I wish Kenny would have added a few more good wins to his ledger. say,,,,,1971 Mac Foster, 1972 Joe Bugner or 1971 thru 1973 Jerry Quarry, even a 1971/1972 Jimmy Ellis. A Ron Lyle fight is missing, thats the fight everyone would have wanted to see.
well in few words , i disagree.. tyson did beat pure garbage, his best victories were against a lhw spinks in his 30s and a shot larry holmes, tyson faced only 2 legends and they were not in their prime, they both were older than tyson and they both destroyed tyson, tyson was destroyed by a bum like douglas in his prime, if he did not train it is his fault, douglas had problems too, his mom was died.basing on his career tyson is not top 10 hw. simple. and ken norton fought in a harder era than wladimir, and he did beat ali 3 times, he gave the hell to prime larry holmes, and norton was not in his prime. it is more than sufficient to me to prove that he was greater than wlad, he is above wladimir.
I'm torn on this one. Lyle could have starched Norton early,but Ken could have outboxed Ron if he does n't get caught early.
norton never was good against good punchers,(and rony lyle could punch like a ****ing mother****er) ron lyle dropped foreman twice. he would catch and destroy norton ,sure.
Tyson beat: Spinks, Holmes, Ruddock 2x, Bruno 2x, Thomas, Tubbs, Biggs, Tucker, Smith, C. Williams, Botha, Seldon, Stewart, Berbick, Golota* All of these fighters at the time Tyson faced were either top contenders/titlists or past or future beltholders/champions. His resume is lot deeper than most Heavyweight champions. Spinks was 31 and undefeated. Just because Micheal Spinks is a light heavyweight it doesn't mean that the victory is not good. Remember this: Gene Tunney was a former LHW and he beat Dempsey 2x Billy Conn was a former LHW and he gave Joe Louis a little more than 91 seconds to get the job done. Ezzard Charles was former LHW and he gave Rocky Marciano 2 tough fights. Micheal Moorer was a former LHW and he beat Evander Holyfield in his prime. In fact, Micheal Moorer was the only reason why George Foreman is a top 10 fighter; because he was the champion and Foreman beat him. Spinks wasn't just a LHW moving up to Heavyweight to face Mike Tyson, He was an ATG LHW who moved up in weight and beat an undefeated Larry Holmes 2x to become Champion. Larry Holmes was 38. At 42 he beat Ray Mercer more convincingly than Holyfield and Lewis did. Tell me, how is 30 year old Tyson losing to a 34 year old Holyfield worse than Foreman at age 24 losing to a 32 year old Ali. Frazier faced only 2 HW legends and he's 1-4 against Foreman and Ali. Does that mean he's not a top 10 fighter? Tyson was at fault for losing to Douglas because it was his responsibility to show up in shape. However; Lewis was KO'd by 2 ordinary fighters in McCall & Rahman. Is he not a top 10 fighter? Dempsey was KO'd in 1 by Fireman Flynn. Is he not a great fighter? Liston suffered a broken jaw and lost to a very ordinary Marty Marshall Is he not a great fighter? Fighting in a harder era can be taken into account for picking up losses that you may not pick up in easier times but failing to clean out the division, dominate or even emerge as the best fighter or even second best fighter of the division also counts against you. Wlad is dominating this era. Norton never dominated his. Wlad has a better overall resume. Norton has a great win over Ali, a win over Young and Quarry. After that the rest of his resume has names that are pretty much even with what Wlad has the difference being that Wlad just has so much more than Norton and therefore has enough depth to call his resume greater.
ironchamp.. i understood that you wrote, but i disagree. my english is not very good to write a Developed opinion. you like tyson and you support him, it is fine... but not even in dreams tyso is above foreman or frazier in the top.... simple (tyson during his prime did beat anyone, ok but at this time "anyone" was =garbage, simple, and he lost by ko against a bum and he never won a rematch, post prison tyson lost against evander twice, and they both were past their prime) a peak tyson would have chance to beat several legends, ok, but basing on his career, tyson is not top 10. and you know that. ken norton fought ali (the greatest of all times) 3 times and he won the 3 fights and everybody know that. and he was past his prime when he gave the hell to prime holmes. holmes was much better than wladimir, simple. norton today would beat adamek, peters,valuev..... and i pick him to beat david haye (overrated hitting power). probably wladimir would lose against ali,foreman,frazier,holmes ron lyle,jimmy young,quarry,shavers would give him the hell. and wladimir never dominated this era because he never faced vitali , vitali would ko him. and he never faced lennox lewis or tua. according to your theory marciano is the greatest... he is the only undefeated and 32 years old ali was by far much better than holyfield 96.
Christ almighty, don't you have anything else to add to this forum but this misguided notion that Lyle was some kind of alltime great puncher?
no voy a gastar mi tiempo respondiendo tus tonterías... me aburres. ron lyle is top 15-20 hardest puncher of all time for sure. lyle was harder puncher than jose louis garcía the man that knocked out norton. lyle was the only man who dropped foreman twice and early. peak holyfield,joe frazier,norton,chuvalo,cooney,morrison,bert cooper, alex stewart,shanon briggs, michael moorer.... nobody in the history could do that. asi que no me importa un carajo tu opinón, yo hablo con pruebas
Ken Norton only got robbed once against Ali and that was in the third fight. The second fight had Ali in probably his best shape post-Exile and that was a close fight. Due to this I do think a prime Ali beats Norton but Norton has the style to have his moments. I prefer to look at Norton rather than Ali but it's the truth, the second fight was close and could've gone to either man. BTW, Bowe was very good at once but he doesn't have the wins and/or longetivity to be an ATG. If he beat Lewis at that time then he would have a very strong case but unfortunately they didn't fight.
We are not writing about any decisions, we are clarifying whether Ali was decent in the final match... So was he? And if he was, explain to me why?
norton did beat ali 3 times and ali was good in 73-74, when he did beat foreman and frazier , and he was decent in 1976.