog of a wifes face right into a bag of shit....There, that was one long run on sentence with no puncuation. That should be ilitterate enough for you.


Must be hard waking up next to porky the pig every morning.....

suzy that is harsh this is the Classic section not the GF

[Maxmomer]

Walcott is the harder puncher p4p, and the overall better puncher at heavyweight. For pure power at heavyweight Norton could have an edge, but Walcott was more effective due to his accuracy and sneakiness. He could land pinpoint power punches on guys and they had no idea it was coming, these are the kinds if punches that do the most damage. Norton didn't really have this ability.

[mcvey]

Left Hook was right about you. First of all, your one of the dumbest posters on the site in terms of lack of expertise on a particular era....you never bring anything worthy to this site, you have never done anything good for this site, you have no knowledge, your eye when it comes to film is horrible, your bias, the evidence you use to present your facts is considered very amatuerish by most posters here behind your back....I have brought to this site rare videos on youtube, articles on rare 1940s-50s heavyweights, and expertise on a particular era. You on the otherhand have nothing to bring to the table. You think your so smart, you try to put down other peoples "illiteracy" when in fact you should realize the only thing illiterate is your boxing mind. Your not the only one with a college degree, and using "big" words does not make you look any smarter.


You are nothing but a milk toast dressed in a silly dress....with the ugliest fattest fuck of a wife I have ever seen in my life....does it feel good lying waking up next to that cow everyday? I bet you make yourself throw up every morning having to look at that face. Btw I am in great lakes chicago right now, let me know where in chicago you live if you got guts, Ill come right by and beat the ever loving shit out of you then i will stuff your hog of a wifes face right into a bag of shit....There, that was one long run on sentence with no puncuation. That should be ilitterate enough for you.


Must be hard waking up next to porky the pig every morning.....

Suzie ,your comments on Mr Magoo's wife are totally unacceptable and out of order,I thought better of you,insult each other as much as you like ,but you went beyond it .I know you are young and impulsive,passionate about your boxing but the vitriol you spewed out there was a disgrace you should apologise.

[Maxmomer]

Suzie ,your comments on Mr Magoo's wife are totally unacceptable and out of order,I thought better of you,insult each other as much as you like ,but you went beyond it .I know you are young and impulsive,passionate about your boxing but the vitriol you spewed out there was a disgrace you should apologise.

He's very passionate about 1950's heavyweight boxing. I remember when I once called a a guy's mom a whore on a message board because he thought the Dawn of the Dead remake was better than the original. Not that I'm condoning going on hate filled tirades against people and their loved ones over a difference of opinion, just saying that the remake was so much not better than the original that it's just ludicrous to say otherwise. I'm actually more with Suzie on the main thread topic, more so than Magoo. That being said, they're both usually wrong about most of the things they say. To make a long story short, as the drugs kicked in I lost interest.

[Mendoza]

I think you need to look at the perameters of the fighters you're comparing and perhaps you'll get the answer you're looking for. Walcott isn't knocking out Muhammad, Jimmy Young or Tex Cobb either. And I have serious reservations concerning his ability to do something as dramatic as breaking Ali's jaw.

Here let's simplify this even more:

FIGHTERS KO'D OVER 200 LBS:

NORTON - 21

WALCOTT - 5

Of the 5 200 pounders who Walcott stopped, the vast majority were Journeyman or tomato cans, and one of them even had a record of 1-4.

Good data.

I think Norton hit a little harder. Walcott was more likley to land the perfect shot. Lets us not confuse the two.

Holmes who fought many hard punchers said Norton hit on Shavers level.

Also the 40's and 50's had lighter gloves.

[Chaney]

Its sad to see the Classic Forum degenerate into a slanging match that would be embarrassing in the General Forum..

I feel for Suzie, because it is obvious that he has made a huge effort to contribute rare material, articles and videos, as well as his own research and conclusions to the board.

Of course, this doesn't mean he is right with every conclusion he makes, but someone who contributes so much time and effort to the board should not be dismissed with a "You're full of shit" as he was on another thread recently. "I think you're wrong in this instance, Suzie" would suffice.

Magoo was wrong and disrespectful in the way he provoked Suzie ("The consensus of this board is" [that you are crap as a poster]....what a spiteful and unjustified thing to say).

But Suzie, your response went way over the top. Bringing somebodies family and physical threats into it? C'mon Suzie, you're better than that. You were badly out of line with everything after the first paragraph of your post.

Lets try to keep the Classic Forum for exchanging knowledge and opinions on Classic boxers. I don't post much here, but I enjoy reading the posts of you guys who are much more knowledgeable than me. I'm sure there are a lot of people like me who enjoy reading this board for the knowledge and passion about boxing that it can offer. Let's keep it a cool place to visit.:good

[Minotauro]

You are nothing but a milk toast dressed in a silly dress....with the ugliest fattest fuck of a wife I have ever seen in my life....does it feel good lying waking up next to that cow everyday? I bet you make yourself throw up every morning having to look at that face. Btw I am in great lakes chicago right now, let me know where in chicago you live if you got guts, Ill come right by and beat the ever loving shit out of you then i will stuff your hog of a wifes face right into a bag of shit....There, that was one long run on sentence with no puncuation. That should be ilitterate enough for you.


Must be hard waking up next to porky the pig every morning.....

That’s kind of harsh. While I agree with your points that Walcott and certainly Satterfield hit harder then Norton, theres no need to talk about a man's wife like that.

[Maxmomer]

C'mon Suzie, you're better than that.

Apparently he's not.

[he grant]

There is no need to get so nasty here. I I repeat again and again, the rep this board has through out the internet community is that there is a bunch of hot headed, childish assholes here and that is why so many great posters do not show up. It is a shame since there are many knowledgable guys here and the board is very active. There should be some form of decency here, some mutual respect and the ability to agree to disagree ...

That being said, both guys could hit. Walcott was a poor finisher but hit hard enough to drop Louis three times, Marciano once and ice Charles ... Norton was a very hard puncher. Anyone who followed his career knows this . He hurt Ali on several occassions, he rocked the iron chinned Quarry,he rocked Holmes ... the man could definately swat ...

I say they were about the same.

[mr. magoo]

Left Hook was right about you. First of all, your one of the dumbest posters on the site in terms of lack of expertise on a particular era....you never bring anything worthy to this site, you have never done anything good for this site, you have no knowledge, your eye when it comes to film is horrible, your bias, the evidence you use to present your facts is considered very amatuerish by most posters here behind your back....I have brought to this site rare videos on youtube, articles on rare 1940s-50s heavyweights, and expertise on a particular era. You on the otherhand have nothing to bring to the table. You think your so smart, you try to put down other peoples "illiteracy" when in fact you should realize the only thing illiterate is your boxing mind. Your not the only one with a college degree, and using "big" words does not make you look any smarter.


You are nothing but a milk toast dressed in a silly dress....with the ugliest fattest fuck of a wife I have ever seen in my life....does it feel good lying waking up next to that cow everyday? I bet you make yourself throw up every morning having to look at that face. Btw I am in great lakes chicago right now, let me know where in chicago you live if you got guts, Ill come right by and beat the ever loving shit out of you then i will stuff your hog of a wifes face right into a bag of shit....There, that was one long run on sentence with no puncuation. That should be ilitterate enough for you.


Must be hard waking up next to porky the pig every morning.....

I would say that this is a borderline bannable offense here. But, I'm not even going to get upset about it, cosidering the source. You just made my ignore list.
You have a lot of growing up to do son...........

[mr. magoo]

Magoo was wrong and disrespectful in the way he provoked Suzie ("The consensus of this board is" [that you are crap as a poster]....what a spiteful and unjustified thing to say).



With all due respect, the conflict began with this :


SuzieQ49
You just agreed with Revolver.....your credibility shot down many points


While I admit that a long day at work and a snooty remark led to an overreaction on my part, I am quite comfortable with the notion that my comments did not warrant what later followed.

[GPater11093]

With all due respect, the conflict began with this :



While I admit that a long day at work and a snooty remark led to an overreaction on my part, I am quite comfortable with the notion that my comments did not warrant what later followed.

they didnt ******t that assualt but just leave it now if SuzyQ is man enought to apoligise he is if not just leave it this isnt the GF

[mr. magoo]

they didnt ******t that assualt but just leave it now if SuzyQ is man enought to apoligise he is if not just leave it this isnt the GF


Agreed mate,

Thanks:good

[GPater11093]

Agreed mate,

Thanks:good

no probs

now lets get back to the original debate who hit harder Norton or Walcott

[mr. magoo]

I am going to simplify my position by saying this:

Joe Walcott was a better technical puncher than Ken Norton was, but if we're talking about raw power, it's not very cut and dry as to who actually hit harder.

Jersey was probably more accurate and threw cleaner crisper shots, but I think Norton's track record at stopping bigger heavyweights, indicates that his blows may have been a tad heavier..

[Chaney]

With all due respect, the conflict began with this

While I admit that a long day at work and a snooty remark led to an overreaction on my part, I am quite comfortable with the notion that my comments did not warrant what later followed.There is no justification for Suzie's personal insults against you. As I said, it was way out of line, and I think out of character for him.

I will defend Suzie as a great contributor to this forum, I have learnt a lot from his posts.

It is to your credit that you admit that you overreacted and were unfair to Suzie. I think we should try and restrict our weapons on this forum to sound reasoning and knowledgable debate. There are plenty of good brains on this forum, and it is a shame to see them wasted in foolish squabbling.

[MrMarvel]

Norton couldn't knock out Ali, Foreman, Holmes, or Young. Does anybody believe Walcott could? Walcott might survive a prime Young, but he isn't knocking him out. He would be overwhelmed by the others.

Norton should have been so lucky as to be facing natural light heavyweights like Charles and Johnson at the height of his career. Or small cruiserweights like Marciano, for that matter. You would be regarding him as an all-time great. Norton would have been king in the 1940s.

Charles weighed 182 lbs when he was knocked out by Walcott. Walcott outweighed him by 12 lbs. Norton would have outweighed him by probably more than 30 lbs, towering over him at 6'3", with the skills that gave Ali and Holmes, arguably the two greatest heavyweights ever, fits.

Yet, despite facing opponents who were routinely smaller than he was (which is significant, given that Walcott was not a big heavyweight), and who were far less durable than the cream of the 1970s crop, Walcott couldn't even manage to knock out half of his opposition. That's right, his knockout percentage was only 45 percent.

Walcott was not only not a harder puncher than Norton, but he wasn't much of puncher compared to many top heavyweights. Walcott's punching power, much like his boxing skill, are exaggerations by people trying to glorify the 1940s and a Cinderella boxer.

Look, the man lost a quarter of his fights and was knocked out six times. He fought in eight title fights in one of the division's weakest eras, and could only manage to win two of them, one of those a gift by judges who liked him, and those were against a natural light heavyweight.

Likewise, Walcott's reputation is a gift by those who like him. It's not an objective assessment. It's a sentimental one. It's patently ridiculous.

[mr. magoo]

Norton couldn't knock out Ali, Foreman, Holmes, or Young. Does anybody believe Walcott could? Walcott might survive a prime Young, but he isn't knocking him out. He would be overwhelmed by the others.

Norton should have been so lucky as to be facing natural light heavyweights like Charles and Johnson at the height of his career. Or small cruiserweights like Marciano, for that matter. You would be regarding him as an all-time great. Norton would have been king in the 1940s.

Charles weighed 182 lbs when he was knocked out by Walcott. Walcott outweighed him by 12 lbs. Norton would have outweighed him by probably more than 30 lbs, towering over him at 6'3", with the skills that gave Ali and Holmes, arguably the two greatest heavyweights ever, fits.

Yet, despite facing opponents who were routinely smaller than he was (which is significant, given that Walcott was not a big heavyweight), and who were far less durable than the cream of the 1970s crop, Walcott couldn't even manage to knock out half of his opposition. That's right, his knockout percentage was only 45 percent.

Walcott was not only not a harder puncher than Norton, but he wasn't much of puncher compared to many top heavyweights. Walcott's punching power, much like his boxing skill, are exaggerations by people trying to glorify the 1940s and a Cinderella boxer.

Look, the man lost a quarter of his fights and was knocked out six times. He fought in eight title fights in one of the division's weakest eras, and could only manage to win two of them, one of those a gift by judges who liked him, and those were against a natural light heavyweight.

Likewise, Walcott's reputation is a gift by those who like him. It's not an objective assessment. It's a sentimental one. It's patently ridiculous.

I don't know that I agree that Norton would have been king in the 1940's, but there are plenty of other points that are definately valid here.

[MrMarvel]

Louis was ready to be taken by a heavyweight of Norton's caliber. Charles was too small to deal with Norton's combination of size, talent, and power. Walcott wasn't good enough to beat Norton. Some might consider Marciano to have the best chance, but I don't think so. I believe Marciano is overrated. He beat Louis, Charles, and Walcott at the end of their careers.

[OLD FOGEY]

One point that the pro-Norton posters are running with is that he knocked out bigger men (over 200 lbs) and is thus supposed to be more impresseive.

1. Historically, What is the evidence that men above 200 lbs are more difficult to knock out. I think there is none at all. Dempsey, Louis, Marciano, Moore, Satterfield, etc, all had better ko percentages against bigger men. Was Fulton harder to ko than Miske or Tommy Gibbons? Was Carnera harder to ko than Uzcudun? Simon than Pastor? Stribling and Maxim were about as difficult to knock out as anyone. So was Risko.

2. The argument will probably be made that the sixties and seventies were different and the big men better and harder to ko. Well let's look at Norton opponent Jerry Quarry who fought quite a few fights with both above and below 200 lb opponents.

Quarry's record against men below 200 lbs:

Won 23-----lost 3-----drew 1-----ko 12-----ko by 0-----Ko%-44%

Quarry's record against men above 200 lbs:

Won 30-----lost 6-----drew 3-----ko 20-----ko by 6-----ko%-51%

As is usually the case, the ko percentage is actually higher against the big guys. Why? As any hunter will tell you, it is a lot harder to hit a moving target. Also, the big guys on the average don't have the stamina of their smaller opponents. And there is no evidence at all that they take a punch better.

Interestingly, Quarry has a lower ko percentage against sub-200 lbers despite the fact that most of his higher rated opponents were over 200 lbs--including his victims Spencer, Mathis, Foster, Lyle, and Shavers. The only top fighters under 200 lbs he fought were Patterson, Machen, and Ellis. He went 1-2-1, with a controversial draw and victory over Patterson, and losses to Machen and Ellis.

What about Norton against under 200 lbers. He was 8 of 9 with 6 knockouts. Jose Luis Garcia, who had lost to Vicente Rondon and been stopped by Allan Thomas at lightheavy, had puffed up to 188 when he ko'd Norton. Norton was 34-6-1 with 27 ko's against over 200 lb men. His ko percentages against the big and little men is a wash, although his opposition above 200 lbs was much higher rated.

[he grant]

Norton was never going to take Louis ... Louis would have iced him early ... I do respect the spirit of men having the balls to make peace ... too much talent here to act like a bunch of assho-es ...

[OLD FOGEY]

Norton couldn't knock out Ali, Foreman, Holmes, or Young. Does anybody believe Walcott could? Walcott might survive a prime Young, but he isn't knocking him out. He would be overwhelmed by the others.

Norton should have been so lucky as to be facing natural light heavyweights like Charles and Johnson at the height of his career. Or small cruiserweights like Marciano, for that matter. You would be regarding him as an all-time great. Norton would have been king in the 1940s.

Charles weighed 182 lbs when he was knocked out by Walcott. Walcott outweighed him by 12 lbs. Norton would have outweighed him by probably more than 30 lbs, towering over him at 6'3", with the skills that gave Ali and Holmes, arguably the two greatest heavyweights ever, fits.

Yet, despite facing opponents who were routinely smaller than he was (which is significant, given that Walcott was not a big heavyweight), and who were far less durable than the cream of the 1970s crop, Walcott couldn't even manage to knock out half of his opposition. That's right, his knockout percentage was only 45 percent.

Walcott was not only not a harder puncher than Norton, but he wasn't much of puncher compared to many top heavyweights. Walcott's punching power, much like his boxing skill, are exaggerations by people trying to glorify the 1940s and a Cinderella boxer.

Look, the man lost a quarter of his fights and was knocked out six times. He fought in eight title fights in one of the division's weakest eras, and could only manage to win two of them, one of those a gift by judges who liked him, and those were against a natural light heavyweight.

Likewise, Walcott's reputation is a gift by those who like him. It's not an objective assessment. It's a sentimental one. It's patently ridiculous.

"Norton should have been so lucky as to face natural lightheavies and cruiserweights"

Considering what Jose Luis Garcia did to him when at 188, that might be a dubious point. The lighter men on the whole will be quicker and better at putting combinations together. That would not be a good thing for the weak-jawed Norton and he might have found it difficult to protect his chin against quicker, more sustained attacks.

"Walcott's reputation is a gift by those who like him"

A lot of people seem to like him. The AP end of the century poll of experts voted in the top ten heavyweights of the 20th century. He is usually in the top 20 of most polls.

"Walcott lost 6 of 8 title fights"

What, by the way, was Norton's record in title fights?

[mr. magoo]

OLD FOGEY;3932531
What, by the way, was Norton's record in title fights?

Norton retired as being 0-3 in world title fights. His win over Jimmy Young was only an eliminator for the WBC, shortly after which he was awarded the vacant WBC title. It should be noted however that while Walcott did manage to win two workd title fights, he was 0-4 in his first four attempts.

[OLD FOGEY]

Walcott is not all that impressive as a puncher. His critics have brought up some good points. However, Norton never scored an impressive ko in my judgement. Quarry was going back and obviously out of shape. I don't think Bobick was all that much. He never beat a top man and was blown out early not only by Norton but by Knoetze and Tate. Zanon had a glass jaw. Stander no defense. All these men were stopped rather frequently (Quarry 6 in 66 fights-Stander 9 in 61, etc).

I do think Walcott's ko's of Charles and Johnson are more impressive than anything Norton accomplished.

[mr. magoo]

I do think Walcott's ko's of Charles and Johnson are more impressive than anything Norton accomplished.

I think most would agree with this statement, however 2 fights in a career consisting of some 71 matches does not represent much of a trend. Especially when the wins in question are against men who were both 180 lbs and one of whom took Walcott the distance on 3 occasions. I also think that Charles' elusiveness is commonly mistaken for durability when in fact, I think he was just simply very difficult to land flush on.

As for Norton, his power is difficult to gauge. His KO wins as you say, came mainly against mediocre comp while the men who took him the distance were fighters who could have gone to the cards with anyone, ie. ( Ali, Holmes, Young, Cobb, etc. ) I think the extent of his true punching capabilities falls somewhere inbetween.

I think that the main indicators for me are Ali's broken Jaw, and Holmes' testimony of Norton being one of the hardest punchers that he had ever been hit by.. It may not be much, but its at least something. Additionally, 33 Ko's in 42 wins, a 66% Ko ratio, and over fighters who on average were much larger in size, has to count for something as well.

[OLD FOGEY]

I think most would agree with this statement, however 2 fights in a career consisting of some 71 matches does not represent much of a trend. Especially when the wins in question are against men who were both 180 lbs and one of whom took Walcott the distance on 3 occasions. I also think that Charles' elusiveness is commonly mistaken for durability when in fact, I think he was just simply very difficult to land flush on.

As for Norton, his power is difficult to gauge. His KO wins as you say, came mainly against mediocre comp while the men who took him the distance were fighters who could have gone to the cards with anyone, ie. ( Ali, Holmes, Young, Cobb, etc. ) I think the extent of his true punching capabilities falls somewhere inbetween.

I think that the main indicators for me are Ali's broken Jaw, and Holmes' testimony of Norton being one of the hardest punchers that he had ever been hit by.. It may not be much, but its at least something. Additionally, 33 Ko's in 42 wins, a 66% Ko ratio, and over fighters who on average were much larger in size, has to count for something as well.

"Ali's broken jaw"

Puffed up lightheavy Marty Marshall broke Sonny Liston's jaw. Things like broken jaws could be a freak thing. It is a good point but I don't find it convincing.

The percentage is a better argument, but I posted why I don't think the size of the opposition is definitive by any means. It is one thing to look at, but not the most important by any means. Lightheavies such as Moore and Satterfield actually had far higher knockout percentages against over 200 lb men.

It is tough to judge two such different fighters from eras so far apart. I think most would agree that Walcott really had to stop his opponents. Norton fought in the era of the referee intervening to save a man from punishment. In the tank towns in the thirties in which Walcott was fighting, the referee would probably have let an outright murder go on. This might be a reason Walcott often didn't score a knockout even when he had a man hurt. He was poor and he had a family to support. So did the guys he was fighting. No one wanted someone to get badly hurt.

[Minotauro]

Found this vid thought you guys might find it interesting.
j0yJB9U9lJA

[MRBILL]

This got me thinking when someone chose norton in another thread.

1. I did some research, outside of mediocre duane bobick, Ken Norton never even FLOORED a Ring Magazine top 10 fighter. Ultimatley he did not carry his power up to the world class level. Walcott on the otherhand displays bigger displays of power on film than Norton, knocking out and knocking down hall of famer world class fighters multiple times, and all walcott needed was one punch to knock you out. Norton did not have that kind of one punch power.

Back in 2003 Ring Magazine made a top 100 punchers of all time list, Walcott came in at # 63, norton DID NOT make the list

Both had some impressive knockouts over journeyman...but lets see how they did once they stepped up

Nortons best knockouts

TKO 1 Duane Bobick- Ring Magazine top 10
TKO 5 Jerry Quarry- Fat out of shape 207lb with a drug problem taking this fight on one weeks notice. Quarry was NOT in the ring magazine top 10 at the time of this fight.
TKO 5 Jose Luis Garcia- NOT in the top 10 anymore
KO 5 Ron Stander- NOT in the top 10


Walcotts best knockouts

KO 7 Ezzard Charles- Ended a 3 year winning streak and ended Charles long reigning heavyweight crown with one perfect punch
KO 3 Harold Johnson- Hall of Famer and top 10 Ring Magazine at the time
KO 10 Hatchetman Sheppard- Top 10 Ring Magazine
TKO 3 Tommy Gomez- Top 10 Ring Magazine


Norton flooring Ring Magazine Top 10

Duane Bobick 1x

The other Ring Magazine top 10 he fought Ali 3x, Holmes, Young, Foreman, Garcia 1st time, Ledoux, Shavers, Cooney....HE NEVER FLOORED ANY OF THESE MEN


Now Walcott Flooring Ring Magazine top 10

Rocky Marciano, Joe Louis 3x, Harold Johnson, Elmer Ray 3x, Jimmy Bivins, Joey Maxim, Lee Oma, Hatchetman Sheppard, Ezzard Charles, Omelio Agramonte 3x, Tommy Gomez,


Walcott holds the clear edge here Flooring 11 different Ring Magazine top 10 heavyweight contenders, to Norton's 1. Walcott also knocked down 5 different Hall of Famers while norton knocked down ZERO hall of famers.

Sure.. This all looks good on paper, but we need to discuss who delivered their punches better........... Walcott was a cutie who threw sneaky type of punches..... Walcott had a great left-hook and a sharp right hand.... Walcott was great, however, poorly managed early on in the 1940s......:D

Ken Norton was a stand up guy who pressed forward dragging that right leg of his... In terms of a jab, Norton had a ram-rod... And Norton also owned a wicked overhand right, too........... But Norton wasn't a cutie or very sneaky..... He was awkward....:hey

So, who punches harder? Hell if I know...... A toss-up..... Walcott had a harder hook, while Norton's jab was stiffer.......:yep

SR.BILL:bbb

[Sonny Carson]

They hit egually as hard as the other. Neither was feather fisted at all.

[MrMarvel]

They hit egually as hard as the other. Neither was feather fisted at all.

So are you saying that Walcott was weak in being able to actually connect with a punch? That seems at odds with the claims that he was superb boxer.

See, if he was such a good boxer, and he was a world class puncher, then his ko percentage should be more than significantly less than half. But it isn't. Either that means that he wasn't a world class puncher OR he wasn't very adept at landing punches. Which is it?

[TheGreatA]

Here's what Eddie Futch said about Norton:

"I thought it was a fight Bobick could win," a perplexed Futch admitted ruefully, "and Norton wasn't a big puncher, except with the uppercut."

His second trainer Bill Slayton:

"That's what I have to keep telling him," Slayton says. "After he knocked out Duane Bobick in one round, he came out thinking he was a big puncher. Well, he isn't. If I let him think that, he'll get wild again, and then, oh, Lord, we'll have problems."

[djanders]

I voted for Jersey Joe. :bbb

[MrMarvel]

Who talked two-thirds of Norton's victims into laying down for him? How much were they paid? That's impressive.

[TheGreatA]

Who talked two-thirds of Norton's victims into laying down for him? How much were they paid? That's impressive.

Well a lot of those opponents were pretty much brought there to be knocked out. He had hardly fought a live body until he faced Ali, aside from JL Garcia (who KO'd him) and Henry Clark (one of Norton's most impressive KO wins).

Even then he went the distance with most of the durable journeymen he fought.

From 1974 to 1978 he stopped most of the men he fought. I've seen those fights and aside from the Bobick fight in which he landed overhand right after overhand right on Bobick's unprotected face, most of them were by attrition with his opponents just not being able to deal with the pace Norton set.

On film Walcott looks like the more dangerous puncher to me even though Norton was bigger. Lets not forget too that Walcott was essentially a counter puncher while Norton was more of a pressure fighter.

[leverage]

Walcott punched harder. His left hook was an outstanding punch and he had a good right as well. Norton, unlike walcott, had no one particular punch that stood out.

[prime]

Well, an aging Walcott floored Rocky Marciano with a sweet left hook within one minute; late in the fight he again had Rock in trouble. Norton never staggered Larry Holmes over 15 rounds though he hit him with everything but the kitchen sink.

I am impressed by Walcott's upper-body build, too, by the way.

On the other hand, few men hurt Ali like Norton did: man, he broke the man's jaw and made him crouch in pain from a body punch, feats that sound much more natural for a Liston or Foreman.

It's close, but I'm going with Arnold.

[prime]

By the way, a word of commendation for those who stuck up for decency here vis-a-vis the family insults. We all make mistakes and I sincerely hope there is an apology down the line. I've just grown to appreciate this place a bit more.

[MRBILL]

Styles make fights........ Liston and Foreman were HARDER punchers than Ken Norton, but it is true that Norton hurt Ali more so than Liston or Foreman ever did.. Norton either rattled Ali or rocked him good.... I recall Norton had Ali double over for a brief moment in rd. 5 at Yankee Stadium from a rib shot.... Norton had good power, but not really wicked power......

I say the same about Joe Walcott as well...... Good power that could hurt you if caught flush or by surprise, but not truly wicked power...... Walcott was a good puncher.......

MR.BILL

[Mendoza]

Walcott is not all that impressive as a puncher. His critics have brought up some good points. However, Norton never scored an impressive ko in my judgement. Quarry was going back and obviously out of shape. I don't think Bobick was all that much. He never beat a top man and was blown out early not only by Norton but by Knoetze and Tate. Zanon had a glass jaw. Stander no defense. All these men were stopped rather frequently (Quarry 6 in 66 fights-Stander 9 in 61, etc).

I do think Walcott's ko's of Charles and Johnson are more impressive than anything Norton accomplished.

Well remember Norton was in there with Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Quarry, and Young. These guys hard to stop. I do not think Walcott would stop either them either. In fact did Walcott ever Ko a man with better durability than Quarry?

I think its fair to say the top fighters of the 1970's had better durability and size in comparing with the top fighters that Walcott faced. That at the glove size / weight differences were clearly in Walcotts favor to score a higher KO%.

Yet when we tally it all up, Norton has a hight KO% despite facing more durable elite lever fighters.

While Walcott's KO over Chalres was a historic perfect shot, wasn't the Johnson KO as fishy? If I recall, the papers said Johnson collapsed without being hit, and had some injury going into the fight. Is this fight on film for us to judge?

[mr. magoo]

I think its fair to say the top fighters of the 1970's had better durability and size in comparing with the top fighters that Walcott faced. That at the glove size / weight differences were clearly in Walcotts favor to score a higher KO%.

Yet when we tally it all up, Norton has a hight KO% despite facing more durable elite lever fighters.




I agree with this, and in fact have argued the same points until I am blue in the face. But, apparently this is a topic that will never be agreed upon here.

[Bokaj]

Well remember Norton was in there with Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Quarry, and Young. These guys hard to stop. I do not think Walcott would stop either them either. In fact did Walcott ever Ko a man with better durability than Quarry?

I think its fair to say the top fighters of the 1970's had better durability and size in comparing with the top fighters that Walcott faced. That at the glove size / weight differences were clearly in Walcotts favor to score a higher KO%.

Yet when we tally it all up, Norton has a hight KO% despite facing more durable elite lever fighters.

I think you make a good point.

[JohnThomas1]

There is no need to get so nasty here. I I repeat again and again, the rep this board has through out the internet community is that there is a bunch of hot headed, childish assholes here and that is why so many great posters do not show up.

I think you've got this board mixed up with the General one, unless you mean the ESB forums full stop. Regardless what you described is anything but this forum. Suzie's post was also anything but the norm for both the forum and himself and completely out of character. I'm not sure if he has posted since but i am confident he will come in and make things right in his own good time.

As for the topic, i think it is very very close myself. I'll go the splinters option at this stage.

[TheGreatA]

People aren't taking into account their differing styles.

Walcott was less likely to score a stoppage with his style even though he knocked down/hurt most of the men he fought.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[Duodenum]

Norton broke Ali's jaw because Muhammad had an impacted wisdom tooth at the location where Ken's right connected. Furthermore, Ali's big mouth was opened as he was in the process of delivering his characteristic rap. Ali himself hyped how Norton broke his jaw for their rematches, but it really was a fluke occurrance. If Muhammad had had that wisdom tooth removed prior to their first battle, Norton's reputation for punching power would be considerably diminished. The fact remains that even with Ali's jaw broken through most of their match in San Diego, Norton still wasn't able to stop him.

Ken took Garcia down for the count in their rematch with a hook to the body, buckled Ali's left leg with a scorching bodyshot in Inglewood, and starched cruiserweight prospect Randy Stephens with a single right hand. But Norton hit Scott LeDoux with everything for eight rounds to no avail, and his body attack wasn't sufficient for halting Jimmy Young.

Louis was coming off a devastating win over Mauriello when Walcott became the only man to drop the Bomber more than twice. His knockout of Charles is one for the ages. Nobody else was able to drop Marciano until Rocky was at the end of his career. As Marciano was challenging for the title, the Rock figures to have been peaking for this one, yet Jersey Joe hooked him to the floor very quickly.

Walcott's lower knockout percentage can be attributed to the better coached, more highly skilled and experienced caliber of opposition in that era which he often faced, and also the result of performance compromising privations he was sometimes handicapped by earlier in his career. Jersey Joe was also adept at playing the cutie, frequently choosing to outbox his foes.

I think Norton's power is a little overrated. I voted for Walcott.

[Bokaj]

Norton broke Ali's jaw because Muhammad had an impacted wisdom tooth at the location where Ken's right connected. Furthermore, Ali's big mouth was opened as he was in the process of delivering his characteristic rap. Ali himself hyped how Norton broke his jaw for their rematches, but it really was a fluke occurrance. If Muhammad had had that wisdom tooth removed prior to their first battle, Norton's reputation for punching power would be considerably diminished. The fact remains that even with Ali's jaw broken through most of their match in San Diego, Norton still wasn't able to stop him.

You should also note that Norton hurt Ali several times in their two subsequent fights, something that not many have done. He never reacted to a body blow as he did to the one he received from Norton in the rubber match.

[MrMarvel]

Louis was coming off a devastating win over Mauriello when Walcott became the only man to drop the Bomber more than twice.

Max Schmelling didn't knock Louis down twice? Or am I misunderstanding your point? At any rate, Louis was knocked down a lot in career. It's not a significant accomplishment to knock down Joe Louis. Moreover, Louis looked terrible in that fight. Norton would have put him away had he been in there that night. Louis could count on poor opposition in remaining upright after his knockdowns. If Louis had been fighting in the 1970s, he chin would not have carried very far.

Walcott's lower knockout percentage can be attributed to the better coached, more highly skilled and experienced caliber of opposition in that era which he often faced

This claim is contradicted by historical fact. The idea that this was an era of better coached, more highly skilled and experienced caliber of opposition, or that Walcott faced such a calibre of opposition, is ridiculous. The 1940s heavyweights would have little success against the caliber of opposition Norton faced.

Walcott was a journeyman. Norton wasn't.

[janitor]

[quote=MrMarvel;3954018]Max Schmelling didn't knock Louis down twice? Or am I misunderstanding your point? At any rate, Louis was knocked down a lot in career. It's not a significant accomplishment to knock down Joe Louis.

It should be noted that apart from Walcott, only Schmeling (another champion) did it multiple times.

Moreover, Louis looked terrible in that fight. Norton would have put him away had he been in there that night.

Louis would have to be about 60 before Norton would take him and even then he would have a punchers chance.


Louis could count on poor opposition in remaining upright after his knockdowns. If Louis had been fighting in the 1970s, he chin would not have carried very far.


How many fighters in the 70s were significantly better than the guys Louis's chin was tested against?

Foreman, Frazier maybe?

Ali obviously but he was not really a puncher.

The rest of the bunch were no more dangerous to a chin than Schmeling or Baer.


This claim is contradicted by historical fact. The idea that this was an era of better coached, more highly skilled and experienced caliber of opposition, or that Walcott faced such a calibre of opposition, is ridiculous. The 1940s heavyweights would have little success against the caliber of opposition Norton faced.


You have to look at the whole era not just the three best fighters.

There are not great challengers like Frazier or Foreman but there were a whole heap of verry good heavyweights. You wouldnt have got Chuck Wepner cracking the top 10.


Walcott was a journeyman. Norton wasn't.


What exactly do you mean by that?

If you mean that he worked as a journeyman at one point in his career then he was, as were Jack Johnson and Jack Dempsey. As Joe Louis would have been if Roxborough had not walked into his gym an offered to conduct the first ever speculative investment with a young fighter.

Prety much everybody served their aprenticeship as a journeyman before the war because it was the only way you could get financial backing.

[markedwardscott]

Norton probably hit harder but Walcott had better timing and placement of shots.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[OLD FOGEY]

Well remember Norton was in there with Ali, Holmes, Foreman, Quarry, and Young. These guys hard to stop. I do not think Walcott would stop either them either. In fact did Walcott ever Ko a man with better durability than Quarry?

I think its fair to say the top fighters of the 1970's had better durability and size in comparing with the top fighters that Walcott faced. That at the glove size / weight differences were clearly in Walcotts favor to score a higher KO%.

Yet when we tally it all up, Norton has a hight KO% despite facing more durable elite lever fighters.

While Walcott's KO over Chalres was a historic perfect shot, wasn't the Johnson KO as fishy? If I recall, the papers said Johnson collapsed without being hit, and had some injury going into the fight. Is this fight on film for us to judge?


"I think it's fair to say the top fighters of the 1970's had better durability . . . compared with the top fighters that Walcott faced."

Well, what do the records actually say:

Ko's by per fight of top men Norton stopped:

Henry Clark-----3-50 (1 per 17 fights)
Boone Kirkman-----5-42 (1 per 8 fights)
Jerry Quarry-----6-66 (1 per 11 fights)
Jose Luis Garcia-----6-40 (1 per 6.5 or so)
Ron Stander-----9-61 (1 per less than 7)
Larry Middleton-----4-35 (1 per 9)
Duane Bobick-----4-52 (1 per 13)
Lorenzo Zanon-----5-36 (1 per 7)

Ko's by per fight of top men Walcott stopped:

Ezzard Charles-----7-119 (1 per 17 fights)
Harold Johnson-----5-87 (1 per 17.5 fights)
Johnny Shkor-----4-51 (1 per 13)
Omelio Agramonte-----7-65 (1 per 9)
Olle Tandberg-----1-30 (1 per 30)
Tommy Gomez-----5-88 (1 per 17.5)
Curtis Sheppard-----5-87 (1 per 17.5)
Steve Dudas-----5-86 (1 per 17)
Elmer Ray-----7-96 (1 per 15)
Willie Reddish-----3-55 (1 per 18)

Walcott clearly stopped men who were on the whole tougher to stop than the men Norton stopped.

As for Quarry, he was not particularly tough to stop with 6 stoppages in 66 fights.

It is true Norton fought some very hard to stop men--Ali, Foreman, Young, Cobb--but he didn't stop or come close to stopping any of them. Walcott also fought some hard to stop men--Baksi, Maxim, Louis. He at least had Louis and Maxim off their feet.

Fighting tough men and not stopping them is certainly no argument at all for punching power. Tiger Jones did not stop Gavilan, Robinson, and Fullmer. They indeed were tough to stop. On the other hand, Jones was not much of a puncher, the durability of these men aside.

size--this is the fall back position. Big men supposedly can really take it, but there is no evidence at all for that in history. If there is, give me such evidence. I would also point out that the difference in size of top men of the seventies and the forties is not nearly as much as you are making out. Walcott was as big as Quarry. Norton was no bigger on the whole than Louis, Baksi, Murray, Blunt, Comiskey, Valdes, Baker, Hart, Tandberg, Ten Hoff, Peaks, Shkor, Rivera and a whole slew others who were rated in the late forties or early fifties.

On the other hand, Norton, Ali, Liston, Frazier, and Holmes were much smaller than Lennox Lewis and Vitali Klitschko. The heavyweight division has grown more since the 1970's than it did in the 1940 to 1970 era.

Just as an aside, Ali went 56-5 in 61 fights. I think both Lennox Lewis and Vitali Klitschko do better than that against those 61 opponents.

[groove]

yes so they can miss 3 1/2 years at their peak and comeback and do it like ali. ali lost 3 of his last 4 fights. walcott is not stopping ali or holmes.

[OLD FOGEY]

yes so they can miss 3 1/2 years at their peak and comeback and do it like ali. ali lost 3 of his last 4 fights. walcott is not stopping ali or holmes.


They can take 5 years off in my judgement and come back to beat the 195 to 205 lb Quarry, Bonavena, and Frazier, plus the 189 lb Ellis and the lightheavy Foster. These guys are not big enough to beat them at any point. Five to nine inches in height and forty to fifty pounds in weight will decide those fights.

[groove]

words are cheap. that's why you don't see fighters like prince naseem coming back. once he got back in the gym he knew he couldn't get back into the fighting shape he was in before stopping. trainers like Cus knew the reality of the situation after a long exile away. you can comeback but you will have lost something and won't ever be as good. old foreman could rely on his power. depends on styles - that's why boxers can beat big punchers or bigger men. bigger and slower punching guys don't bother Ali. speed kills as pacman just showed v hatton.

[OLD FOGEY]

words are cheap. that's why you don't see fighters like prince naseem coming back. once he got back in the gym he knew he couldn't get back into the fighting shape he was in before stopping. trainers like Cus knew the reality of the situation after a long exile away. you can comeback but you will have lost something and won't ever be as good. old foreman could rely on his power. depends on styles - that's why boxers can beat big punchers or bigger men. bigger and slower punching guys don't bother Ali. speed kills as pacman just showed v hatton.

"bigger and slower punching guys don't bother Ali"

Ali didn't fight anyone remotely as big and skilled as Vitali or Lewis. Foreman was only 220 when he fought him. Liston 218. Both men are shorter, much shorter in Liston's case, and Foreman no where near as skilled.

[hhascup]

"bigger and slower punching guys don't bother Ali"

Ali didn't fight anyone remotely as big and skilled as Vitali or Lewis. Foreman was only 220 when he fought him. Liston 218. Both men are shorter, much shorter in Liston's case, and Foreman no where near as skilled.

The same thing can be said about Vitali or Lewis, they never faced anyone remotely as good as Ali.

[MrMarvel]

The skills of Foreman and Liston are superior to thoses of Vitali and Lewis. Vitali-Lewis looked like two lumbering giants flailing at each other. Watch Foreman's destructions of Frazier and Norton. Foreman expertly cuts off the ring, sets up his punches, nails his opponents with pinpoint textbook punches. It's scary. Liston was technically even better. During his reign, experts remarked on how Liston's offensive skill was the equal of Louis'. Just because Ali made them look slow and clumsy says something about how great Ali was.

I am genuinely surprised anybody would actually claim that Vitali or Lewis was on the same skill level as Foreman and Liston. It's so obviously wrongheaded that it raises serious questions about that person's overall judgment. Or was the remark trolling? If so, good work, 'cause it sure got me excited.

[Bummy Davis]

Walcott hit harder, he dropped great fighters, Norton was a awkward punchers and but I dont recall having any clean KO's, even Duane Bobick who was a strait up fighter as a pro was acumulation if you want to see Bobick getting KO'd watch his fight vs Kallie Knotezee.....JJwalcott had a pefect pinpiont power punch, sneaky clean and to the point and he could do it with either hand...no contest Walcott hit harder

[OLD FOGEY]

The skills of Foreman and Liston are superior to thoses of Vitali and Lewis. Vitali-Lewis looked like two lumbering giants flailing at each other. Watch Foreman's destructions of Frazier and Norton. Foreman expertly cuts off the ring, sets up his punches, nails his opponents with pinpoint textbook punches. It's scary. Liston was technically even better. During his reign, experts remarked on how Liston's offensive skill was the equal of Louis'. Just because Ali made them look slow and clumsy says something about how great Ali was.

I am genuinely surprised anybody would actually claim that Vitali or Lewis was on the same skill level as Foreman and Liston. It's so obviously wrongheaded that it raises serious questions about that person's overall judgment. Or was the remark trolling? If so, good work, 'cause it sure got me excited.

What that post said is that Liston and Foreman were not as BIG AND SKILLED. Liston is 30 to 40 pounds lighter and inches shorter. Foreman was quite a bit smaller in his prime in the seventies also, and I don't think he was as skilled. Good boxers outboxed him. How many have outboxed Vitali or Lewis.