Ken Norton - Top 15-20 Heavyweight?

No. I might go for top 40.

 

Yep, I see him as a top 15-20 heavyweight.

 

No. only on Ali's list....Norton was owned by punchers and there were too many punchers over the course of the last 6 decades

 

Definitely top 20. Maybe top 10 or, more likely, 15. He beat Ali and gave him fits every time. He gave Holmes a hell of a fight. Ali and Holmes are the best there ever was, so that says a hell of a lot right there. He beat Young, too, and Young was streaking. The Foreman loss was, well, devastating. But Foreman blew away Frazier, too. I would like to have seen Norton against some other top fighters in his prime, though. Frazier and Lyle would have been nice to see. Norton wasn't the same fighter when he stepped in the ring against Shavers. By the Cooney fight he was a shell of what he used to be.

 

Thats not to say every puncher would own him though. Based on his strength of resume, you still don't think he'd be top 20?

 

Norton's resume is similar to Frazier's. Both beat Ali, and Quarry. Norton should have two wins over Ali. Foreman Ko''d Frazier twice, and Norton once. Norton has a very close loss to a prime Holmes. And he beat a good verison of Jimmy Young.

I think Norton is a bottom half top 20 head to head type of guy, and a bit better than some of the smaller / more popular champions before him.

 

Well, if the early-mid-1970s is one of the greatest heavyweights eras, and Ali the dominant fighter of the time, and the greatest heavyweight ever, then Norton's got to be rated highly.
He arguably got the better of Ali in 3 fights, or 2 out of 3, or ran even with him over 3 fights, twice in '73 and once in'76 - basically, around the time Ali was beating Frazier and Foreman.

Perhaps Ali just didn't dominate the era, or perhaps he's not the greatest ( I tend to think he probably is, or top 2 at least).
Ali was actually quite "inconsistent" but got a few favourable decisions.

I dont know where Norton should be rated. It's a conundrum.

 

Norton is top 25 HW and he is 3-0 with Ali on my scorecard. His KO loses hurt his ranking

 

I'd rank him between 10 and 15. There are quite a lot of undisputed title holders,in heavyweight history,that I can imagine Ken beating.

 

from you it's a surprise :
count (not necessarily by this order) :
vitali klitschko , wladimir klitschko , lennox lewis ,
holyfield , byrd ,
tyson , tua , langford (just now i noted he had respected KO wins at hw!)
holmes , ali , frazier , foreman
marciano , louis , walcott , charles
dempsey , tunney
some (and i bet that you too) may add : jeffries , corbett , jack johnson and some more all before norton.
norton doesn't make the top 20 all-time heavyweight.
jimmy young deserves to be higher.
mccall also must be ranked higher.

 

Norton is extremely underated by many here. It would take huge punchers to freeze him up and take him out at his best and most focused. He proved this by reversing his loss to Garcia, similar to how Norris veresed his loss to Brown. However, his loss to Shavers haunts me. Ken was still at close to the top of his game, knew all about Earnie coming in and still was crushed when lesser fighters managed to extend Shavers. I can't explain it but it must be viewed as a weakness of the man. Maybe not top twenty but a hell of a tough match up for any non-huge , hard puncher.

 

Providing a listing makes a degree of sense, but I'll assume you're just goofing around with those marked (could argue for Young, but I don't think it would be a very good one).

Don't forget Liston. Maybe Schmeling. Maybe Bowe, John L. (depending on criteria). Breaking into "definitely behind", "arguably above" would make it more useful (too much for me to bother).

That's a fair number that Ken would have to be above, though - maybe 19/20, but more likely 20-25.

 

Did you just say that Oliver McCall should be rated higher than Ken Norton?