The main issue I have with Norton is that Lennox Lewis really struggled to maintain a dominant position with Vitali. I think, ken struggled to find a dominant position in even his best fights. Yes they were against superb fighters of a much higher echelon to herbie hide and co but for any real certainty I would like one commanding performance at high level to go on. One where he was really able to control a good fighter because here, to overcome a giant long puncher he needs to utterly control and impose himself as the boss man at ring centre and really dictate in that role. I didn’t see that from ken. He reacted to a situation and responded. But he wasn’t dictatorial at all and he would need to be here. As Lennox Lewis had to. He really struggled to find that position to beat big Klit. And that’s what Ken has to do here. It’s a big ask in my opinion, whilst still accepting the step up in class of fighter Norton is for vitali. A template for what Ken has to do would be what Tim Witherspoon did to Jorge Gonzanlez...but I cannot be as certain ken can quite dictate like that.
Prime , quick and explosive Lewis struggled to maintain a dominant position over Frank Bruno because Bruno had a hard stiff jab. Lewis struggled briefly to maintain a dominant position over Vitali because he was slow as a sloth , old , unmotivated and plodded forward. Norton was nothing like that version of Lewis who Vitali failed miserably to keep at a distance. By your rationale , Norton would have a harder time against Frank Bruno.
Norton wins. Vitali Klitschko never beat anyone good. I give him credit for his come back from that 4 year lay-off but he never beat anyone good. And he wasn't the kind of puncher you'd expect Norton to slip up against.
No I think Norton should beat Bruno. But Ken would not beat Sonny Liston. you make a great point about the jab being problematic for Ken..until Frank gassed that is. Liston would not gass.
I recognise this is a key point. If it wasn’t for the shattering losses to Foreman and Shavers and the lack of a really controlling performance over a good fighter I couldn’t give Vitali even a prayer of winning.
It is a big ask and trying to achieve absolute certainty is a fool's errand. However, I think you are using inappropriate benchmarks and match-winning criteria, without looking at the context and details. For example, the Lewis/Klitschko bout. There's no accounting for just how far Lewis had drifted from his best or for just how poor his conditioning was, going into that fight. The quality of the boxing was so lacking that it is difficult to see how Lewis struggling had more to do with Vitali than it was a situation of Lewis' own making. That Vitali himself looked ragged, from round 3 onward, the little defense he had unraveling doesn't help me towards a conclusion that one fighter was taking control over another. It was a slugfest - in which Vitali came off worse. The notion that Norton was unable to gain a dominant position in fights seems a bit of a strange comment; especially, when you look at the level of the opponents he was having to compete with, in Ali, Young and Holmes. Vying for position against fighters with good footwork and control of distance is not the same as struggling to find position. Vitali presents no such challenge. Norton getting blasted out by Foreman and Shavers is collectively another benchmark you use, which seems to imply Vitali was capable of doing the same. Firstly, Vitali was no Foreman. He was not as explosive or as aggressive or as able to cut the ring off, as Foreman. Foreman was blasting people out as a matter of course and had not long done just the same to an undefeated Frazier. It is not an anomaly. The Shaver's loss came at the tail end of Norton's career. He was all but totally done by this point and, again, Shavers was an explosive fighter, committing everything to his power from the opening bell. I just don't see this bout as a useful indicator.
Lewis was coming off the two key wins that on paper cement his place in history. Including Vitali, on paper, the last three names on Lewis’s record, Rahman, Tyson and Klitschko..all stopped..are the best wins Lewis ever had. NoBody was talking about Lewis coming to the end after the Tyson fight. Nobody. Lewis was with Manny Steward. Are you saying Steward permitted Lewis to go into the ring unprepared against the kind of tall heavyweight Olympian Manny always scouted for? He knew all about the Klitschkos before anybody else did. No way he would have put his name to allowing Lewis to take either of the klit brothers lightly. Not many fighters put Lewis under that much pressure. Mavrovic had been able to subject Lewis to fighting at an uncomfortable pace which effected the poise and composure Lewis usually enjoyed. But he was not made as desperate as he was against Vitali...though the boxing was just as bad if you remember. So this is an example of the Steward version of Lewis producing a lower standard of boxing when sufficiently effected by the opponent. As was the case with Vitali.
Very interesting to see you making a case for Vitali considering you seem to have an agenda against more contemporary boxers.
Whether Lewis' last three bouts were his best three wins, is a matter of opinion. As for "Nobody" talking about Lewis retiring, after Tyson... ...that's just plain wrong. Lewis was indeed contemplating retirement in 2002. One needed only to have read the papers at the time to know this. The only thing preventing him from retiring, at that stage, was the promise of more big money coming from a Tyson rematch. I'm not sure what you are trying to suggest, here. Lewis had a contractual obligation to fulfill, whether Manny Steward liked it or not. There's no comparison between the performances put on by Lewis in the Mavrovic and Vitali bouts, respectively. Lewis looked miles better against Mavrovic and boxed very well against an opponent, who turned out to be teak tough. Lewis won a wide decision. No. This is an example of a Lewis, just short of his 38th birthday, who hadn't fought in over a year, who was under-trained and no longer mentally in the game, paying the consequences, in terms of his performance, but still winning the fight.
Lewis was definitely past his best in 2003. It's true he peaked at a relatively late age, and it is arguable that the Rahman rematch proves that he was still "prime" at age 36, but realistically, against Vitali almost 2 years on, and at his career heaviest, he's somewhat past it. And, yes, he'd been talking of retiring for a while.
Lewis contemplating retirement after Tyson seemed no more serious and was taken far less seriously than Larry Holmes contemplating retirement after defeating David Bey. This is a entirely different thing to there being a real calling for Lewis to retire because he was deteriorating. There was no consensus that Lewis was clearly slipping or winding down after he regained the title from Rahman. He then beat Tyson. According to manny Steward The decision to retire was made by Lennox’s wife which came after the Klitschko fight. ““I told Lennox after the fight: I feel like we owe Vitali a rematch. Lennox agreed with me. Even after a year since Lennox left boxing, we talked about that fight. She didn’t want him to continue boxing, despite the fact that Lewis still wanted to fight. If Vitali and him were able to secure a rematch, it would be very intriguing.” That is a matter of opinion. What example can you provide that Lewis was “undertrained and no longer mentally in the game”? Lewis dragged out a win here against an opponent who took him to the wire. He dug deep and really had to fight his way to an important win.
You categorically stated that "Nobody" was talking about Lewis coming to an end after the Tyson fight, which is patently untrue. Now, it's that nobody was taking any talk of his retirement seriously. You clearly don't know your history, when it comes to Lennox Lewis' career. Lewis' decision to retire after Vitali has nothing to do with your statement that "Nobody" was talking about Lewis retirement after Tyson. Moreover, Lewis' own words do not remotely reflect Manny Steward's take. It's no secret that Manny wanted Lewis to fight on. It's also no secret that once Lewis had beaten Tyson, he no longer had the hunger to fight on - but had seen a Tyson rematch as a big (and relatively easy) payday. The Klitschko bout came as a result of a planned build up towards a Tyson rematch collapsing. Not really. It is visually verifiable and the scorecards are on record. If you think Lewis boxed anything like as badly against Mavrovic, as he did against Vitali then I don't know what else to say, other than you really don't know what you are looking at. Lewis contemplating retirement, post-Tyson and still not having made his mind up, by the end of 2002. Lewis coming in at a career high weight of 256.5lbs. Lewis confessing to his former Trainer, John Davenport, that he hadn't been in shape. Lewis himself saying that he'd had doubts about his readiness going into the Klitschko bout and that had he done it over, he would have definitely come in lighter. Vitali himself stating that Lewis hadn't had enough time to prepare for him and that he knew Lewis was not in the best condition. Just about anyone watching the fight, who witnessed Lewis blowing after two rounds. Just about every newspaper report on the fight, citing Lewis as having looked out of condition. There's no great mystery here. Where have you been for the last 18 years? Lewis was taken to the wire because he was out of shape and disinterested. He only took the bout because he was contractually bound to fight and would have personally lost money if the card had been cancelled.
