Ken Norton or Wladmir Klitschko- Who ranks higher?

Spot on. You forget Diane Bobick too.

 

Ron Stander is an all time great if he fights in any other era.

 

Don't forget Coopman. He'd mop up the scraps in today's game would the Dandelion of Flanders. I think he'd knock out both Klits and Haye on the same night- kinda like the Foreman exhibition thing. :yep

 

Like Foreman's exhibition? Only if the ref speaks Dutch, so that he can understand when Coopman asks him to declare his opponent TKO'd.

 

I'd definitely have him outside the top 10.
Lewis was dreary, although adnittedly Wlad outdoes him in that respect.

 

fair enough. i have him well within my top 10 but different strokes

 

Wow. That's pretty harsh for a man who fought so many top rated, powerful punchers over such a long time and beat them all. That reign impresses me more than some guy beating up a bunch of lightheavies or middles. I mean Jack Dempsey, Jack Johnson, Sonny Liston, Joe Frazier and Riddick Bowe all had non-descript reigns, much less impressive than Lewis. You apparently don't like the new superheavy model for the division.

 

Maybe. I don't rate Willard and Carnera much either.

I'm not as impressed by Lewis's opposition as you are. Yeah, maybe you can say a lot of them were big and hit hard, but they were mostly slow plodders there to be hit.

 

I respect your opinion as you usually have well-thought out, reasoned responses. I do believe your preference is partly aesthetic. I think everyone agrees that smaller-sized heavies are just more pleasing to watch. The artistry of the big men is not so much lacking as more basic and conservative. They have to worry much more about pace and stamina. Also, these bigger guys, in general, do punch harder and if you have two in the ring, both can often play safety-first.

Middles and welters will always be more fun to watch.

 

Yeah, true.
I suppose I do rate fighters largely on an aesthetic perception, because if you get into the business of excessive "resume" analysis it's just as prone to subjective bias and it seems unnecessary. I'd rather just rate the fighters I like, within reason, than find convulted "rational" arguments to measure the vague concepts of "quality of opposition" and "career accomplishments". I guess I just have a minimal requirement of achievement, then go for preference.

Besides, I'm one of the few here who doesn't take these lists too seriously. (but don't tell anyone. )
I just like to say things like, "neither would make my top 10 list ...", to encaspulate my general feelings towards certain fighters. I can't remember if I even have a list.

I hate the pitty-pat feather-fisted heavies like Jimmy Young and Chris Byrd even more than the big clumpy plodding heavy-hitters, though.
Although Byrd would probably look marginally better on Lewis's resume than just another powerhouse.

 

Why do people always compare the two... Young had serious pop, boxing ability, speed, and a great chin and defense. Byrd isn't in young's class. Young would be a better win then byrd

 

young had two famous fights: ali and foreman. ali is the one that counts against him. it's tough to get a real perspective on a fight based on two fights, one of which was a horrible performance the other of which is typically discounted

 

Young would have beaten any champ from Sullivan to Ali. :deal

 

I compared them because they are both feather-fisted, and I don't rate either of them.
I'll let people who actually rate them decide if they should be compared or not. :good

Byrd would look better on Lewis's resume, because Young was washed-up years before Lewis turned pro !

 

Norton's win over Ali is better than any Wlad win. Together with his two very close losses to Ali and his very close fight with Holmes, he deserves consideration.


However, you've made the case pretty clearly and I would have to agree that Wlad, even unfinished, is better.