Ken Norton is often branded as an elite fighter of the 70s which I think we can agree based on his talent level and big win over Muhammad Ali and 2 other closely contested fights the 3rd of which is likely a fight that could have (should have if you prefer) gone to him. I'm playing devil's advocate here but I've seen various top 15-20 lists that have him listed above fighters who, I'm beginning to feel probably out rank him legacy wise despite his signature victory. Best wins: Ali Young Quarry Stander Bobick Kirkman Cobb Clark For a top 20 ATG fighter his resume is rather light. Yes he Remained a top fighter in a talent laden division but he ranks below Ali, Foreman and Frazier coming in a distant 4th. He never actually won the title in the ring, rather he won it because his fight with Young became an eliminator after Spinks was stripped. He lost it in the very next fight against Larry Holmes. When you compare him to a list of other Heavyweights can a case be made that he can rank in the top 20? 15? Just as a refresher here are 20 Heavyweight Champions that should rank as Top 20, I excluded Norton on purpose and I'd like your views on who he should replace/ranked ahead of. 21 ATG HWs (no order) Corbett Wlad Wills Langford Tyson Louis Ali Lewis Frazier Foreman Holmes Liston Holyfield Johnson Jeffires Dempsey Patterson Bowe Walcott Charles Marciano Thoughts?
I placed him in the top 25.. He has a huge win over Ali, along with good scalps over Young, Quarry, Cobb, Kirkman, Bobick and a few others.. Most of his losses were primarily to great fighters, some of which when he was past it, and of all the men who ever fought in a heavyweight ring, he was one of the best conditioned. He comes close to top 20, but as some have already stated, doesn't quite make it there. His resume lacked either that crowning point, or consistancy that many of the others had. For example, he did manage to beat a better fighter in Muhammad Ali than anyone Wlad ever beat, but Klit has far more victories over ranked opposition, a better record and more longevity as a champ.. Still he is a great fighter... Perhaps he might have appeared on a top 15-20 list back around 1980 or so, but since the inductions, of Holmes, Tyson, Holyfield, Bowe, Lewis, and Klit, I think he got bumped off that list..
I guess it turns on quality of best wins vs versatility. Norton is strong on the former, but weak in terms of resume vs a wide variety of styles.
Agreed, He did exceptionally well against the very best of technical boxers, but fell very short against the best of hitters.. Of course, there are few punchers who match up to the likes of Foreman, Shavers and Cooney, plus he fought two of those men when past his best, but we never saw how he'd do against otherwise, so it remanins a questionmark..
40: Cleveland Williams 39: Zora Foley 38: Tommy Burns 37: Michael Spinks 36: James Douglas 35: James Braddock 34: George Godfrey 33: Jimmy Bivins 32: Max Baer 31: Jerry Quarry 30: Tim Witherspoon 29: Bob Fitzsimmons 28: Jack Sharkey 27: Sam McVey 26: Joe Jeanette 25: Vitali Klitschko 24: Peter Jackson 23: Ken Norton 22: Joe Walcott (Jersey) 21: Gene Tunney 20: Riddick Bowe 19: Floyd Patterson 18: Max Schmeling 17: Ezzard Charles 16: Sammy Langford 15: Harry Wills 14: James Corbett 13: Sonny Liston 12: Joe Frazier 11: Mike Tyson 10: Lennox Lewis 9: James Jeffries 8: Jack Dempsey 7: Rocky Marciano 6: Evander Holyfield 5: Larry Holmes 4: Jack Johnson 3: George Foreman 2: Joe Louis 1: Muhammad Ali 23 IMO.
I think he has a solid case to be top20, he arguably beat most peoples number 1 2out of 3 times - well arguably 3 out of 3, past prime or not. Many of the top20 just didn't face Norton's level of competition
Interesting List. Vitaly and Wlad should be ranked ahead or Norton. (you didn't include Wladimir in your rankings)
No, I did it a few years back, and to be honest I still think Vladimir is struggling to get on there. Maybe time will make me more respectful of the brothers Klitschko, at the moment I resent them.
When Norton was the one with the punch in the match, he could be relentless against the best competition of all time. When facing superior power, he shrank, only too ready to lie down. I'm confident there have been 25 better overall heavyweights over 100 years. Boxing was a Plan B for college attendee Norton. He himself said he was never totally "serious" about boxing. It was never this or nothing. As Larry Holmes said, you can know a man by the way he fights. I respect Norton, but, in essence, to me he always seemed to be looking beyond the ring at something else, for something else. Physically, Norton was amazing. Mentally in the fire, not so much.
As much as I hate to say it Wlad has alot more depth than Norton and has slowly via the Larry Holmes route beaten enough fighters to make it to the top 20 today if not the top 15. Wlad has grown on me on a head to head basis and Legacy wise.
He did give two of the top four all time heavyweights the toughest fights of their careers ... in addition he beat the absolutely best Jimmy Young ever ... however, against the monster hitters he froze up big time ... the question is how many were there that had the style to do that to Ken ?