I asked AI to simulate a fight between Muhammad Ali and Mike Tyson

It was a flawed comparison to begin with. Douglas was a talented guy who rarely fought to his full potential, sometimes slacked off in training, and lost fights that he could've won. Norton trained hard, was always in shape, and always did his best in every fight. He wasn't a 1-hit wonder, his fights with Young and Holmes were classics that make it to many people's top 10-20 HW fight lists. And as you pointed out, Norton still managed to push a focused Ali in a rematch and arguably got a draw or even a win depending on how you scored it. Many people agree Tyson would stomp Douglas in a rematch if he were focused and that Douglas probably didn't have the motivation to bring his A game again.

Leon Spinx would be a better comparison to Douglas. Leon accomplished very little outside of that 1 upset.

 

I said the same thing and was laughed at in here....it's your turn now.

 

I think you’re missing my points maybe. I’ll try and clean up what I’m saying, I’m saying Norton has a single one similar to Douglas on an otherwise average resume and it defines him, note that I said WIN stop bringing him the losses as if they add any credible value he lost end of.

Theoretically had Douglas got rematches with Tyson I think they’d be held in similar esteem, though unlike most I don’t buy the Buster fluke story he was just better then Mike that night, had he stayed the course he could’ve gone far.

Both guys had mixed results outside their key moment in history, an upset. Nortons subsequent victories without Ali? I don’t think the rest of his career amounts too much more than Buster if it does it’s not much more, they’re a similar tier this is based on the outcomes of their actual wins. That’s all I’m getting at, people turn Kenny into an ATG but like Buster he has one actual GREAT win and a mixed bag.

 

Norton's resume is still better than Douglas if we remove their single signature "great" wins.

Norton:
-Young #2 contender
-Quarry #5 contender
-Cobb #9 contender, undefeated.
-Zanon #10 contender
-Bobick undefeated prime fighter

Douglas:
-Berbick unranked ex champ
-McCall decent name, future champ
-Page unranked but good name & ex champ
-Simpson undefeated prime fighter


Douglas had some decent names on his record (2 ex champs, 1 future champ), but sorely lacks actual ranked fighters he beat outside of Tyson. Norton beat 4 ranked fighters.

 

I haven’t missed any points - in fact, I’ve been mindful to address your each and every point and make my own related points to support my position on the finer details and the big picture.

I completely understand what you’re trying to say. I’ve actually already addressed, answered and or refuted what you’ve stated in your last post. I literally can’t say any more without being repetitive.

Of course we can simply agree to disagree at this point.

 

Are any of those ranked contenders even that much better? Bobick was all hype, Zanon- who? Cobb is Cobb him being ranked is a sign of the times… Quarry was totally shot and finished, Young was a good fighter but I don’t think it’d be that weird to say he was about on the level with the guys Douglas beat.

 

Agreed.

No doubt that Buster was very talented but hard work and focus are significant features to a fighters performances and successes also - features that Buster unfortunately lacked for the most part.

He was very competitive and perhaps leading Tucker when he virtually “dropped tools” as he began to gas - almost a literal surrender. I believe his father Billy Dynamite Douglas was appalled by Busters ultimate lack of spirit in that fight.

This isn’t to expressly “down” Buster but the contrast allows us to give due credit to guys like Norton who always came in shape - was always in optimal physical condition which lent itself to his greater material successes (as compared to Buster).

Being even handed, I think it was appalling the shape Ali was in for some of his late career fights - even gloating about it - saying he didn’t take the given opponent seriously enough to even train properly.

However people want to rate Ken - and imo he can still be rated very highly without necessarily being viewed as an ATG - he was always a pro, always in great shape, always gave an honest effort and always earned his pay cheques.

 

I mean that's a cop out to just say the era is weak if the fighters who were ranked don't seem impressive to you. The best criteria for judging a resume is who were the names they beat. Popularity is one thing, but ranking and record are far more important.

Many of the fighters Norton beat were coming off good wins. Cobb had just beaten Shavers in a very grueling war. Young had won 5 fights in a row including wins over ranked Foreman and Lyle. Bobbick had earned his ranking by beating Wepner who was ranked #9 and had also beaten Ledoux who was frequently in and out of the top 10. It's not like they just randomly got ranked for the hell of it.

 

Fully understandable, agree to disagree but I am going to dig my heels on this one. Norton has a lacklustre winning resume that belongs alongside fighters like Douglas, when your next best win is Jimmy Young who lost to a ten fight Ossie, Green Cooney and a novice Dokes shortly after and you're using Cobb as a standout win you're no ATG you are closer to Douglas then anywhere near ATG status- that's not including being wiped out by Shavers, drawing with "Sugar" Scott and crushed by Cooney.

 

Why would you ignore a fighters losses when evaluating their career?

Where do you rank Holman Williams at MW? A list with the sole criteria of quality and depth of win resume should see him ranked #1 or #2, yet I've never seen him ranked there.

How fighters did in losses in and around their prime tells us as much about how good or great they were as their best wins.

Even limiting loss analysis, for brevity's sake, to the ATG's each lost to:

Norton lost to Ali twice and Holmes. All 3 could reasonably be scored to him and most feel he won one of the Ali fights.

Douglas was dominated and stopped in 3 by Holyfield.

Most rate Holyfield below Ali and Holmes. Yes, Douglas was clearly not the same as vs Tyson, but dedication, discipline and consistency impact on how a fighter does in their career, they are material to their (relative) "greatness". These fights are a reasonable gauge to the performance levels each attained during their careers.

I agree Norton wasn't an ATG, but disagree he should be ranked closer to Douglas than an ATG. I don't have a HW list that goes beyond a top 25, but McGrain has Norton 22 and Douglas 61. I'd have Norton a little lower, but only a little. A cursory glance suggests I wouldn't rank Douglas any higher.

I'm confident if most completed the level of analysis required to create a well researched top 100, they'd have Norton not only nearer to their lowest ATG, but nearer to their GOAT, then they would Douglas.

 

I don’t ignore a fighters losses when evaluating a fighters ability but when it comes to looking at their career achievements- a win is a win an achievement and a loss is always a negative to your careers evaluation- how much of a negative? That’s when the context comes into play.

 

I think it's possible for an official "loss" to enhance a fighters ranking, but I'd be splitting hairs to push that point, I largely agree with this post.

When ranking fighters most people factor in multiple elements, not just who they beat, but when and how, and who they lost to, when and how.

Factoring in all elements, on balance, the vast majority would rank Norton substantially higher than Douglas, based on the entire bodies of work in their respective careers.

 

I think we’ve reached a conclusion then, I do agree most would and I’m basing my argument on a few theoretical so it’s a bit of a shaky foundation to stand firm on, but I do think Douglas and Norton are about level.

 

He may have already knocked him out.

 

Liston, Foreman , Lyle, Norton, Shavers, Frazier, couldn't knock out Ali.....but a guy who got waxed by Buster Douglas will?