Which heavyweight rates higher AJ or Ken Norton?

That is wrong! Charles Martin was a reigning world champion who AJ took the title from as were both Andy Ruiz Jr in the rematch and Joseph Parker. Now I understand you don’t like AJ because of your allegiance to Luke Tyson Fury however don’t make up such obvious lies.

 

Do you even know the meaning of reigning champion? it seems like you are arguing without even knowing what is the meaning of the word.
these are black and white.

*Charles martin was the reigning champion of the IBF.
*Parker was the reigning champion of the WBO.
*Andy Ruiz was the Unified reigning champion of the IBF, WBO. and IBO.
AJ beat them all while they were the reigning champions of their organization.

here is a definition to help you come to the most simple and obvious understanding of facts in black and white. so hopefully you can follow along and understand a kindergarten level simple concept.

• Current Title Holder:
  The term "reigning champion" highlights that the fighter is the one who currently holds the title in a specific weight division or boxing organization.
• Synonymous with "Defending Champion":
  Both "reigning champion" and "defending champion" mean the same thing: the fighter who is currently the champion and has the title to defend.

 

Do you even know the meaning of reigning champion? it seems like you are arguing without even knowing what is the meaning of the word.
these are black and white.

*Charles martin was the reigning champion of the IBF.
*Parker was the reigning champion of the WBO.
*Andy Ruiz was the Unified reigning champion of the IBF, WBO. and IBO.
AJ beat them all while they were the reigning champions of their organization.

Here are some definitions since apparently such an obvious and simple and black and white thing is so hard for you to grasp.

here is the definition to help you come to the most simple and obvious understanding of facts in black and white. so hopefully you can follow along and understand such a simple concept.

• Current Title Holder:
  The term "reigning champion" highlights that the fighter is the one who currently holds the title in a specific weight division or boxing organization.
• Synonymous with "Defending Champion":
  Both "reigning champion" and "defending champion" mean the same thing: the fighter who is currently the champion and has the title to defend.

 

Do you know the definition of a bum dosser bodybuilding fraud it's black and white, simple - Anthony Joshua

 

I'm surprised the poll is this close.

Norton literally beat Ali.

 

Joshua is riding on recency bias here. He did spend more time with opportunities to fight at the top ten though (better matchmaking, infinitely superior promotion etc.)

Kenny's resume is borderline all-time great if a bit reliant on those razor edge decisions to truly elevate it. Given that he had a near a Lyle-like window at the top though—he did earn that second year induction to the hall of fame.

 

I consider both to be a all time greats to be honest. I have a looser term for all time great than most people.

Admittedly both would be on a lower end compared to the topper echelon but I still think they qualify. Some would say Norton beat Holmes and Ali all 3 times and AJ was a 2 time heavyweight champion and won 9 world title fights.

 

I voted Norton, Mandingo has a very prestigious victory over Muhammad Ali (but for me out of 3 fights with him Ken had won 2), and he had a very close fight (in which, in my opinion, the verdict could have easily gone to one or the other fighter) with Larry Holmes. He was world champion, he didn't win the title in the ring but with the performances offered against Holmes and Ali I think he was worthy of wearing the belt.

Then Norton defeated good boxers, like Joshua, he lost very badly in his prime, like AJ. But Joshua doesn't have an important victory (which could have easily been 2) like Ken's over Ali, the most important opponent defeated by the Englishman was with a Klitschko who was 41 years old and was in his last match of his career. A Wladimir in great shape and competitive, it must be said, but in my opinion not comparable to the Muhammad Ali defeated by Norton.

 

You can literally say this about Norton, except for the medal part, lol. AJ on the other hand beat 2 reigning title holders and won the vacant belt against no. 1 active heavyweight in the world.

 

Correct. 1 addition Andy Ruiz Jr was also the WBA champion which AJ reclaimed when he became the 2 time unified heavyweight champion of the world. The only belt AJ has not won is that beautiful Green WBC belt which he has never fought for yet.

 

Norton.
Norton needed one win against: Ali, Foreman, Holmes, or Frazier to become a "purebred" ATG.
BTW he achieved such a win in the fight Ali Vs. Norton 3...
And AJ needs more wins to be a "purebred" ATG.
That's why Norton is ahead of AJ.

 

Ken's a mail champion who never made a defense and resume is an exercise in bias, so Joshua.

 

Ken was more skilled but the difference between the eras in terms of the PEDs and average size of fighters makes it hard to compare imho. I know its borderline sacrilege to say it but if you plucked 70s Norton out of the ring and put him straight in with AJ or even some of the guys AJ beat, would you really be shocked if he didnt do all that well due to being outsized, outmuscled and outPED'ed?

 

Place AJ in the 70’s and does he have the same success as Norton did I can see both Ali and Holmes easily dealing with him similar to Usyk and Foreman/Shavers would bludgeon him to the canvas

For me Norton > AJ

Also I think Norton vs Usyk would have been a great close fight