On paper? Nobody. But for both physical and stylistic reasons this is a bad matchup. I don't think Ken has anything to hurt him with unless you're banking on another cut like the Lewis fight or a freakish injury in the Byrd fight. But two instances in a near 50 bout career isn't enough to convince me that I should bank on Norton. So how about a knockout? well Vitali's chin has stood up to the Artillary of Lennox Lewis, Sam Peter, Corrie Sanders, Ross Purity and Herbie Hide. Does Norton hit harder than these men? Doubtful.. What about a decision then? Sure.. If he can last the full 10 or 12 or 15 round distance without getting stopped or decked too many times, and manage to convincingly outpoint a man who has lost fewer rounds than any heavyweight champion in history. Does Ken find a way to win without having to fight off the back foot ( because he never could ), despite being bullied by a 6'8", 245 lbs giant with good power? Be sure interesting to see if he could.
It's comedy time with you. Briggs wasn't KO'd in a 10+ year span. He became thicker and more durable, and it shows on the films if you see his fights. Klitschko has an all-time KO%, and didn't fight anyone below 200 pounds, and only fought one man with a losing record. He has many championship level fights. Billups to be clear is a journeyman. The reply was geared for racy McVey, who said Lewis finished Briggs sooner. Yes--But Vitali damaged him more. Vitali KO2 over Billups. Lewis took him the distance.
Did Jose Garcia at 188 pounds have explosive power? No, yet he'd KO Norton. Scott Ledoux floored Norton. Neither hit in Vitali's zip code. You're a good poster JT. I hope you don't have sour gr@pes from the Page thread, and incorrectly want to argue for Norton here for the heck of it. Norton did not have a good chin at all vs Punchers. In three fights with Shavers, Foreman, and C00ney, Norton lasted a combined 4 rounds. Norton matched up much better vs boxers. Vitali put on pressure in several fights early. Kirk Johnson and Herbie Hide come to mind.
only when u turn up, but I wont deny myself the laughs u provide. which ten year span? when he fighting dead turkeys in his late30s-40s? that's you you're describing, increasing with every minute passing. hes a bitpart titlist, who has benefitted from tag teaming to extend his reign. so you both destroyed each others evidence using my argument .... so why are you referring to my argument that YOU CLEARLY used, as "comedy"when I use it?. Flop mate.
shavers - rated hardest puncher all time foreman - rated one of most dangerous all time Co.oney his retirement fight what part of you allows yourself to write what you wrote with conviction?
The size difference isn't quite as large as you make out. Vitali was 6'7 with a 79inch reach. Ken was 6'4 with 80inch reach. And out of the two, id say Norton was the better boxer, because of performances against other much better fighters in Ali and Holmes. Did Vitali outbox anyone on their level?
Oh yes it is. Norton is 6'3" Vitali 6'7 1/2. Do you one source that says Norton was 6'4"? Norton best prime weight is 210-220. Vitali's best weight is 245-250 So Norton is giving up 4 1/2 inches in height, and at least 30 pounds. Essentially a 3 weight class jump. As for Vitali's reach, he holds the record on HBO which measures from the pit of the arm to the fist at 29 1/2"., which is even longer than Lennox lewis, who has a reported reach from fingertip to finger tip of 84". Ponder that. Vitali's reach I think is a little understated ( I've seen 80" ) and he's so tall it the other guy losses range when he punches up at the head. For a laugh, someone should post a poll of Vitali vs. Boone Kirkman. The funny part is Dino, HerolGee, and maybe you will be picking Kirkman, even if you don't know who he was!
Its fine for people to pick Ken Norton over Vitali Klitscko, if one really feels he has the tools to pull it off. But to do it ONLY on the basis that he beat Muhammad Ali and for no other reason shows a vast lack of knowledge on both men or how their styles and physical attributes could play a part. I myself have always loved Ken Norton. He was always in outstanding shape. He had a quiet and humble public image. He was willing to mix it up with the best both in victory and defeat and also had a style that worked for him ( most of the time. ) But asking him to beat an opponent for whom most of Ken's weaknesses play right into their hands is a tall order. For all his great attributes, Ken Simply couldn't fight off the back foot. And while I've always believed that his fragility has been exaggerated, he's still not exactly the poster boy for durability. I can't see His crab defense and short range punches being particularly effective against the much larger, stronger, and more durable Vitali Klitscko. Norton did exceptionally well against pure boxers of limited power and in truth Vitali could have used Norton's help on the night he fought Chris Byrd. But when placed in the ring together it would bring about an entirely new set of rules and dynamics.
Chris Byrd was 6'1 with a 74 inch reach, Vitali outweighed Byrd by 40 pounds, did he wipe the floor with him? To think Ken Norton, a much larger and much better fighter than Byrd stands no chance is laughable.
the fcuk it is, you returd. they are both hw, both with similar physical attributes. "essentially a 3 weight jump?" where do you get this crud from, planet K, where they've invented new divisions like superblooberweight. "oh no he cant beat vitali becos...becos....umm hes not a superblooberweight!"
its stood it for at least 6 rounds, but we cant assume it stands for more than it did. therefore hes on par or slightly worse with big frank Bruno in terms of chin, by your surmise.