Ken Norton or Wladmir Klitschko- Who ranks higher?

Yeah, beating one past-ptime atg, and losing two time to him and losing to another atg clearly should put you into consideration for beeing one of the greatest fighters in your division.

 

That would be the same ATG who later, even further past prime, defeated Joe Frazier twice and KO'd George Foreman.

As I mentioned, a better win than any Wlad has on his resume.

All three of these results could easily have been judged in Norton's favour.
In two of the three, at least one judge scored the fight for Norton

I know English is not your mother tongue, Bodhi, but where do you get "greatest fighter in the division" from my earlier post.

The question was: Ken Norton or Wladmir Klitschko- Who ranks higher?

And neither one is a top ten in the division.

And finally, I did agree with Seamus that Wlad should be ranked higher.

So what's your issue ?

 

My issue is with people who overrate the 70s so much that they think lesser fighters of that era, like Norton, belong into consideration for atgness. The 70s was a very good, great era for hws. But the fighters competing were not better on average than in other eras. At the top with Ali, Frazier, Foreman it´s hard to find an era to compete - perhaps the late 1900s to early 1920s with Johnson, Langford, Wills, perhaps the early/mid 90s with Holyfield, Lewis, Bowe - but on the contender level it wasn´t any better. And that´s where Norton belongs.

 

Again, where were we talking about ATGness ?

The thread question was: Ken Norton or Wladmir Klitschko- Who ranks higher?

As of now, neither man has cracked the top ten.

Norton (and also Young) was clearly better than any of today's contenders, including Haye.

Other than the Klitschkos, he would clean out today's contender list.

And as I said, Young would too.

 

Yes. Bur Wlad cracked the Top20. Norton isn´t in my Top30.

You rank fighters on speculation? Very valid.

 

I have Wlad just outside the top ten. And Norton just inside the top twenty.

And so, as I've mentioned a number of times already, I rank Wlad higher than Ken.

Wlad ist besser als Ken.

OK ?

No, my man.

When I rank Norton higher than any of today's crew (save the Klitschkos), its based on his resume.

I've already outlined the highlights.

His performance in his series with Ali, his SD with Holmes (two guys in my AllTime top six) and his wins over Young, Quarry and Bobick render him clearly above any of today's contenders.

 

I rate Vitali higher than him despite his lackluster resume due to his comeback, dominance and his claim to be the heir of Lewis. I don´t rank Vitaly Top20 though.

I think you can´t rank Norton, and Vitali, that high without underrating and disrespecting more deserving fighters.

 

Well, there are at least two ways to consider the ranking game, which is, at the end of the day, subjective.

The less subjective is based on resume and accomplishment. On this scale, i rank Wlad as being greater than Vitali, though not by a whole helluva lot. And both are works in progress.

Head to head, i rank Vitali as being greater.



BTW, you said earlier that Wlad had cracked the top 20.

But you say you rank Vitali higher, and that he is NOT top 20.

How does that work ?

 

ron lyle and quarry would do it as well.

 

well, ali never did beat "this contender" really. (and foreman think it too)

 

I meant that I rank Vitali higher than Norton not Wlad. Wlad is just Top 20.