Ken Norton or Wladmir Klitschko- Who ranks higher?

I think Norton is a top 25 fighter, while Wlad is a top 20 fighter.

Just look at this thread on top HWs. http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=279988. Wlad was ranked 19 by ESB, while Norton wasn't in the list at all.

I rate consistency and dominance high in a boxer, that's why I rate Wlad higher than most.

So here's my argument.

Norton may have beaten Ali, but one great win does not trump six years as the best heavyweight! No matter how weak the competition in heavyweight is.

2005-2011 will be remembered as the era of Wlad Klitshcko, just like 78-85 belongs to Holmes, 86-90 belongs to Tyson, and 1908-15 belongs to Johnson,.

What years will be remembered as Norton's era?

That alone to me will make Wlad rank higher than Norton. And if he beats Haye, and retires with only three losses, say, in four or five years, thats ten years at the top. Maybe he can crack the top 15.

No matter what you say about this HW era, that is impressive.

 

im talking about either version i dont recognise his name as muhammed ali.........
marving hagler changed his name to marvelous marving hagler i dont go round calling him marvelous.

 

I thought you meant the young version, normally when people say Cassius Clay they mean the young version as he is quite easily distiguishable as a fighter from the 70's version. My bad though, if you wasn't being specific then i take prime Ali/Clay (whatever you want to call him) over prime Wlad all day and tomorrow

 

These two would NOT make my top 15 all-time.
I'd rate Wlad higher, but I'm struggling to remember who he has beat.
Wlad's not bad at all though. He's not far behind LL is my book.

 

ouch, so you don't have lewis in your top 15 either? or near the bottom?

 

but he WAS marvelous

 

yes yes he was:good

 

Heretic! :twisted:

 

True. Neither of the Klitschkos would have been so succesful in Ken Norton's era. Whereas Ken would have thrived if he'd been in his prime over the last five years or so.

 

Stunning argument.

 

What if I told you that the Golden 70's contenders like Quarry, Bonavena, Norton, Ellis, Chuvalo and all other Ali victims..... here it comes.... wait for it..... would have clearly and undeniably been undisputed champions in others eras? :yep

I mean, guys like Garcia, Cobb, Shavers and Cooney who gave Norton hell, were bonafide ATG level and exclusively present in the might 70's!

 

We dont know how Kilt would do in the Ali era or Norton in today's era. Its still all guess work.

Perhaps lilke Byrd found out, Wlad may have been too big for the slower 1970's Ali, and have been pretty much view as a Foreman type of fighter. Even if George kos Wlad in 1 or 2 rounds, Wlad would still be view as god status on his win over Ali alone, as we are doing with Norton.

Perhaps Norton's chin does not see him though the Rahman's or Brewster's of the divsion. Both guys can wack, Ask Wlad and Lewis.

 

Fixed.

 

I can see it now, Ellis knocking out Joe Louis in a round or 2. He be like George Foreman in the 40's. He would rein from Louis's era, past Marciano's era, crush Patterson's and Liston's reins before they even started, and at 50 plus finally lose to 1970's Ali. He was too great to lose to 1960's Ali.

 

Ha! At least you have a sense of humor.