Ken Norton

[fists of fury]

The general consensus among most boxing fans is that when discussing the real elite heavyweights of the 70's, one mentions Ali, Frazier and Foreman. Ken Norton is usually regarded as a step below those three.

However, what if:

a) Norton had been given the decision against Ali in their 3rd fight?
b) Had retained the title against Holmes?

Although Norton lost by UD to Ali in 1977, many over the years have since regarded Norton quite unlucky to not get the nod from the judges in the 3rd fight. I did a quick check on boxrec and the official scoring was 8-7, 8-7 and 8-6, all in favour of Ali. Having watched the fight, I think Ali was rather fortunate to retain the title.

A couple of years later, Norton faced Larry Holmes in an epic fight, with Holmes squeaking past Norton by winning the 15th round on all scorecards, a round he needed to win. I have no complaints about this decision, but what if Kenny had done enough to win the last round or two?
Official scoring: 143-142, 143-142, 142-143 Holmes by SD. This was an extremely close fight that could have gone either way

So my question is this: If Norton had just been given a small slice of luck on the scoresheets, he could have beaten Ali twice and Holmes, a future ATG. His fights against both men were very, very close affairs. (Even in the 2nd Ali fight he once again lost by a razor thin margin, and once again it was by split decison.)

What would this have done for his legacy? To have twice beaten Ali and then beaten a young, strong Holmes would be a great achievement in anyone's books. An achievement in my eyes that would firmly propel Norton into a solid top 10 all-time ranking, I believe.

Do you agree or not?

[Seamus]

I had him winning vs Ali III.

Still, he was an A- fighter, so very susceptible to heavy punchers.

[Bokaj]

I still think the fact that he was blasted out not just by Foreman, but also by Cooney and Shavers, would have kept him out. But it's a boxer I really like. To do what he did against Holmes at 34, and after sufffering the great disappointment of losing to Ali when he thought he won, was just great.

[fists of fury]

I still think the fact that he was blasted out not just by Foreman, but also by Cooney and Shavers, would have kept him out.

But say he did win against Ali and Holmes (very possible, considering how close the fights were) don't you think his status would have been considerably elevated? I think a very good case could be made for ranking him ahead of Frazier had he won those fights, imo.

I don't really count the losses to Shavers and Cooney against him. I don't think his heart was really in it anymore.

[Bokaj]

But say he did win against Ali and Holmes (very possible, considering how close the fights were) don't you think his status would have been considerably elevated? I think a very good case could be made for ranking him ahead of Frazier had he won those fights, imo.

I don't really count the losses to Shavers and Cooney against him. I don't think his heart was really in it anymore.

Yes, somewhat. But most still give him a lot of credit for how he performed against those two. For boxing fans I don't think the judges scores are crucial in that matter, even if they do make some difference. Everyone can see for themselves just how great his perfomances were.

But being blasted out by the only three real punchers he met is enough in itself to keep him out of the top 10 IMO. It's hard do rank someone top 10 who has such a poor record against punchers. When it comes to Frazier you can always say that Foreman was one of a kind and that he stylistically was all wrong for Frazier. But if Frazier had been blasted out like that by two other opponents then that argument would fall. I think few would have Joe in the top 10 in that case.

[Mendoza]

The general consensus among most boxing fans is that when discussing the real elite heavyweights of the 70's, one mentions Ali, Frazier and Foreman. Ken Norton is usually regarded as a step below those three.

However, what if:

a) Norton had been given the decision against Ali in their 3rd fight?
b) Had retained the title against Holmes?

Although Norton lost by UD to Ali in 1977, many over the years have since regarded Norton quite unlucky to not get the nod from the judges in the 3rd fight. I did a quick check on boxrec and the official scoring was 8-7, 8-7 and 8-6, all in favour of Ali. Having watched the fight, I think Ali was rather fortunate to retain the title.

A couple of years later, Norton faced Larry Holmes in an epic fight, with Holmes squeaking past Norton by winning the 15th round on all scorecards, a round he needed to win. I have no complaints about this decision, but what if Kenny had done enough to win the last round or two?
Official scoring: 143-142, 143-142, 142-143 Holmes by SD. This was an extremely close fight that could have gone either way

So my question is this: If Norton had just been given a small slice of luck on the scoresheets, he could have beaten Ali twice and Holmes, a future ATG. His fights against both men were very, very close affairs. (Even in the 2nd Ali fight he once again lost by a razor thin margin, and once again it was by split decison.)

What would this have done for his legacy? To have twice beaten Ali and then beaten a young, strong Holmes would be a great achievement in anyone's books. An achievement in my eyes that would firmly propel Norton into a solid top 10 all-time ranking, I believe.

Do you agree or not?

I have Norton in my top 20, and I think he did beat Ali at least TWICE. I do think Holmes edged Norton, but considering this was a prime Holmes, the loss helps one place Norton. If Norton had beaten Holmes in the eyes of the majority of the fans, and all judges, then yes, I think he would move up to the top ten. Two wins over Ali, a win over Holmes, mixed in with a win over the Young who beat Foreman, Quarry, and Bobbick.

For whatever reason, Norton gets blasted for losing via early KO, but some other fighters in the top 20, such as Johnson, and Frazier do not. Norton doesn't seem to get any excuses for starting boxing at a later age either.

I also have the hunch most fans have not seen Norton's vs Quarry, Stander, Bobbick, Holmes, and Ali. Norton's fights are seldom replayed. Where I live, only the Quarry and Foreman fights are replayed.

[fists of fury]

Fair point Bokaj.

I'd say though, that those decisions had a massive impact not only on Norton's legacy, but Ali and Holmes' too. A loss would mean Ali lost the series, thus theoretically meeting his 'superior' in the ring, and a more or less prime Holmes lost - against a past-his-best Norton.

As for Norton, well he holds that one win over Ali, but that's it really. Close fights or not, he officially lost the others and the one against Holmes. But a win against both? Wow man, suddenly one could boast about Norton beating two ATG's and getting the better of Ali in a three fight series. To me, that's huge.

[Bokaj]

It is. And one should always remember that when it comes to Norton. That could be the subject of a thread of it's own: Which other fighters would do as well against Ali and Holmes as Norton did?

As you say, it's not that far fetched to say that his record against these two really should be 3-1. That's not bad at all!

[Lobotomy]

Although I agree that Norton won the first fight with Ali, I do think a split decision was a fair reflection of how competitive Muhammad was able to be. Upon reviewing that bout in it's entirety, it's apparent to me that Ali's jaw was indeed broken by Ken's right at 2:48 of round two, and not during round 12 as Futch and Norton claimed. (Through all the remaining rest periods, Ali's corner can be seen to be careful with the left side of his face.) Allegedly, this was able to occur because of the combination of an impacted wisdom tooth, and Muhammad's mouth being open to talk at the moment Kenny connected with that punch.

Would Norton have taken the decision if Ali's jaw had not been broken (and especially so early in the contest)? Possibly, but it certainly affected the complexion of the next ten rounds.

In their second meeting, Norton pursued Ali for the first several rounds, but did hardly any punching. While a split decision was again an accurate reflection of how strongly Ken came back in the latter stages of this one, I'm satisfied that Muhammad deserved the verdict, particularly by virtue of the fact it was scored on the rounds system.

He was very badly outboxed by Holmes over the first ten rounds of their meeting, and I agreed with Mercante that Larry should have had that one locked up in the scorecards entering the championship rounds. Round 15 should not have been the deciding round of that affair. I submit that if the judging went in Norton's favor, that the outcome would have been far more controversial than it was with Holmes winning. (I suspect the judges may have been influence by the urge to validate the WBC's awarding of their championship to Ken. He admitted going in that, "I need a big win.")

Did Jimmy Young deserve the decision in the match which finally resulted in Kenny being declared a champion by the WBC?

If Norton had been awarded the second fight with Ali, he still would have been bludgeoned by Foreman in his next outing for the title. (Anybody who feels Ken was robbed in Inglewood should bear in mind that it was he, not Muhammad, who got the next shot at the title.)

Had Kenny taken the title from Ali in Yankee Stadium, his first defense may well have been a rematch with Foreman, who he'd expressed a willingness to fight again. With compelling stoppage wins over Lyle, Frazier, LeDoux and Denis, Big George certainly would have deserved first crack at Norton, either in late 1976 or early 1977. Does anybody truly believe Kenny could have won that rematch?

Foreman took out Frazier twice. But I rate Joe higher because I believe he could have beaten more of history's other heavyweight champions, was a fighting champion up to the FOTC, and had a slightly more impressive resume than George did during the 1960s and 1970s in my estimation.

If Norton had taken all three decisions from Ali, I'd still rate Muhammad higher because of his wins over opponents like Lyle, Shavers, Foreman, Frazier and Mac Foster, competitors who Ken would be fortunate to touch gloves with at the outset of the final scheduled round.

For my money, Weaver actually has a legacy which surpasses Ken's. No, he didn't beat quite the same caliber of opposition, but he did win and retain a championship for a couple of years, repelling the challenges of a deadly Coetzee in South Africa, and Angelo Dundee's undefeated contender Tillis. Mike proved conclusively that he could win impressively over the true championship distance. The one time Ken was a championship target, he lost.

[mcvey]

The general consensus among most boxing fans is that when discussing the real elite heavyweights of the 70's, one mentions Ali, Frazier and Foreman. Ken Norton is usually regarded as a step below those three.

However, what if:

a) Norton had been given the decision against Ali in their 3rd fight?
b) Had retained the title against Holmes?

Although Norton lost by UD to Ali in 1977, many over the years have since regarded Norton quite unlucky to not get the nod from the judges in the 3rd fight. I did a quick check on boxrec and the official scoring was 8-7, 8-7 and 8-6, all in favour of Ali. Having watched the fight, I think Ali was rather fortunate to retain the title.

A couple of years later, Norton faced Larry Holmes in an epic fight, with Holmes squeaking past Norton by winning the 15th round on all scorecards, a round he needed to win. I have no complaints about this decision, but what if Kenny had done enough to win the last round or two?
Official scoring: 143-142, 143-142, 142-143 Holmes by SD. This was an extremely close fight that could have gone either way

So my question is this: If Norton had just been given a small slice of luck on the scoresheets, he could have beaten Ali twice and Holmes, a future ATG. His fights against both men were very, very close affairs. (Even in the 2nd Ali fight he once again lost by a razor thin margin, and once again it was by split decison.)

What would this have done for his legacy? To have twice beaten Ali and then beaten a young, strong Holmes would be a great achievement in anyone's books. An achievement in my eyes that would firmly propel Norton into a solid top 10 all-time ranking, I believe.

Do you agree or not?
I don't agree,it could be argued that Norton was a little past his best when he came up with that great effort against Holmes ,but it must be remembered that Holmes went into that fight with a damaged muscle in his arm. Irrespective if Norton had one those, admittedly close fights ,he still got blown away early by punchers ,so imo he isnt top 10 material and as his record stand not top 20 or 25 in my view.

[Unforgiven]

The scoring of Holmes-Norton is an odd one. I have only seen the full fight once and never scored it, but most people tell me Holmes should have been clear of Norton after 14 rounds, and not even.

But what I do know is that from where I'm sitting NORTON should have been given the 15th round ! From the film it looks like he's pushing Holmes back, applying the pressure and landing the most punches for AT LEAST 2 minutes of the round. Holmes' only comes on strong in the last 30 or 40 seconds, staggers Norton a bit but not dramatically enough to wipe out what Norton's doing throughout the round, and it looks like Ken took that round to me.

[fists of fury]

Where would you rank him Mcvey? (Ballpark figure.) I don't do lists, but a safe top 40-50 sounds reasonable to me.

PS-Nice post Duo.

[Holmes' Jab]

I've Norton inside my Top 50, for sure. He's usually somewhere in the mid-30's.

[fists of fury]

I could live with a 35-40 spot as well...

[Bummy Davis]

Norton was not a complete fighter. He could not fight a guy with power or pressure. He did well vs the Ali, Holmes type because it was he who put on the pressure and those guys were not real hard punchers...Quarry and others stated that Jerry was on drugs and alchohal and did not train for that fight, he just went in for the payday, Norton was a good fighter but flawed, as far as former champs, he would lose to the punchers and had the style to give the boxers trouble. I have seen all of Kens big fights and his weaknes was he could not back up vs a puncher which was fatal

[abraq]

I feel that the all time ranking of a fighter should depend on his overall record during his prime and not on one win or his performance against a particular fighter only. Otherwise, James "Buster" Douglas should be in the top 10 list of anyone.

Ken Norton fought 7 elite fighters - Ali, Foreman, Quarry, Jimmy Young, Holmes, Shavers and Cooney. IMO his performances against them can be accurately summed up in the following way:

Ali - Norton is 1-2 against Ali. Many feel he should be 2-1. Some even say he should be 3-0, which is wholly unrealistic. But if we look behind the figures, what do we see? Norton got an overweight and ill prepared Ali in the first fight. On top of that he got the huge advantage of breaking Ali's jaw in the second round. Still, what did he manage? A hard fought SD win after 12 rounds.
In the second fight, Ali was well prepared. He won the first five rounds easily when he was up and boxing. Norton got into the picture only when Ali got tired and went to the ropes. However, Ali closed strongly but managed to only get a SD win. IMO this fight was a clear UD win for Ali.
In Ali-Norton III, Ali got into fairly good shape for the fight. That is, 'good shape' for what was possible for him at that stage of his career. Truth is, Ali was just about shot by that time. Many people feel that Norton deserved the decision in this fight. My view is that even the most ardent Muhammad Ali fan cannot argue if someone says that this fight should be a UD win for Norton. That said, I would like to point out one thing. The way Ken Norton performed in that fight. Did he put in a commanding performance? Did he assert himself decisively at any stage? No! What he did was to engage in a close fight with Ali which the judges (unfortunetely for Ken) saw as a UD win for Muhammad.
And remember, Norton was supposed to have a tailor-made style for Ali.

Foreman - After putting up a fair display in the first round, Norton simply got blown away by George in the second round. And that is that. No further comment is necessary.

Quarry - The record book says that Norton stopped Jerry in the 5th round. An impressive entry. But the truth is, Jerry was shot by that time and sang his swan song in that fight. So we can safely say this result does not count for much.

Jimmy Young - Norton decisioned Jimmy over 15 rounds. A great win. But the point is that, it was an extremely closely fought affair and the decision could have gone either way. Proves that Norton was not that much better (if at all) than Young.

Holmes - A very hard fought and exciting fight which Kenny unfortunately lost. "Unfortunate" not because he got a raw deal. He actually deserved to lose. Unfortunate, because in spite of putting in such a stellar performance, and that too at the age of 34, he came up short. One of Norton's best performances.

Shavers & Cooney - Ken got blasted away by both of them in round one. Fact is, he had lost his appetite and was faded at the time of these fights, particularly Cooney. These defeats shouldn't be counted.

Other respectable guys whom Norton met and defeated were Jack O'Halloran - W 10, Henry Clark kot 9, Boone Kirkman - retd. 8 (probably a bit faded) and Duane Bobick - ko 1 (good win).

Interestingly, Norton has a 2-1 win-loss record against Jose Luis Garcia. All fights ended via ko. Norton also has a draw against Scott Ledoux towards the end of his career.

Summing up, we can say that Ken Norton's legacy should be judged from his performances in the following fights:

Ali-2 - hard fought decision loss over 12 rounds.
Foreman - crushing 2nd round knockout loss.
Jimmy Young - hard fought decision win over 15 rounds.
Holmes - hard fought decision loss over 15 rounds.

Doesn't look very convincing, I am afraid.

Top 20? Maybe.

Top 30? Quite likely.

Top 50? Certainly.

[mcvey]

Where would you rank him Mcvey? (Ballpark figure.) I don't do lists, but a safe top 40-50 sounds reasonable to me.

PS-Nice post Duo.
Around 30 -35 I suppose.I think Norton would likely lose to other fighters of his era ,eg ,Lyle, Foster,maybe even Mercado.Earlier guys that would have a decent shot at beating him might be Tommy Gomez,Bob Satterfield,Bob Baker,Nino Valdes.It might appear strange rating Norton so low ,especially as I have Ali at no 1,but every fighter has his bogey man,Ali had Norton,Marciano had Lowery,Dempsey had Meehan.Eddie Futch devised a game plan to beat Ali,,take away his jab,Nortons crab like style with the right foot dragging worked against Ali because Kenny was the aggressor,if you backed him up he was yours.So not an ATG,imo.

[mr. magoo]

I certainly think that if he had benefitted from different judging in the Ali fight, it would have helped his standing a bit having beaten Muhammad two out of three. Would it have elevated him significantly higher? I think it depends on the reaction of the fans and experts. It is likely that most would have written it off as Ali becoming of age, and in any case, most seem to feel that Norton won that fight anyway, yet it doesn't seem to have helped his stock to rise.

As for what might have happened to him if he beat Holmes, well Larry was a relatively unknown quantity at that point, so I guess it depends on what Holmes might have done in hindsite. If he had continued to go on and become the great champion that we all know he became, then it would have improved Norton's standing. If losing to Ken had ruined Larry however, then we would likely have dismissed Holmes as being a never was, and the win would hold far less value.

[mr. magoo]

I feel that the all time ranking of a fighter should depend on his overall record during his prime and not on one win or his performance against a particular fighter only. Otherwise, James "Buster" Douglas should be in the top 10 list of anyone.

Ken Norton fought 7 elite fighters - Ali, Foreman, Quarry, Jimmy Young, Holmes, Shavers and Cooney. IMO his performances against them can be accurately summed up in the following way:

Ali - Norton is 1-2 against Ali. Many feel he should be 2-1. Some even say he should be 3-0, which is wholly unrealistic. But if we look behind the figures, what do we see? Norton got an overweight and ill prepared Ali in the first fight. On top of that he got the huge advantage of breaking Ali's jaw in the second round. Still, what did he manage? A hard fought SD win after 12 rounds.
In the second fight, Ali was well prepared. He won the first five rounds easily when he was up and boxing. Norton got into the picture only when Ali got tired and went to the ropes. However, Ali closed strongly but managed to only get a SD win. IMO this fight was a clear UD win for Ali.
In Ali-Norton III, Ali got into fairly good shape for the fight. That is, 'good shape' for what was possible for him at that stage of his career. Truth is, Ali was just about shot by that time. Many people feel that Norton deserved the decision in this fight. My view is that even the most ardent Muhammad Ali fan cannot argue if someone says that this fight should be a UD win for Norton. That said, I would like to point out one thing. The way Ken Norton performed in that fight. Did he put in a commanding performance? Did he assert himself decisively at any stage? No! What he did was to engage in a close fight with Ali which the judges (unfortunetely for Ken) saw as a UD win for Muhammad.
And remember, Norton was supposed to have a tailor-made style for Ali.

Foreman - After putting up a fair display in the first round, Norton simply got blown away by George in the second round. And that is that. No further comment is necessary.

Quarry - The record book says that Norton stopped Jerry in the 5th round. An impressive entry. But the truth is, Jerry was shot by that time and sang his swan song in that fight. So we can safely say this result does not count for much.

Jimmy Young - Norton decisioned Jimmy over 15 rounds. A great win. But the point is that, it was an extremely closely fought affair and the decision could have gone either way. Proves that Norton was not that much better (if at all) than Young.

Holmes - A very hard fought and exciting fight which Kenny unfortunately lost. "Unfortunate" not because he got a raw deal. He actually deserved to lose. Unfortunate, because in spite of putting in such a stellar performance, and that too at the age of 34, he came up short. One of Norton's best performances.

Shavers & Cooney - Ken got blasted away by both of them in round one. Fact is, he had lost his appetite and was faded at the time of these fights, particularly Cooney. These defeats shouldn't be counted.

Other respectable guys whom Norton met and defeated were Jack O'Halloran - W 10, Henry Clark kot 9, Boone Kirkman - retd. 8 (probably a bit faded) and Duane Bobick - ko 1 (good win).

Interestingly, Norton has a 2-1 win-loss record against Jose Luis Garcia. All fights ended via ko. Norton also has a draw against Scott Ledoux towards the end of his career.

Summing up, we can say that Ken Norton's legacy should be judged from his performances in the following fights:

Ali-2 - hard fought decision loss over 12 rounds.
Foreman - crushing 2nd round knockout loss.
Jimmy Young - hard fought decision win over 15 rounds.
Holmes - hard fought decision loss over 15 rounds.

Doesn't look very convincing, I am afraid.

Top 20? Maybe.

Top 30? Quite likely.

Top 50? Certainly.

I think another OK win that we can ad to Norton's list was the Tex Cobb fight. Yes, it was very close and Ken did not look that impressive, but he was well passed his prime facing a 17-0 contender who had just iced Earnie Shavers.

[sthomas]

The scoring of Holmes-Norton is an odd one. I have only seen the full fight once and never scored it, but most people tell me Holmes should have been clear of Norton after 14 rounds, and not even.

But what I do know is that from where I'm sitting NORTON should have been given the 15th round ! From the film it looks like he's pushing Holmes back, applying the pressure and landing the most punches for AT LEAST 2 minutes of the round. Holmes' only comes on strong in the last 30 or 40 seconds, staggers Norton a bit but not dramatically enough to wipe out what Norton's doing throughout the round, and it looks like Ken took that round to me.

Just watched round 15 the other night and I thought Norton got the better of it or at least a tie

[Lobotomy]

In Ali-Norton III, Ali got into fairly good shape for the fight. That is, 'good shape' for what was possible for him at that stage of his career. Truth is, Ali was just about shot by that time. Many people feel that Norton deserved the decision in this fight. My view is that even the most ardent Muhammad Ali fan cannot argue if someone says that this fight should be a UD win for Norton. That said, I would like to point out one thing. The way Ken Norton performed in that fight. Did he put in a commanding performance? Did he assert himself decisively at any stage? No! What he did was to engage in a close fight with Ali which the judges (unfortunetely for Ken) saw as a UD win for Muhammad.
And remember, Norton was supposed to have a tailor-made style for Ali.Which brings up another question. Who produced the best showing against Ali?

1) Jimmy Young-April 30, 1976

2) Ken Norton-September 28, 1976

3) Earnie Shavers-September 29, 1977

4) Leon Spinks-February 15, 1978

I'll mention at this point that Art Lurie's 143-142 card in favor of Ali over Leon was a splendid example of why the sight impaired should not be hired as boxing judges. At the time, I felt that Lou Tabat's 145-140 for Spinks was an accurate reflection of how Leon produced in that one. A winning margin of four to five points is not exactly a squeaker, and a competent official in place of Lurie would have made that degree of separation unanimous.

Granted Ali was older, but his weight for Leon was reasonable at 224-1/4. Spinks didn't play it safe, worrying about running out of gas late. When Muhammad went into his rope-a-dope, Leon took full advantage, making him pay for it. Carrying out wise old Sam Solomon's instructions, a very smart and aggressive fight plan was executed, not a timid and tentative foray marked with hesitant caution. Leon won with his heart as much as Solomon's strategy.

Did any of Norton's three performances against Ali measure up to Leon's challenge of Muhammad?

[mr. magoo]

Did any of Norton's three performances against Ali measure up to Leon's challenge of Muhammad?

I think we can safely agree that all three of Norton's efforts against Ali were superior to those of Leon Spinks. Ali was years past his prime against Leon ( who albeit was a 7 fight novice ), and he looked horrible in both of those fights as well as the few that recently preceded them. What's more, is that the Ali-Norton trilogy produced three fights in which both men fought at a reasonably good pace and gave galant efforts. The Spink's fights lacked in the same sort of energy, as Muhammad obviously fought them both on cruise control. Spinks did however give a good effort in the first match as you already commented on.

[SuzieQ49]

You know what everyone picks on poor old Dracula, but the man had oustanding textbook boxing skills and movement. You cant take that away from him.

[mr. magoo]

You know what everyone picks on poor old Dracula, but the man had oustanding textbook boxing skills and movement. You cant take that away from him.

Dracula's appearance was enough to stun the hell out of a hoarse, and that alone is enough to bring his legacy way down. Neon Leon was about as close to being retarded as one could get without actually being there. He had potential, but lack of disclipline and the love of the night life ensured that he would never climb to greatness. Frankly, I think that Leon could have benefitted from taking a step back after the Ali fights and steadily built up his record by fighting respectable journeyman and fringe contenders, before once again taking a stab at the elites. Fighting a hard punching Coetzee in only his 10th pro fight was a huge mistake ( easy to say in hindsite though. )

[fists of fury]

Some good replies here, thanks guys.