Who was greater: Ken Norton or Vitali Klitschko

Dude, Young is not a stylistic anything compared to what Sanders would do to Norton.

It’s not like Kevin Johnson and Larry Donald were Vitali’s kryptonite.

 

I find them very 'overlookable'. He was a titleholder during a period of a fragmented championship.

How many 'title' wins does Norton achieve in the four-belt era?

 

He isn't, but your entitled to your wrong opinion.

 

As I said MM I think quality can overcome quantity but for me Norton doesn't have enough quality that's the problem.

Unless as I said you're also rating his greatness higher based on good performances in losing efforts vs great fighters.

But for me purely on resume and achievements Norton doesn't have enough quality overall to overcome Vitali's quantity and longevity.

 

I find this argument interesting because you're using the word 'quantity' as if it relates to something of value.

Quantity can matter, but only if the quantity is adding real historical worth. Otherwise, it is just proving the same thing fight after fight.

Crap is crap. A lot of crap is still crap.

Vitali’s longevity proves consistency against lesser opposition (while having failed at the elite level in his prime); Norton’s résumé provides more direct evidence against elite heavyweights.

I find the latter is more valuable.

 

Donald was a tricky fighter who gave Bowe a close fight he arguably won, beat Holyfield, and got robbed against Valuev. Vitali was the only fighter ever to completely dominate him and stop him. Same with Hide who gave Bowe absolute hell and knocked out Tony Tucker in two rounds Vitali stopped him in 2. Most people consider Bowe greater then Vitali and yet he couldn't do what Vitali did to these same fighters. But in your mind this doesn't count because where they were ranked when Vitali beat them.

Sanders knocked out Wlad in two rounds. You can call Wlad a "glass cannon" but he went on to have one of the longest heavyweight reigns in history after that loss. Peter was the #2 ranked heavyweight. Adamek was #2. Were they all-time greats? No, were they legitimate top-level heavyweights? Obviously. Calling them bums is just you setting the bar at "Ali or nothing" so you can dismiss everything else which is just another form of gatekeeping.

And I'm not even arguing these guys are great. I'm arguing Vitali dominated everyone available to him. He stopped almost all of them. He rarely lost rounds. You keep telling me the opponents sucked. Fine, what was Vitali supposed to do? Fight ghosts? He beat whoever was in front of him more dominantly than almost any heavyweight champion has. All you're doing is measuring the division by your elitist standards and calling it a measurement of the fighter.

The Sahaprom comparison is absurd. The WBC heavyweight title is the most prestigious belt in the sport. Vitali defended it against the highest-ranked heavyweights who were available and willing to fight him, and he stopped almost all of them. Comparing that to a regional bantamweight reign is just you being deliberately provocative. And champions don't choose their opponents, the WBC mandates defenses and the market dictates the rest. You're blaming Vitali for the state of the heavyweight division during his reign. He fought whoever was put in front of him and stopped almost all of them.

On the McCall/Rahman differences, Ali is greater than Lewis, nobody disputes that. But you're using Ali's greatness to boost Norton's one win while ignoring that Norton lost to him twice. Norton went 1-2 with Ali, lost to Holmes, and got destroyed by Foreman. That's a losing record against all his best opponents, something you said should count against Vitali for his losses to Byrd and Lewis. You count the win but ignore the losses. Ali's greatness can't selectively apply and magically erase Norton's losses.

And calling Lewis a glass cannon is ridiculous. He avenged both knockout losses, dominated the division for years, and beat Holyfield, Tyson, Tua, and Vitali. A fighter who gets caught occasionally but comes back and dominates everyone isn't a glass cannon, he's a great fighter with a vulnerability. Ali had vulnerabilities too that Norton exploited to beat him. That doesn't make beating Ali less impressive and Lewis having a chin issue doesn't make beating him less impressive either. You're applying a standard to Lewis that you'd never apply to Ali.

"Equally uninspiring" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there. You're declaring both men's secondary wins worthless so you only have to compare the top 3. That conveniently eliminates the one area where Vitali clearly has the advantage, depth. Vitali's secondary wins include Arreola, Gomez, Johnson, Chisora, and Donald. Norton's include Bobick, Cobb, Garcia, Clark, Middleton, and Zanon. Vitali stopped or completely dominated all of his Norton didn't. Those are not the same even if you want to pretend they are because they don't fit your elitist standards. You can't just wave away the depth difference by saying neither side matters.

So first you say rankings provide context, not your entire measuring stick. But then you evaluated Vitali's entire career by ranking positions. You evaluated his opponents by ranking positions. You dismissed his dominance because the ranking positions weren't high enough. You ranked Norton's wins over Young and Quarry above Vitali's wins over Sanders and Peter based on their opponents' opponents' ranking positions. If that's not using rankings as your entire measuring stick, what is?

You called Vitali's rise "pity." He went from #10 to #4 because the entire boxing world watched him beat the heavyweight champion on all three scorecards. That's not pity, that's the sport evaluating what it saw. When a #10 fighter nearly beats the champion, ranking him higher is exactly what rankings are supposed to reflect because he proved his level against the best fighter in the division. What's wrong with that?

And you're tired of the body of work argument? Your entire methodology is body of work. You rank fighters by who they beat. That's body of work. You can't dismiss the concept when it favors Vitali and use it for every other fighter you've ever ranked.

Your argument is a closed loop. Dominance doesn't count because opponents weren't good enough. They weren't good enough because of ranking positions. Ranking positions are the measure because that's your methodology. There's no room in that system for actual performance to matter. A fighter could stop every opponent in round one and you'd dismiss it because the ranking numbers weren't high enough.

 

My point is that ranking positions are the only measure of quality he uses since he himself admitted he's too lazy to actually watch the fights. Donald was unranked but still an active, competitive heavyweight. Hide was unranked but still dangerous enough to have knocked out Tucker. Being unranked by The Ring and being bad are two different things. What he did was look at ranking positions and called it fighter quality which isn't the same thing.

 

We all know Norton's win over Ali is the best single win by far.

But outside of that win there isn't really that many other stand out wins.

The win over Young was good but it was a highly controversial decision win.

Quarry is a good name but he was also considerably past his best.

So then outside of that you're relying on Norton's notable losses to add to his greatness.

And whilst some of them are stand out performances even when he lost he also had some pretty glaring losses aswell.

Like getting bombed out by Cooney, Shavers, in 1 round.

And also a stoppage loss to Garcia who was Cruiserweight sized.

So whilst Norton is proven against upper echelon boxers.

He didn't prove himself against upper echelon punchers.

And that's a big weakness in regards to his legacy and H2H ability because he got dismantled by every notable upper echelon puncher he fought.

Yes Vitali's resume is far from great but I still value the amount of title wins he had.

And I don't think Norton has enough actual quality wins to overcome the sheer amount of title wins Vitali had.

So either you're rating Norton's greatness higher based on his notable losses to stand out fighters.

Or you value the Ali win that much.

That's your opinion which you are entitled to but I don't necessarily agree.

 

So you tell me that I focus solely on ring ratings and not real context, and you proceed to bring up the Bowe fight for Larry Donald, as if it wasn't a full 7 years before the Vitali fight. As if the Holyfield he fought wasn't 42 and was losing to everybody, and as if Valuev wasn't a total lame who padded his record with other lames. Even a 46 year old Holyfield arguably got robbed against him. You can't make this up

God made 7 foot men suck at fighting too.

And Herbie Hide ? "Got knocked down 7 times and got iced by Bowe 4 years prior" Herbie Hide ? Whose win over Tucker was a 40 year old version who would retire within 12 months ? That Herbie Hide ? I guess Vitali is a generational Heavyweight for stopping him.

If they were really that good when they got to Vitali, then they would have been ranked. They already had gotten ranked before, when there were better fighters around. They simply weren't good by that point.

You know who also knocked out Wlad right after Sanders ? Lamon Brewster. Is Lamon Brester anything more than a mediocre fighter who got lucky ? Sanders is just a mediocre fighter who got lucky. That's it. He never showcased he could do such a thing again, and neither did Brewster.

He's not on the level of Quarry or Young, and I've been pointing back to them in both my previous 2 posts, so Idk where your idea that it's "Ali or nothing" for me comes from. If anything it's you who pretends Norton only beat Ali and never did anything else in his life.

Btw, do you use ChatGPT when replying to me ? Your responses sound way too robotic. "Calling them bums is just you setting the bar at "Ali or nothing" so you can dismiss everything else which is just another form of gatekeeping."

That sounds like a sentence a guy I knew in high school would drop. I once told him I grinded on a girl at a party. He didn't know what "grind" meant, I found that hilarious and decided not to tell him, and he blew a gasket and told me to stop gatekeeping, to stop being an elitist and to start caring for somebody else other than myself by revealing what it meant. He could have just googled it.

Except no, he didn't fight everyone available to him in that era. Not even close. A guy who only has 3 wins vs top 5 opposition didn't fight "everyone available". That's absurd.

Where's Tua on his resume ? Rahman ? Ruiz ? Mercer ? Povetkin ? Chagaev ? Valuev ? Ibragimov ? Maskaev ?Chambers ? Haye ? They were all notable, available fighters when Vitali was active. He could have fought at least some. They all ducked him ? That's hard to believe, and I don't care anyway, as behind the scenes stuff is irrelevant. He didn't fight these guys, so I'm not giving him brownie points because "he could have" been greater.

Those are not elitist standards, they're basic expectations when you're the supposed best guy in the division. Especially when all you hear about Vitali is that he has one of the greatest and most dominant reigns ever.

Where do you rank Sahaprom among the Bantamweights, Chris John among the Featherweights, and Mark Johnson among the Flyweights ?

Vitali is no better than them. Just because he's your man crush's brother doesn't change that.

it's not. That's always gonna be the lineal title, something Vitali never held. Even among the 4 belts, it doesn't mean jack if it's the most prestigious between them. The 4 belt era made everybody and their momma a champion. It's like saying ancient Egyptian cat **** is more prestigious than modern house cat ****.

Deontay Wilder made 10 WBC defences, all but the draw with Fury were wins by KO. Sounds like some top 25-30 **** on paper. Yet it's one of the most shameful reigns in Boxing history. But I guess I can't fault him for that, the WBC made him do it, and he did his job of destroying most fighters in front of him, right ?

See how gay it is ? It reads like a pro-obesity movement. "You're beautiful just the way you are, queen. Don't listen to those insecure people who have to go the extra mile to feel good about themselves".

And if you wanna give extra points to Vitali for having that crappy reign at Heavyweight, and how that makes it more prestigious because it's "the marquee division" despite it being the worst or 2nd worst division historically out of the original 8, then you're an idiot.

So, to sum it up. Vitali was never a champion, he was a belt holder, and a slave to said belt to the point where he severely underachieved. It's very, very similar to Sahaprom. He made 14 defences, about 5 of them were vs top 10 guys, 1 or 2 were vs former top 10 guys, and the rest were unranked. If we're to congratulate guys for beating everyone in front of them, then I guess Ricardo Lopez is a top 20 ATG.

Nah, I'm not ignoring it. I just don't want to bring out crayons and explain my position on every single aspect of a fighter's career every time.

Norton still has a win over his best opponent, which Vitali does not. Him losing the trilogy to the GOAT doesn't diminish that win, it merely keeps Norton away from being one of the greatest HWs ever. Same with the Holmes and Foreman losses. Vitali had 2 opportunities to show he's on the vicinity, and he blew both. Norton proved he was there by also beating Young and Quarry, Vitali was beating on guys worse than Young and Quarry. That's the heart of the matter.

Except Norton literally did dominate them

Took revenge on Garcia by stopping him in 5, Clark in 9, Kirkman in 7, Middleton in 10, Bobick in 1 and Zanon in 5

Only Tex Cobb made it hard, when Norton was 37, came off a 15 month retirement, and would retire for good after his next fight. But by all means do enlighten me, with your non-elitist standards, on how Vitali's 2 extra wins over nobodies make all the difference here.

Oh, so you missed the part where I compared Norton's wins to Vitali's and came to the conclusion they're better because they beat better fighters. Or the part where I shat on Vitali's opponents because their resumes sucked ? Did your fanboy rage blind you ?

The world watched an old Lewis kick the stoicism out of Vitali's face. But fine, say that Vitali's performance vs the worst version of Lewis made him worthy of the #4 slot. That's fine. How do you explain him gaining the #1 spot by beating the unranked Kirk Johnson right after ? Despite Sanders having just iced his brother who was ranked #1 for the past 2 years, and despite Chris Byrd being right there and only having lost to Wlad these past few years ?

There's something very wrong with that. Imagine if Wallin got rated #4 a few months after the Fury fight, when the latter beat Wilder, and then #1 after beating Breazeale. That's essentially what that was.

Yeah, I don't think comprehension is your strong suit. I'm tired of all the glazing about Vitali's body of work in particular. First, because his body of work is ****. Second, because he's got 2 more wins vs ranked opponents than Norton, yet you'd think Vitali has 2 dozens of wins vs rated men than Norton does the way they talk about his "depth".

This is not a case where Louis has almost twice the amount of wins vs rated opposition of someone like Mayweather. Vitali has 2 more wins over rated opposition than Norton. Two. Very negligible, especially considering the fact they weren't even rated at the time Vitali fought them.

Did you miss the part where I said I give Norton more credit for his win over Ali, than I do for Rahman/McCall's over Lewis, because the manner in which he beat him was more impressive ?

Damn, so you really hate my guts to the point where you develop tunnel vision and reach a conclusion that's way off. But sure, keep at it. Keep claiming my sole criteria is rankings.

Btw, that closed loop analogy ? Sounds gay af.

 

In my defence, anybody that willingly wants to rewatch Vitali fights needs to go touch some grass.

 

Lets look at Samuel Serrano.

After a disputed draw fighting for Ben Villaflor's WBA title the WBA ordered a rematch.

Serrano wins and then defends the title 10 times. This is the LINEAL title as well.

He loses to Yasutsune Uehara and then regains in the rematch 8 months later. Again, this is also the lineal title.

He defends 3 times before losing to the talented roger Mayweather. He's been boxing for 14 years and held the title for almost 7 years excepting the single avenged hiccup.

His title fight record is 13-2. That's his lineal fight record as well. He defended against his share of top 10 opponents (tho with the WBA's controversial ratings he could have fought some stronger guys too) and Villaflor was extremely highly regarded when he beat him and I've seen him in his share of top 10's at 130.

He was Ring Rated #1 from the end of 76 until the start of 83 when Mayweather beat him with just that one 8 month hiccup when beaten by Uehara. That's about 7 years at #1 minus less than a year. That's a big period when fighters actually kept a busy schedule.

His record is 50-6-1 with four of the losses coming pre title and in his first 24 fights.

He mostly fought at home and it was mostly an average era until not long before he lost to Mayweather, when it was starting to run hot.

Do we ever hear about Serrano? He's got Vitali covered on a great many fronts. I see a lot of similarities in other places. When we strictly talk numbers in title fights and the like we never hear of Serrano, and the man was lineal and reined for ages.

 

That is elite level (and then some) and what makes it even better is that it 9 is so apt.

 

Superb post, JT.

 

The issue seems to be that you are happy to judge Norton qualitatively, while you credit Vitali quantitatively.

In your assessment of Norton, the Ali win is deemed to have been relied on too heavily; the Young win is framed by controversy; the Quarry win by decline; and the elite losses by failure. (No mention of a highlight reel finish of #5-rated Bobick, I note.)

Those are not unwarranted considerations, but they do as much as they can to take away from Norton. Meanwhile, Vitali has a number that sees assumed quality attributed to him, when by the same token, his opposition should be likewise scrutinized.

Who is Vitali's best win? How many of his title wins were against elite heavyweights? How many were against top-three/top-five opponents? How many were single-belt defenses in a fragmented division? Did he unify? How many other 'titlists' were there with a World Championship claim? Did he beat the recognized best heavyweight in the world?


On the point about notable losses against top-level opposition, defeats suffered in high quality bouts are typically enlightening.

For example, Norton's decision loss against Holmes is more informative about his performance level than what one of Vitali's routine walkovers tells us about his. The result went against Norton, but the quality of the contest still tells you something real about the fighters involved, regardless of the outcome.

I do not discount the Foreman, Shavers, Cooney or Garcia losses but, as is the case with wins, there is context to take into consideration. At the same time, Vitali’s losses also count. He failed to beat Lewis, a fight in which Vitali had far better odds of turning the trick than did Norton against Ali. And then, before that, there was Byrd...

...What is worse – getting knocked out by a prime George Foreman or, as a defending titlist, quitting against Chris Byrd?

Either way, if Norton’s losses reveal limitations, Vitali’s losses do too.


The question is not whether Vitali had more title wins. This is just a simple count that confirms the obvious. He did. The real question is what those so-called title fights actually prove, and answering that requires evidential evaluation rather than enumeration.

A count tells us how many times something happened. It does not tell us the quality, difficulty, uniqueness, or historical significance of what happened. As I have said before, Norton actually won at the elite level. Vitali did not. That is not a mere detail; it is a considerable margin of difference between them.

So, this is not only a matter of opinion. It is also about the appropriate weighting of evidence. A title win is not a fixed unit of greatness. It has to be reasoned in context to determine its substantive value. Once you do that, one might find that Vitali’s number flatters to deceive, and in any event, it certainly does not automatically overcome the higher-grade evidence for Norton.

 

It doesn't even seem like you have seen him fight. Vitali is a human version of rock'em sock'em robots. No idea how you couldn't like his fights because they are all action. Vitali vs. Lewis wasn't a fun fight to watch??