are you joking?..... atsch i am talking about a decent version of ali... not about an old fat man with parkinson
1. Joe Louis 2. Muhammad Ali 3. Jack Johnson 4. Larry Holmes 5. Rocky Marciano 6. Mike Tyson 7. Lennox Lewis 8. Evander Holyfield 9. George Foreman 10. Joe Frazier 11. Jack Dempsey 12. Sonny Liston 13. Jim Jeffries 14. Harry Wills 15. Jersey Joe Walcott 16. Ezzard Charles 17. Sam Langford 18. Wladimir Klitschko 19. Floyd Patterson 20. Riddick Bowe My revised list. I'm scratching my head trying to figure who Norton can replace.
I never get how you can put Bowe in your Top10. Just like with Norton there are plenty of fighters who deserve to be ranked above him. At least more than 20, perhaps even more. He deserves to be ranked above Norton though, slightly.
Or .... maybe Ali would be lower on everybody's list ? If Ali is judged to have lost 2/3 or even 3/3 to Norton, does he really still deserve to be ranked in the top 2 of all-time (as most people have him) ?
No, I don't rate Jeffries highly at all. You just like to say that to deflect from your own view that Tim Witherspoon is top 12, and David Haye rates above Dempsey.
i put norton above wladimir for sure. norton did beat ali 3 fights absolutely, he was past his prime and he gave the hell to prime holmes, norton was proved. (AND SORRY BUT TYSON IN THE TOP 10 IS SIMPLY RIDICULOUS). I THINK THAT NORTON WOULD BEAT PATTERSON,CHARLES AND WALCOTT
frazier did beat ali once. The third fight was close, but still i think that ali won because eddie stoped the fight the first. ALI WON THE SECOND FIGHT CLEARLY. Norton did beat ali always and everybody know that.
And Ali won the rematch! But I like you would say Ali was decent in 73, so we are in agreement. I am putting it to you, Ali was not decent in November 1976, and as early as that date, was showing (with hindsight) the signs that we now know to be his Parkinson's syndrome (and possible Dementia Pugilistica).
Although Wladimir is not the undisputed champion (which would count against him if he never unifies) he's dominating this era something Ken Norton has never done. Yes, he gave Ali 3 tough fights, but he only won 1 of them officially. He gave hell to prime Holmes but Holmes beat him. Norton's resume can't stand alone on 1 win vs Ali. It needs more depth. Wlad hasn't beaten many good fighters just a few decent contenders. But Norton's resume is very light, he simply doesn't have much to go by. Giving Ali and Holmes tough fights isn't enough to rank ahead of Wlad. Personally I think Wlad would give Ali a tough fight himself. I'm not 100% convinced that Norton beats Patterson who himself had a decent punch. But even if he can beat Patterson, Charles and Walcott it doesn't mean that he rates above them simply because he's the better fighter. Tyson is a top 10 Heavyweight. I base it on: 1. Cleaning out the division. 2. Consistent and dominant tenure as Champion 3. Quality of opposition when he fought them. 4. His resume has Depth.