Ken Norton or Wladmir Klitschko- Who ranks higher?

I'd have to say Norton. IMO fighting the likes of Ali, Foreman and Holmes amongst others has to put him higher, although its not Klitschko's fault he's around in the poorest heavyweight era ever.

 

while i agree with the general point that norton has much better comp let's not forget he went 1 win, 4 losses with that group. regardless of what you think about the ali decisions, his resume is pretty poor with those elites. throw in a knockout loss to shavers, a razor thin win over young and a KO of completely shopworn quarry norton's resume is very solid but lacking in truly marquee wins, save for ali. what wlad has is consistent dominance over a weak division, which may rank on par or higher, than being a top contender in a much better division

 

Klitschko is an unfinished work but he has been a dominating champion for a stretch of five years, having barely lost a round. I don't care what anyone thinks of the level of competition, but many of these were mandatories and former champs. He beat the best of what was available and pretty much erased the division (outside of his brother). Maybe that does not qualify him for a top-10 all-time ranking but it certainly makes him better than a second tier heavy from the 70's.

 

norton but it's very close imo

 

Clearly Wald, and this coming from somebody who's never seen him fight and doesn't follow boxing anymore. But the fact is that this is somebody with ten consecutive title wins against a variety of competition over a five year span, nine by stoppage. Ken never won a fight with a world title on the line going in. (The WBC belatedly ruled Norton-Young a title fight after the fact. Given Ken's efforts against Ali, Foreman and Holmes, I do wonder if the pressure of a match for the vacant WBC Title would have diluted his performance with Young. Does he box not to lose again if he knows for a fact Norton-Young is for the vacant title going in?)

At no time do I see Ken generating consecutive championship wins in double figures. Sooner or later, he has no choice but to take on a heavy slugger, something he had the freedom to avoid as a contender between 1970 and 1979, except when he challenged Foreman in Caracas for the title. He never proved he could deal with a first rate slugger in top form. To become a champion of the first order requires the ability to defeat a full variety of styles and opponents. Even Dempsey's anemic reign saw him successfully defend against master boxer-puncher Tommy Gibbons and huge slugger Firpo in 1923. Ken was hell against stylists, but he never proved he could take a Foreman, Lyle, Shavers, Cooney, Knoetze, Coetzee, Mercado, ect... During a five year period with the title, does he get to ten defenses without once taking on a slugger like that (especially with an undisputed crown)?

 

good post and importantly, we can only judge by what norton DID do. take away the first ali fight and he loses to every top fighter he faced save for quarry (who was well past it) and young (which many have argued on here he lost). i like norton, i like his style and he had tremendous talent but you hit the nail on the head when you said he did enough not to lose. the only exception i saw was with holmes, which is likely his career best performance

 

I think there is a clear gap between them. And not in Norton´s favour.

 

Wlad and it´s not even close

 

I prefer Wlad, and with a huge difference. No aspect of boxing that Ken Norton can do better than Wlad.

 

Can't say I've ever seen Wladimir fight as a pressuring body puncher.

 

Norton's win over Ali beats anything Klitschko has ever done.

 

Career accomplishments are a different story.

 

nor has wlad displayed the ability to counter jab, mimic and outwork a top tier ability

but i still give the edge to wlad

 

This.