Who was greater: Ken Norton or Vitali Klitschko

Sure, the headline for Norton is his Ali win. It is what his rating hinges on. But he fought Ali three times and gave a significantly good account of himself on each occasion.

It's not a one-off performance like Douglas against Tyson, and I don't really view Barkley's triumphs over a Hearns in the same light since Hearns was by that time fighting outside of his comfort zone.

There are nuances, even if it is ostensibly the same principle in play.

But that aside, it's more the fact that we are comparing Norton's success to Vitali's failure to achieve something similar; not for the lack of opportunity, but from out-and-out failure.

That accentuates the gap between them in Norton's favor, in my view.

Norton was invariably fighting men in the top-5, and there are such things as quality losses.

Vitali, in the main, was beating low-end fringers in a dire era.

This is another difference that matters.

Vitali was fighting dross.

Deservedly so, in my opinion. There are a fair few opponents he fought, won and lost to who are top-50 ATG Heavyweights. I doubt Vitali can say the same.

 

Sorry to break it to you. That's called a "Loss".

 

Kinda funny how people give Norton credit for his losses to Ali and Holmes but don't give any credit to Vitali for his losses against Lewis and Byrd despite winning both fights before getting injured. Double standard here is hilarious. Certain people will make up any reason just to hate on Vitali.

 

This content is protected

Pretty good reference point for Norton fighting a tall superheavyweight.

 

Do you give Tony Bellew full credit for wiping the floor with David Haye? Haye had more prime in him that Norton here.

 

I don't know why Vitali gets so much credit for losing to Lewis, when Lewis looked fat and gassy.. gassed out.. but they had to stop the fight or Lewis was about to tear his face off.

 

Vitali

 

Norton has a good (probably better) resume: Ali, Young, Quarry, Bobick, but the quality just falls off drastically after quarry. Vitali was more dominant, beat more ranked opponents and in reality he could've been the most formidable heavyweight of his generation, but he never had the chance to prove it. It was him or Wlad, Norton was like the 4th best of his era

 

Vitali was beating Chisora with a torn shoulder to log a title defense at that stage of his career.

Bellew doesn’t deserve full credit for the same reason Byrd doesn’t.

You walked into the trap.

 

There no shoulder injury dummy. Haye pulled his Achilles due to Bellews defensive manoeuvres.


There was nothing wrong with Vitalis shoulder. He had Chisora problems. He was back in training soon after for Manny Charr. There's always some petty excuse.

If you give credit to Cooney for beating Norton , then you give credit to Bellew for beating Haye worse than Wlad did. Simple as that.

 

Nortons NABF belts had more value then Vitalis WBC belt change my mind.

 

Vitali. Not even close.

 

I watched Byrd-Klitschko one time.. the night it happened. I've never wanted want to watch it again. I remember that. But Byrd was impressive.. I think. So much smaller. Seemed like Byrd was pasting him up for the first five rounds.

Was Klitschko really ahead on points before he quit? Or his corner made him quit?

 

This is not a bad discussion and I had both of them in the late teens of heavies, at one time. It's one of the best quality of best victories VS consistency of winning kind of discussions to be had.

Well, it's interesting when you compare it to how much credit Mercer doesn't get for his loss that was arguably a win or draw against Lewis.

 

Vitali by stoppage may be early or mid-rounds depending on the pace set and when Vitali starts backing Ken up