Who was greater: Ken Norton or Vitali Klitschko

Vitali, and it ain't even close.

No, it doesn't. Who told you this crap ?!

 

There's an argument for it being a case of swings and roundabouts, but not a shoo-in for VK.

Even so, if we're talking about 'greatness', then Norton beating his greatest opponent is a significant tip of the balance when compared with Vitali's failure to see the final bell against his best two opponents. This, despite him having the advantages in both cases.

 

It sounds a bit like you’re just trying to pump up Foreman’s record by pretending that Norton was something other than a contender with a poor chin and one big win.

 

You’d have Rahman and McCall above Vitali?

 

Norton was at least willing to face everyone.
Vitali was a cherry picker.

 

Vitali Klitschko was the greater overall heavyweight than Ken Norton. Norton had a standout win over Muhammad Ali and was a key figure of the 1970s, but he lacked long-term dominance. Klitschko, meanwhile, ruled his era with size, power, and consistency, losing only a few times—mostly due to injuries—while maintaining a dominant championship run.

 

I’m not a huge advocate on rating one fighter over the other on the basis of a single best win. Otherwise there’d be a lot of guys who Iran Barkley, Robbie simms and Buster Douglas would rank over. Neither Vitali nor Norton were ever linear champions but Vitali legitimately won his belt and defended it numerous times. Norton was awarded his and beat far fewer ranked men. He also lost a lot more fights and not all those losses were to ATG’s. Yes I realize he was washed up for some of those defeats. But Klitschko was pushing forty and had his career divided by a four year layoff yet still he was winning title fights. To be clear I don’t feel the void between them is vast. But Ken Norton often rides off the cape of the supermen of the seventies when greatness is a topic .

 

No. You just talked crap. You might make an argument for Joshua and Tyson Fury, but Dubois.....get real.

 

He's top 15.

 

Vitali never really had an era. He didn't really rule anything, either.

His first title was a WBO strap at a time when the real champions were still fighting it out.
He held that for less than a year, before surrendering it to Byrd.

After failing to win at the elite level, Vitali won a vacant title against a shot part-timer.
He defend it only once, before retiring for four years.

He came back during his brother's era, at which point he became Wlad's **** collector.
Hence a ledger that doesn't reflect anything like the imaginary version of him that his fans have created.

 

I don’t care if he ducked TEN fighters the material he has is enough to warrant a higher ranking

 

He's ahead and he'd beat Norton.

 

Vitali never actually lost to Bird, he retired due to injury while being ahead on all scorecards.
Huge difference.

 

Byrd , Kingpin and Gomez prove he'd look stupid against an awkward, fast , hard to pin down herky-jerky mover like Norton.

You're in love with the idea of Vitali ,not the actual Vitali who ducked rematching Byrd.

His skills were awful as can clearly be seen here. A skilled fighter would easily exploit the mistakes he makes repeatably.

This content is protected

 

He quit , he lost. AJ went right back in with the guy who knocked him sideways.
Vitali running away and not avenging the loss to the guy he plucked off the couch on a week's notice renders his claim over Norton BUNK !