Ken Norton vs Jersey Joe Walcott

[Monzon]

Who Wins????

[janitor]

While Jersey Joe Walcott was by far the greater fighter in my opinion I think that Norton might have had the ideal style to beat him.

[PetethePrince]

While Jersey Joe Walcott was by far the greater fighter in my opinion I think that Norton might have had the ideal style to beat him.

Could your further elaborate? Is it because he did well when going forward? Is it his counter-punching style?

I think you can make a case for Norton, however I favor Jersey Joe. Stylistically, Norton does and likes coming forward and he is a counter puncher but Jersey Joe is incredibly unpredictable and dangerous in both avoiding and hitting. If Jersey gets too cute it could be lights out for him. I do, however, ever so slightly favor Walcott's durability. Any mention of him being KOed 6 times or half the fights in the early 30's when he was starving would only prove your ignorance, not mine.

I'll Pick Jersey Joe by a comfortably close decision. I'm not sure how Norton deals with Jersey Joe's style. He's the absolute master at feinting (The ultimate way to beat a counter-puncher) and his crab-sand dance would give him fits I believe.

[anarci]

Norton to big for him and i think he knocks out jersey joe in 6 rounds.however pound for pound id go with jersey joe ,if he was a couple inches taller and 30 lbs heavier he would have knocked out norton

[PetethePrince]

Norton to big for him and i think he knocks out jersey joe in 6 rounds.however pound for pound id go with jersey joe ,if he was a couple inches taller and 30 lbs heavier he would have knocked out norton

Norton only really has 15 or so pounds on him.

I have Valuev beating both because of the sheer size difference. Same with Williard and Carnera but P4P I'd give it to Joe and Norton.

[anarci]

Ken norton weighed 220 against holmes and jersey joe weighed 194 against ezzard charles, norton was 6-3 to walcott6-0. But once your say 215 and up your big enought to fight bigger guys like carnea,willard or valeuv ,norton would easily beat those guys,i mean if chageuv or an ancient holyfield could nearly beat him think what norton would do.jersey joe would dominate todays cruiser weights though. Also back to the size issue as i was saying look at all the best heavys of all time they werent real giants in stature. Even of the last say 40 years ali 63 215 foreman 6-31/2 217 (against fraizer) holmes 6-3 209 against norton tyson 5-11 220 holyfield 62 210 not until lennox and the klitchkos have we seen real big guys

[anarci]

As i ve been posting i have also been watching marciano vs walcott i on espn classic the block buster about marciano

[PetethePrince]

Ken norton weighed 220 against holmes and jersey joe weighed 194 against ezzard charles, norton was 6-3 to walcott6-0. But once your say 215 and up your big enought to fight bigger guys like carnea,willard or valeuv ,norton would easily beat those guys,i mean if chageuv or an ancient holyfield could nearly beat him think what norton would do.jersey joe would dominate todays cruiser weights though. Also back to the size issue as i was saying look at all the best heavys of all time they werent real giants in stature. Even of the last say 40 years ali 63 215 foreman 6-31/2 217 (against fraizer) holmes 6-3 209 against norton tyson 5-11 220 holyfield 62 210 not until lennox and the klitchkos have we seen real big guys

Okay that's quite a ramble. 215+ is the magic number to beat the big guys. But for Jersey Joe who may weigh 15-20 pounds less that's too much? That's consistent. I guess Dempsey fell out of that label with destroying Williard. Norton was 212 in the first Ali fight. Jersey Joe prime weight would be around the mid to high 190's. The 3 inches in height help Norton be a bit heavier. But technical and in terms of boxing skills Jersey Joe is definitely superior.

[Quick Cash]

Jersey Joe is the more complete specimen, but seeing as Norton is particularly well-guarded against most jabs and also relatively well-schooled in in-fighting, I think he can compete favorably alongside the slicker Joe in gruelling physical contest.

I see Kenny bulling his way forward while Walcott set the pace for him early on; most of the incoming jabs would be picked off by that protective right he stuck out the side of his face. The outside battle, I imagine, would be quite even with Walcott slightly the busier, but no more effective, with probing jabs.

On the inside, Norton's superior strength serves him well in working the body. Walcott would try to contain the attack while also sneaking a few blows to the head now and then.

Regarding the issue of size, I actually think it is better for Walcott that he's coming in as the shorter man. The few inches in difference might be of some help in slipping Norton's overhand right. To compare, Ali and Holmes, both roughly the same size as Norton, failed to consistently dodge the overhand right where Walcott, the smaller man, might simply duck under and counter with a right and a left.

If pushed I will go with a split decision in favor of Norton based on styles.

[anarci]

okay that's quite a ramble. 215+ is the magic number to beat the big guys. But for jersey joe who may weigh 15-20 pounds less that's too much? That's consistent. I guess dempsey fell out of that label with destroying williard. Norton was 212 in the first ali fight. Jersey joe prime weight would be around the mid to high 190's. The 3 inches in height help norton be a bit heavier. But technical and in terms of boxing skills jersey joe is definitely superior. ok as for willard,dempsey your talking about a guy in willard who probably would be a clubfighter today against dempsey who would be a champ today at cruiser so the differance in class is obvious,but dempsey would not do well today against a quality big heavyweight

[mcvey]

Jersey Joe is the more complete specimen, but seeing as Norton is particularly well-guarded against most jabs and also relatively well-schooled in in-fighting, I think he can compete favorably alongside the slicker Joe in gruelling physical contest.

I see Kenny bulling his way forward while Walcott set the pace for him early on; most of the incoming jabs would be picked off by that protective right he stuck out the side of his face. The outside battle, I imagine, would be quite even with Walcott slightly the busier, but no more effective, with probing jabs.

On the inside, Norton's superior strength serves him well in working the body. Walcott would try to contain the attack while also sneaking a few blows to the head now and then.

Regarding the issue of size, I actually think it is better for Walcott that he's coming in as the shorter man. The few inches in difference might be of some help in slipping Norton's overhand right. To compare, Ali and Holmes, both roughly the same size as Norton, failed to consistently dodge the overhand right where Walcott, the smaller man, might simply duck under and counter with a right and a left.

If pushed I will go with a split decision in favor of Norton based on styles.
Strength might be an issue here but not height ,Norton though 3in taller did not fight tall , he came forward in a half crouch.
I haven't made a pick yet .

[Stevie G]

While Jersey Joe Walcott was by far the greater fighter in my opinion I think that Norton might have had the ideal style to beat him.
That sums up my views on this.

[Quick Cash]

Strength might be an issue here but not height ,Norton though 3in taller did not fight tall , he came forward in a half crouch.
I haven't made a pick yet .

All I said was that Norton's right might not land regularly for him as it did on slightly taller fighters. I never commented on Norton's stance and know full well that he fought out of a half-crouch. The fact that his right is aimed high, I said, might give a formidably skilled Walcott more time to adjust and counter since he is shorter and thus farther from a high-arching blow.

[junior-soprano]

if it where pfp it would be jersey joe all the way. but normally i go with norton. way to strong for him (also to big).

[Mendoza]

Norton UD. Walcott wasn't aggressive enough at times, and would have trouble countering bigger puncher with speed and skills.

[Quick Cash]

This notion that Norton is somehow too big for Walcott is ridiculous. Joe Louis presented almost the same physical picture and Walcott beat him the first time.

If Norton should win it would be due to stylistic advantages and not mere size.

[anarci]

Hed be too strong for walcott, norton was a physically bigger man than louis maybe louis hit harder but not as physically strong as norton

[Quick Cash]

Hed be too strong for walcott, norton was a physically bigger man than louis maybe louis hit harder but not as physically strong as norton

Yes, he'd be stronger than Walcott and that's relevant, but Walcott's faced guys like Ray, Louis and Marciano before who are at the very minimum comparable to Norton in strength.

Louis stood 6'2" and weighed around 212 pounds when he came up against Walcott. That's an inch and 5 pounds (if that) separating him from an in-shape Ken Norton-- hardly a huge difference! Strength might contribute to the loss but strength alone is not going to win it.

[janitor]

Hed be too strong for walcott, norton was a physically bigger man than louis maybe louis hit harder but not as physically strong as norton

I am not sure how important physical strength would be against Walcott to be honest.

It also has to be noted that Walcott beat some bigger men than Norton such as Hein Ten Hoff.

[anarci]

Yes you are right but that and the also norton being a very capable fighter would probably be too much for walcott,even though he was only slightly bigger than louis he was a naturally bigger man he fought holmes at 220 and was still ripped

[janitor]

Yes you are right but that and the also norton being a very capable fighter would probably be too much for walcott,even though he was only slightly bigger than louis he was a naturally bigger man he fought holmes at 220 and was still ripped

It should perhaps be noted that Walcott himself was no slouch in the physical strength stakes.

I forgett who it was but one common sparring partner said that the only person he ever faced who was stronger than Walcott was Sonny Liston.

I have picked Norton here for stylistic reasons but I would not discount Walcotts chances against some guys as big as Norton or bigger given the right stylistic dynamic. I would give him a good chance agaionst George Foreman for example.

[abraq]

A difficult pick. This one. True, Norton was taller and heavier. But stronger? By how much? Study some of Jersey Joe's pictures and you might change your mind about Ken being way stronger. Marginally stronger would be a much more accurate definition.

Now Ken had a way with the boxer types. But while he was able to give them loads of trouble, surprisingly he was never able to dominate them. This a fact which no one seems to have noticed. The Ali, Holmes and Young fights all tell the same tale.

Now Walcott was not exactly in the Ali, Holmes or Young mold. Granted that all of them were slick boxers. But while Holmes and Young tried to model themselves on a young Ali, Walcott never heard of Ali when he was coming up!!! Jersey Joe was a real cutie who had his own style. In fact, Ali might have picked up an idea or two from ol' Jersey Joe.

Norton had good success when Ali went to the ropes or when Ali, Holmes or Young tried to jab him. He was not so successful when they were in the centre of the ring moving and boxing him. I feel that Walcott relied on the jab less than Ali and Holmes. Plus, he had more punching power than Ali, Holmes and Young. The punch which decked Marciano would at least rattle a crouching and incoming Norton, don't you think.

A boxer who could cope very well with the punching power, accuarcy and hand speed of Joe Louis should be able to deal with the power of Ken Norton.

And don't let the difference in size here bother you too much. If Jersey Joe had fought in Norton's era he would have been heavier by, say about 7 pounds. So it would ahve been a 205 Walcott vs a 215 lbs Norton. Hardly a huge difference.

By the way, Jersey Joe was comparable in size to Jerry Quarry. Now if you see how well a faded Quarry did against a peak Norton while the fight lasted, you are left thinking what might have been had Quarry been younger with all his qualities intact. Also gives you some ideas about Norton vs Walcott.

I have made up my mind. Joe Walcott close UD over Ken Norton

[Bummy Davis]

Norton had a good style, an aggressive awkward style and I think he gets off to a good start vs the boxing style of JJW However I see Walcott get more comfortable as the the first 3 rds pass and he Drops Norton with a accurate pin point punch in about the 4th. or 1st 3rd of the fight this puts Norton at bay and put joe back on his side to side slip and slide movement...Norton try again to ralley in the 6th and catches Walcott with a few but Joe comes back with a few of his own and start catching Norton with a a few power shots backing up but JJ is content on winning a UD and does not go for the KO...Walcott 7-5 ... 8-4.... 7-4-1 I saw Norton/Young and thought Jimmy edged it but Young did not have the offence WALCOTT had

[MrMarvel]

Norton, likely by knockout, but I won't pick a round.

[The Mongoose]

I favor Walcott by early KO.

Despite being the slickest heavy in history, Walcott seemed to struggle against tough smothering fighters; Layne upset him and Marciano knocked him out after a tough fight. An unorthodox big man, Norton was a great athlete who made up for his lack of huge ko power by frustrating jabbing boxers with his crab stance, pressuring them into close quarter wars where his volume punching would take a toll. In that sense, he is a great match up for Walcott.

Norton busting up Holmes in the Championship rounds.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

But unlike Ali, Young, or even Holmes, Walcott had dangerous two fisted one punch power.

Walcott doesn't let Charles take him to the cards again.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



I think Walcott would know that a 15 round war with Norton would weigh heavily against him and like he did against Marciano, would come out with both guns blazing in search of an early knockout. Can Norton survive the early ambush? I don't know. Norton struggled on the back paddle and was prone to freezing up against aggressive punchers. I think the deceptively heavy handed Walcott stands a good chance of taking him out early. And don't give me that size crap, Norton got KOed by a 180 lb fighter he took too lightly.


Walcott's hot start against the durable Rocky

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[SuzieQ49]

Janitor...It was Willie Reddish. Reddish, Listons trainer said "The two strongest heavyweights I have ever seen were Sonny Liston and Jersey Joe Walcott". Reddish fought Walcott back in 1938.

[Bummy Davis]

I favor Walcott by early KO.

Despite being the slickest heavy in history, Walcott seemed to struggle against tough smothering fighters; Layne upset him and Marciano knocked him out after a tough fight. An unorthodox big man, Norton was a great athlete who made up for his lack of huge ko power by frustrating jabbing boxers with his crab stance, pressuring them into close quarter wars where his volume punching would take a toll. In that sense, he is a great match up for Walcott.

Norton busting up Holmes in the Championship rounds.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

But unlike Ali, Young, or even Holmes, Walcott had dangerous two fisted one punch power.

Walcott doesn't let Charles take him to the cards again.

[Only registered and activated users can see links]



I think Walcott would know that a 15 round war with Norton would weigh heavily against him and like he did against Marciano, would come out with both guns blazing in search of an early knockout. Can Norton survive the early ambush? I don't know. Norton struggled on the back paddle and was prone to freezing up against aggressive punchers. I think the deceptively heavy handed Walcott stands a good chance of taking him out early. And don't give me that size crap, Norton got KOed by a 180 lb fighter he took too lightly.


Walcott's hot start against the durable Rocky

[Only registered and activated users can see links]


you are right if JJW starts fast he has a great chance at stopping Ken early..

[Bummy Davis]

Janitor...It was Willie Reddish. Reddish, Listons trainer said "The two strongest heavyweights I have ever seen were Sonny Liston and Jersey Joe Walcott". Reddish fought Walcott back in 1938.


I met Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Tyson, Patterson,Walcott, Holmes, Dempsey,Tunney and Walcott and I was impressed with Frazier ( square think neck and Walcott, thick neck head shoulders hands....Dempsey was bigger than I thought but old still impressive but Walcott and Frazier did not look normal they were the kind of guys you would have to shoot