Moving on , Vitali's resume is equal to the resume of Brian Nielson: Change My Mind! Brian Nielson - Ross Puritty Old Larry Holmes Bonecrusher Smith Tim Witherspoon Phill Jackson Olin Norris Jeremy Williams Lionel Butler Crawford Grimsley Vitali Klitschko - Sam Peter Old Corrie Sanders Chris Arroela Tomaz Adamek Derrick Chisora Danny Williams Herbie Hide There's hardly any difference tbh Furthermore , there was a Vitali Klitschko in the 90's called Jorge Louis Gonzalez. He boxed just like Vitali. Bowe battered him. Listen in , This content is protected
Vitali's chin isn't winning him the fight. We're not talking about a past it and shot Norton here. Vitali is not a better boxer than Ali or Holmes - or nowhere near as good, by huge and insurmountable distances - and his size isn't bridging that gap, which was the point made and totally ignored. You can't address that point so, instead, want to keep focused on a Norton, who was done by '78, at age 35 (no surprise there). Vitali wasn't in the same class as Norton and has nothing on his ledger to demonstrate that he was. Conversely, his losses to the two best opponents he faced indicate Norton has more than a just a good chance. Have a good evening.
Vs Byrd fight he injured his shoulder. How does this fight show that Norton has a chance against him?
The problem I think people have is when they rate Norton among the level of Ali, Frazier and Foreman. Well he never beat Foreman and he never fought Frazier. He presented a style difficulty for Ali. Willie Mehan presented a style difficulty for Jack Dempsey. Tommy Farr presented a style difficulty for Joe Louis. Are we to pick those guys over actual champions for that? I am not a big fan of Vitali. He represents something that could only exist in the modern era. A product only of his time. But the guy was a champion. One who could dominate at the top level. Now you can harp on about one era over another, I get that. And I think it works in so far as the champions are concerned but it shouldn’t where contenders of one era are put ahead of champions of another era. Because Vitali was an actual champion. When he retired Lewis he retired the best heavyweight in the world at that time. Yes he lost that fight. But Vitali retired his ass. He also beat Sanders who beat the the guy who was the seen as the then best guy in the world..who also happened to be vitalis own kid brother. So whatever way you look at it Vitali was legit. Ken never was legit. Foreman retired. Ali was old. And still he couldn’t convincingly beat an old Ali, Jimmy Young or Larry Holmes ...and then he was wiped out by Shavers and Cooney. I don’t care how old he was when Cooney knocked him out, beating Tex Cobb was as good a win as any Norton had without fighting Muhammad Ali. What was Ken’s other big win? Bobick? Quarry? If you look where the guys Norton beat were in the scheme of things at the moment he fought them only the Ali win stands up. And it was not that dominant or that clear at any one of their three meetings. so as good as Ken was, and I respect the decade and how good he had to be to operate at that level, and I fully appreciate he legitimately edged one win over Muhammad Ali when he he was still decent, the guy still never was a champion. Or good enough to be one.
It would seem Norton, win or lose, created a "style difficulty" for several top flight Heavyweights. Add to this that nothing you write above explains why you think Norton would not be a "style difficulty" for Vitali. Surely, that would depend on who they were being matched against? No. Vitali was a Titlist - First, in the shadow of Lewis and Holyfield; later, in the shadow of his brother. For a brief period (less than a year), in between these two title runs, he was considered the man, for having won a vacant belt (Sanders) and defending it once (Williams). This, despite Chris Byrd, his conqueror, parading around with the IBF strap and wanting a rematch. Yet, in all of his title runs, Vitali never unified. But all of this is irrelevant to the thread. Norton performed at a higher level then Vitali. This is as true for the fights Norton lost, as it is for those he won. What hyperbolic nonsense. The only person to retire Lewis, was Lewis. I look at it like this: Sanders was 38, hadn't fought for well over a year since beating Wlad and was a borderline retiree. Legit or no, the standard was low. He convincingly beat an Ali, who was yet to best Foreman. Young made almost anyone look bad and Norton was on the wrong side of his prime, by then. Holmes is a Top-5 ATG - that it was Ken's last Hurrah, making the bout (an all-time great Heavyweight contest in its own right) quite remarkable. Still - funny how you list these names that Norton was not convincing against but have nothing better to offer on Vitali's ledger. It's difficult to consider Vitali's performances against Danny Williams, Sam Peter and Shannon Briggs with any sense of awe. Again, as far as the thread topic goes, Norton's age and when he was and was not at his best are obviously factors in a head-to-head speculation. Dismissing them ignores the thread topic and serves no purpose. Again - where are all the top drawer wins for Vitali? If you genuinely appreciate the decade and how well Norton had to perform to operate at that level, as well as the fact Norton has demonstrable evidence of success at the highest level, then it shouldn't be too difficult for you to realize Norton didn't need to be a Champion to give him a chance against Vitali.
Besides Lewis (who beat him), Vitali has no name win on his record as great as even 1972 Ali (who, as @Man_Machine mentioned, went on to beat Foreman...and Shavers, Lyle, Frazier...)
he did. Ken was a good fighter. Strong. But he traded on being the boss in a fight, in fights where he couldn’t quite establish this he was either outsmarted or put in fine but inconclusive results. I can’t see him establishing the dominant role in a fight against Vitali who even Lennox Lewis struggled to establish such a position against. He was the one fighter who took Lewis to the wire like that. The sacred composure Lewis always maintained was replaced against Vitali by a never seen before desperation Lewis was forced to use in order to succeed. If Norton had that, he needed to bring as much to the table as Lennox Lewis and I know Ken didn’t have that. Ken was a good come forward fighter but I think against Vitali he would fare no better than Danny Williams. precisely. For a brief period Vitali was the man. When was Ken the man? Certainly Ken could have been regarded the best active heavyweight once Ali had withered into a celebrity champion and Frazier and Foreman had retired. But even when given the chance he couldn’t deliver the goods. Ali had declined loads since their first two fights yet still Ken couldn’t pull away and make a dominant win out of a golden opportunity. The Jimmy Young fight was not conclusive. The walloping against Shavers and Foreman were either side of this period where he should have shone. but he did win title fights. Ken never won a title fight. Lennox Lewis would not have retired had he blew Vitali out with ease. He retired because he nearly drowned in the deep water Vitali took him into. He was relieved to come out of that match with a win. I agree the standard was low when you put it like that but Sanders would have been wrong for Ken Norton in any carnation. I imagine Sanders as a much harder hitting, southpaw version of Larry Middleton ...who gave Norton fits. they were all close fights. Ken was legitimately good enough to deserve one win among a series but there is nothing convincing about a win among three close fights that all could have went either way. This was his time to shine against a guy less good than an old Muhammad Ali. I agree. This was not a strong time. But I feel Ken would have struggled more than Vitali had against these men. certainly he has a chance against Vitali, especially if Vitali had of developed in an era with only what was available to Ken Norton as he developed. I have said this already. As a modern fighter who could only have existed as he did in the time he fought well that is a different matter. I believe the 1976-1978 era where Ken was most prominent was not especially strong period. Ali had become a weak champion after the final Frazier fight. Jimmy Young, admittedly a difficult operator, still should not have bothered a genuinely well prepared world champion level fighter. Especially when Ossie Ocasio could beat him. Shavers was merely a dangerous puncher but limited in most respects. Only Holmes represented anything close to an obstacle for somebody good enough to have beaten a still decent Ali in 1973.
Norton has a vastly superior, faster jab, overhand right, a great left hook and uppercut. How does Vitali outsmart Norton? VK does not have the speed, punch-variation and combinations of even an old Ali, a prime Young or a prime Holmes. He has next to nothing on the inside. He is relatively static and really quite predictable. That predictability extends to his tendency to lean straight backward under fire. And he was actually quite easy to hit. One need only watch the early rounds VK/Sanders to see how Vitali responds to a vaguely offensive threat. For a Vitali pick, the assumption has to be that Klitschko imposes himself on an elite class fighter, which he was never able to pull off successfully. So, I'm not making that assumption. It isn't valid. Why not? Lennox was Old, Under-trained and Ring-Rusty, didn't establish a jab and, by his own admission, his strategy was basic - just take Klitschko out of there. Your take here assumes that Norton does the same, which is unwise. Prime Norton's fight strategy would not be the same as that which unfolded from the worst version of Lewis, who obviously threw caution to the wind and his boxing out the window. Lewis presented Vitali with a golden, wide-open opportunity, in his being unprepared and cavalier. Norton would box. Norton could box. And he was a better boxer than Vitali. No such opportunity presents itself for Vitali, in the Norton scenario. Sorry, but this^ doesn't even warrant a response. By default and courtesy of Lewis retiring, even when Byrd probably had the greater claim. Does it matter? It doesn't. If you want to discuss relative legacies then that's a chat for another thread. This doesn't change the fact that Norton beat a better, pre-Zaire version of Ali. The debate over the other results rages on, and we're talking about vastly superior boxers compared to Vitali. By the way, there was a little dissent on the Norton/Young fight, at the time, but it wasn't huge in the papers. Norton won and, as I mentioned in my previous post, he was likely past prime by that point. This line of argument does not support Vitali's case. The problems presented by Ali and Young are not likely to be presented by Vitali. These are quite moot points. Norton only lost to Ali and Holmes during this period. Again, you seem to be paying lip service to the levels but, ultimately, disregard them. I get that you're going down the 'Cup is Half Empty' line of argument, but I really don't know why. You should perhaps save that line of argument for a compare, contrast and celebration of respective ledgers. VK won title fights against 'long gones' and 'never weres'. Again, this does not support a case for Vitali beating Norton, when he fought at the level he did and still failed against the best two opponents he faced. Pure speculation. You can't possibly know that. Had the Tyson rematch remained off the table then he would just have likely retired, anyway - A Tyson rematch was his only interest, post-2002. Dismissing Sanders' lack of conditioning is aspirational on your part. Sanders' successes against Vitali, such as they manifested, were early and say more about Vitali's lack of defense and his form under fire, than they do about Sanders prowess, by that stage of his career. Norton stopped Middleton. We're not going to see eye-to-eye on the stark difference in levels here. Nor, does it seem, that you are prepared to cut Norton any slack for his own dropping off from his prime, post '73. Even Norton's near misses are superior to Vitali's, by some distance. You talk about Ali being diminished and ready for the taking by Norton, who was himself getting on, and yet you boost a prime Vitali over his performance against an Old, Overweight and Disinterested Lewis. Lewis was so obviously ready for the taking and yet Vitali was not skilled enough to make it his night, while Lewis beat him with mere moments - echoes of his past brilliance doing decisive damage. His loss to Byrd before that, is indicative of a guy, who couldn't see a path to victory despite an injury, in the late stages of a bout. I wonder how many other Heavyweights 'Champions' would have made the same decision in his position? Not many, I'd wager. I doubt Norton would have. Norton competed at a vastly superior level of boxing, which I think matters, when it comes to a head-to-head. I'm not so much interested in dragging Norton's struggles into some kind of inappropriate comparison with the puddle of mediocrity Vitali thrived in.
You always give a world class fighter a chance, but in this case, I suspect that it would be a slim one.
If he had four belts to choose from, Ken Norton would've certainly won some "title bouts". Multiple "world titles" confuse even hardcore boxing fans.
I don’t disagree with you. Ken had better all round attributes. But he was a sucker for a right hand..backed into the ropes looking to counter once he couldn’t force somebody back... which I think played into the hands of bigger punchers with longer arms. Klitschko had a good understanding of distance. All his power was right at the end of his punch. With kens back to the rope, Vitali can still reach Ken at a distance that Ken can’t reach Vitali. by hitting Norton on the chin with long right hands. Again, I agree with you here. In comparison to Ali, young and Holmes (three men Norton was unable to impose himself to any dominant extent against in real life) Vitali leaves much to be desired. However, Vitali was bigger than all three, durable, game, a long limbed powerhouse with unusual accuracy. A real handful. With a dangerous punch. And this works both ways. Ken was not successful in imposing himself on Foreman or Shavers or convince enough against Young, Holmes or Ali when it really counted. Of course he did get one decision over Ali but most agree that neither clearly imposed themselves over the other seeing as they were such close fights that were highly disputed. I agree wholeheartedly that Ken was a better boxer than Vitali. But I don’t think it will help by the time he retreats to the ropes as soon as he cannot impose dominance over a taller, hard hitting fighter who for all his ungainly coordination was surprisingly accurate from long range. I never said it did. and Shavers. And Fireman. sanders success against vitali owed largely to having faster hands than Ken Norton, longer reach than Ken Norton. Being an unconventional southpaw. have you watched that fight? Many say Ken was fortunate the referee decided to stop the fight. Middletons long range boxing and pace seemed to baffle Norton throughout the fight. I am not saying you are wrong to suggest Norton competed at a vastly superior level. I am just disagreeing with you that he beats Vitali. Chiefly because he couldn’t win fights of that magnitude when it mattered. Yes, he beat Ali one time when Ali was not the champion. It was close and so were the other two fights with Muhammad. Nothing much between them. There is an argument that each bout was a draw. Yet Noton had an edge in youth that didn’t play out as an advantage in their last fight. Which is telling.
I disagree. Vitali wasn't a pressure fighter. He was quite happy to try and take charge at ring-center. But he isn't going to manage that against Norton, who is more than capable of improving on Chris Byrd's effort. You'd perhaps do well to remember that Byrd was able to back Vitali up. That isn't out-smarting Norton though, is it? You might as well be clear and simply state that Vitali has a puncher's chance. In other words, Vitali was big - which he was but he simply didn't have the skills to go with the size. Also - whilst VK is heavy-handed, his power is overrated. There's only so much power a boxer can generate from throwing arm punches. That Norton competed at that level on even terms with Ali, Young and Holmes, should suffice for a head-to-head. Plus, he actually does have the win against the Greatest Heavyweight of All-time - so, it doesn't really work both ways. Norton proved he could push the envelope. Vitali didn't. Vitali does not have anything anywhere near such a win or even a losing performance to compare with Norton's best. In a head-to-head, the performances are what matter, regardless of the W, L or D. This seems to pretend at least a couple of things: that Norton wouldn't be throwing anything at Vitali. that Vitali took full advantage of his height and reach. But you seem all too keen to focus on Ali/Norton 2 and 3. I was referring to the period in between these two bouts, which is what you seemed to be referring to, in the comment to which I replied. A 38-year-old part-timer in Sanders was not faster than Norton. He did not have a longer reach than Norton and him being a southpaw had little to do with it, either. All Sanders had to do is attack Vitali, in order for the latter to become disorganized. Yes, I have - Norton was comfortably ahead on the cards, at the time of the stoppage. You do not know that Norton "couldn't" win fights of "that magnitude". I'd also suggest that beating Ali was an enormous win, given what Ali would go on to achieve, after his loss to Norton. You overestimate the edge Norton had in youth over Ali. You underestimate the gap in class between Norton and Vitali. Perhaps more important, however, is that you think a Norton/Vitali match would carry the kind of enormity of a Norton/Ali match. I really don't think they compare.
