Who was greater: Ken Norton or Vitali Klitschko

hmm.. I'll have to ponder that one.

 

The way some treat Vitali here, you'd swear he was Wlad 2.0 in terms of how great he is. He's nowhere near that level, neither is he over Norton.

Let's address the "long stretch of dominance" he had. Because it's really not any better than any stretch of dominance the likes of Tyson, Marciano, Johnson, and Dempsey had.

Vitali wasn't even on The Ring's radar until he was 25 fights in. He wins the WBO off Herbie Hide, and still no immediate recognition (3 belt era and stuff) until he gets ranked on October of 1999. By the time he loses to the #10 rated Byrd in April, Byrd moves up only to #8, and Vitali drops out of the rankings entirely. Then he disappears entirely for two full years before crawling back in at #10.

He wasn't some unlucky conqueror who had a freak injury and was robbed of early greatness. The Boxing world did not care about him. Nor did it care in the months to follow, as he was even below the #9 rated Mike Tyson, right after Lewis had dispatched him.

It's hilarious, actually. Vitali gained a #8 ranking after stopping Larry Donald, momentarily passing Mike. Only for him to KO Clifford Ettiene in February of 2003 to get the #7 spot in what would be his last win ever, and Vitali dropped to #10 again. Even in the last win of Mike's career where he was clearly a shadow of his former self, people thought so little of Vitali that they had Mike Tyson above him

It was only after the Lewis fight that people took notice and moved him all the way up to #4, and then to #1 after beating Kirk Johnson who had already dropped of the top 10 list before the fight. And then his true first moment of note, was beating Corrie Sanders. Some path to the top, amirite ? Very Frazier esque. He'd go on to only have 11 fights after that.

That’s the difference between Vitali and Norton. Norton built his reputation by beating the GOAT. Vitali’s reputation was built out of pity because he looked good in a loss to an ill prepared, booking his retirement Lewis.

Now let’s actually look at who he beat, and more importantly, when they were relevant. I looked at each month of the ring's HW ratings, and this is the result.

Vitali's record vs top 10 rated opposition:

1. W Larry Donald (Last ranked as the #7 HW in December 1st of 1994)
2. W Herbie Hide (Last ranked as the #6 HW in February 24th of 1995)
3. L Chris Byrd (#10 ranked HW at the time)
4. W Orlin Norris (Last ranked as the #3 CW on August 10th 1995)
5. L Lennox Lewis (HW champ of the world)
6. W Kirk Johnson (Last ranked as the #8 HW on February 11th, 2003)
7. W Corrie Sanders (#3 ranked HW at the time)
8. W Danny Williams (#9 ranked HW at the time)
9. W Samuel Peter (#2 ranked HW at the time)
10. W Juan Carlos Gomez (#9 ranked HW at the time)
11. W Chris Arreola (ranked as the #6 HW at the time)
12. W Kevin Johnson (Ranked as the #10 HW at the time)
13. W Shannon Briggs (Last ranked as the #5 HW on May 21st, 2007)
14. W Tomasz Adamek (#2 ranked HW at the time)

So, what do we have here ?

12 wins over men who were ranked in their careers at some point. Less than you'd expect looking at his so praised "long stretch of dominance".

Moreover, 5 of the 12 were not ranked at the time of the fight, and with the exception of Kirk Johnson who had dropped off a few months prior, had not been for years. Briggs for 3 years (and that was after a near decade long stretch where he was out of the rankings anyway), Herbie Hide for 4 years, Orlin Norris (a fat Cruiserweight who fought during the 190 lbs era, btw) for 6 years, and Larry Donald for 8 years. This is geriatric abuse, pure and simple.

The 4 out of the 7 that were actually ranked, were at #6, #9 (twice) and #10. So only 3 were in top 5, and none were the #1 contender or the lineal champ/man to beat in the division.

When it's all said and done, this is not the sort of depth that overwrites a win over the GOAT. Plus, Norton's depth is actually almost equal to Vitali's. Young, Quarry, Garcia, Bobick, Cobb, Clark, Middleton and Zanon were all ranked too. Maybe Jack 'O Holloran was too but I can't be arsed to check.

Both Ali and Young were rated #1 (Vitali never faced a #1 contender), and Quarry was rated #5. So both are equal in terms of wins vs top 5 rated men. Norton's 6-10 kinda suck, but so do Vitali's on an equal scale.

 

Norton gave Ali trouble cause he was as big as Ali aggressive strong and had some speed. Ali didn’t have the punch to stop him. When he fought Holmes Larry was still younger and lighter and didn’t have the power he developed later. Vitali on the other hand while not the puncher his brother was did have some power and immense boxing skill and would have a big size advantage vs Norton. I see this as a beating like he gave to Shannon Briggs. UD and almost a shutout. Nortons face is a mess like he never had before.

 

Not sure if you're both intentionally using a fantasy head-to-head match-up as a means of expressing who you think was the greater of the two, but the OP isn't directly asking 'Who wins?'

 

So basically you wrote an entire post analyzing where Vitali's opponents were ranked without once talking about how Vitali actually fought them or how good they were when he beat them. Classic......

Treated boxing like some sort of spreadsheet exercise doesn't actually tell you about what happened in the ring. Vitali stopped almost everyone he fought. He rarely lost rounds on the cards even in the fights he lost. The two fights he lost Byrd and Lewis he was winning on all three scorecards before an injury and cuts stopped them. That's not a guy who got exposed, that's a guy whose body failed him while he was beating his opponent. You don't have to take my word for it, the scorecards are there. And yet you spent your entire post talking about where his opponents sat in The Ring rankings instead of what he actually did to them.

You also conveniently ignore that Vitali won a world title and defended it multiple times. Norton never won a world title in the ring. He got his shot at Ali three times and came away 1-2. That one win is great and a better singular win then anything Vitali has, nobody's denying that, but you're comparing one win to an entire championship reign. I really don't see a world where one win is more impressive. By that logic McCall and Rahman are better than Vitali too, since they both beat Lennox Lewis. We both know that's absurd.

And let's talk about Norton's record beyond Ali since you brought up depth. You listed Garcia, Bobick, Cobb, Clark, Middleton and Zanon as ranked wins. Are we seriously pretending those guys are on the same level as Corrie Sanders, Samuel Peter, Tomasz Adamek, or even Arreola? Sanders was a legit top 5 heavyweight who had just flattened Wlad. Peter was the #2 ranked heavyweight. Adamek was #2 as well. You're telling me Garcia and Zanon are comparable to those guys just because they showed up in The Ring rankings at some point? Ranking position isn't how we evaluate how good a fighter is, the actual quality of the fighter is and you know it.

You said Vitali's "reputation was built out of pity" because he looked good against Lewis. He wasn't "looking good in a loss." He was winning the fight on all three scorecards against the heavyweight champion of the world. In what world is such a performance pity? And Lewis wasn't "ill prepared" he was the champion defending his titles. Framing that as some kind of sympathy case is honestly just dishonest. And its telling that Vitali pursued the rematch while Lewis ducked it by retiring, something he had no indication of doing till Vitali beat it out of him.

As for The Ring rankings being your entire measuring stick, The Ring had Vitali ranked below Mike Tyson in Tyson's last fight. Tyson was coming off losses to Lewis and getting stopped by Danny Williams. If your ranking system puts late-career Tyson above the guy who was beating Lennox Lewis on points, maybe the ranking system isn't the objective measure you think it is.

The bottom line is this: one great win doesn't outweigh a body of work. Norton has the single best win between the two, nobody disputes that. But Vitali has a better overall record, a championship reign Norton never had, zero losses where he was dominated, and a level of dominance over his opposition that Norton never consistently showed. You can't reduce all of that to ranking positions and call it analysis.

 

Well said.

 

Yeah, I value my time. I'm not gonna go and and rewatch Vitali's robotic excuse of an ass just because you want me to praise his dominance over a bunch of stiffs.

I do know that having almost half of your wins vs ranked opposition be over men who were last relevant 3-8 years ago is not a sign they were any good tho, especially when they sucked in their primes to begin with. Peak Larry Donald was a 16-0 prospect, peak Herbie Hide was today's equivalent of an IBO holder, peak Briggs scraped by a 50 year old Foreman (and we both know how you rate Foreman) 12 years prior, and Orlin Norris was a Marciano sized Cruiserweight who reigned over a wasteland half a dozen years prior.

These wins are horrible my guy.

And ? These guys sucked. Like, a lot. Sanders only has 1 win worth **** over a glass cannon in Wlad, Peter has 3 wins worth a **** and 2 of them are vs a fat Middleweight and the first one wasn't even convincing, and Adamek was Michael Spinks sized but 10 times less capable. Those are his top 3 wins. I couldn't care less about his dominance over them or that he stopped most of them. What, is Beterbiev a top 15 ATG Light Heavyweight too ? Actually, knowing your EE bias, I wouldn't be surprised if you believe that.

And boo-hoo, Vitali was ahead on the cards before he lost. Tough titties man. He lost legitimately. Lewis stopped him by punching him and opening up his face. Had it gone further, either Boxing would have been abolished or Kiev would have a different mayor now. Probably both. And the fight was still up for grabs before Vitali quit vs Byrd. I had it slightly in Vitali's favour iirc, but Byrd was turning it around and it could very well have been a draw or something. Those wide scorecards were on some Hagler being behind Duran on the 13th type of ****. It was awful. I'll be expecting a "but those were the official cards" response to this though. Which would be ironic given your history of "well I scored it like this" posts when it comes to controversial fights.

Doesn't matter tho. When it was said and done, Byrd was the fair winner because Vitali quit, and there was never a rematch for Vitali to prove he was better. I don't know or care if either man pursued it or not, I don't deal with what ifs and behind the scenes stuff. The rematch didn't happen and that's that. Vitali is officially 0-2 vs his 2 best opponents, the end. You can't call either fight a robbery or an injustice by an outside force, either. Norton beat his best opponent, and I don't require the common pro Norton excuse of saying he actually won the Ali trilogy for that to change.

Yeah, I did ignore Vitali's reign, because I don't rate it. He was a WBC belt slave, similarly to how someone like Veeraphol Sahaprom was, though I guess not quite as bad.

Vitali made 11 defences. 5 were against men who were not ranked at all, and 3 were vs fringe contenders at the lower end of the top 10 (#10, #9 and #9 respectively) who were only ranked for 2-3 months before they never saw a ranking again. That's not a reign to be taken seriously.

And there's 3 major differences between Norton and McCall/Rahman.

1. Ali is greater than Lewis, by a lot.

2. Ali's chin is certified titanium, arguably second to none. Unlike Ali, Lewis never proved he can't be iced with no warning by a puncher. Norton beating Ali by being the more disciplined, well schooled man that night is more impressive than blasting out what could be argued to be a bit of a glass cannon.

3. Norton has prime or close to prime wins over Quarry and Young, plus the other lesser contenders on his resume. Rahman and McCall have almost nothing outside of Lewis, with the former only having Sanders (again, only thing he did is beat Wlad) and the corpse of Berbick, and the latter having a 6 fight novice Chagaev and and a 45 year old Holmes. They're not the same.

Hah, I knew you would do this

I clearly mentioned Norton's top 3 (Ali, Young, Quarry) to Vitali's (Sanders, Peter, Adamek) side by side to prove how Norton's major wins are in fact better than Vitali's, and then addressed how both men's secondary wins are equally uninspiring and that they deserve no special look.

So of course you are now comparing Norton's secondary wins to Vitali's best wins to make him look better

My sincere congratulations on missing the point of why I brought up the rankings. They provide context, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise. But you're a real loser if you think I seriously use them as my entire measuring stick. I guess you missed the part where I criticised the sudden Vitali rise after the Lewis fight. But I know you can't stand my guts enough to think I'm capable of anything smart, so I'll leave you in your reverie and give you permission to think of me as a dum dum.

And yeah, it was out of pity. Or some sense that an injustice took place, whatever you wanna call it. It's a fact that Lewis punched Vitali until the fight couldn't go on. That's what Boxing is all about. Vitali going from #10 to #4 immediately after after a stoppage loss, and straight to #1 one win after (vs an unranked opponent btw) is absolutely out of some sense of injustice and not an objective decision, because of the supposed "unfairness" of him getting his face sliced, and that it would not happen in a rematch that never transpired.

Jose Napoles was cut badly vs LC Morgan and he certainly didn't get such favours at 140. Where is his special treatment and his "but he was ahead on the cards" cries ?

And I'm tired of the whole "body of work" shtick. Vitali's body of work is ****. His resume can be summed up as: 3 wins guys who don't suck, 2 losses over guys who are good, and 42 wins over guys who do suck. And I'm being generous here on Peter here by not saying that he sucks.

Ali >>>>>> Peter (obvious)
Young > Sanders (Foreman and Lyle x2 > Wlad and old Czyz)
Quarry > Adamek (Patterson, Lyle, Shavers, Spencer, Garcia, etc > Cunngiham, Chambers, Arreola and 40 year old Golota)

The rest, from both men, ain't worth ****. Vitali's dominance ain't ****, because he never faced anyone worth **** for it to matter. You can compare Cobb, Clark and Bobick to Johnson, Arreola and Gomez if you think it will make you feel better. But you know that there's no point.

 

That's so weird, the entire post you quoted is him saying how the fighters he beat were ranked at the time he beat them

 

If you were alive at the time: Norton fought softies outside of those Ali bouts. We wanted to see him in there w/ better opposition and guys like Lyle and Shavers were chasing him for years.

Other guys had to go through minefields and here was Norton fighting the B graders or on their last legs like Quarry. But everyone wanted to see him in the more competitive bouts. Outside of the Ali trilogy, the next best guy in all those years in his prime was Jimmy Young.

 

So, just like Vitali, who, outside of Lewis, was fighting second and third tier heavyweights of the era.

 

Just who was out there that you recall desperate for a Vitali fight?Who was chasing him? For how long?

 

I didn't religiously follow the Klitschko's. What is Vitali's single greatest victory that people can point to and say "That was ATG caliber stuff"? That one fight/win. I just didn't follow them, especially Vitali. I'm kind of uneducated on them. (and I haven't read much of this thread.. i usually stay out of Klitschko threads)

 

I don't think even they can answer that question

They're great (only Wlad is, Vitali is not great at all) because of their "body of work".

And with Wlad, I get it at least, even if I don't rate most of his individual opponents. Povetkin and Byrd were good fighters, B+ tier. Then he had some solid wins over C+/B- tier guys like Chambers, Chagaev, Rahman, and guys like that. And then a bunch of D or C tier guys like Ibragimov, Brewster, Thompson, Pulev, McCline, Brock, Mormeck, Jennings and an old Mercer.

Vitali's 2 best wins are B tier, his 3rd win is C tier, and the rest are in the F tier because they're utter failures.

 

Out of curiosity were is Wlad on your all time list?

 

Dunno, haven't ever made a concise top Heavyweight list. I think he is a lock over Liston and Dempsey though. I see no arguments for either to be over Wlad.

I can also potentially see him over guys like Holyfield, Tyson, Foreman, Marciano (not in a P4P sense though, nowhere near, just at HW), Johnson etc, but I'm not fully convinced. I wouldn't dismiss arguments for it though.

I think the only true locks over him are Ali, Louis and Lewis.