Prime George Foreman vs Prime Larry Holmes

Why would Norton be classed as an ATG ? He won 1 world title fight. I think you could class him as a very good Heavyweight that had a troubling style for some upper echelon fighters. But he also had some very bad glaring weaknesses where he could lose atleast 20 times to some big hitters in other eras in mythical H2H match ups.

I don't think Norton has the credentials or H2H ability against different styles to be classed as an ATG.

As for Young you keep hyping up his fight vs Ali but it was an awful fight against an Ali who past his prime and grossly out of shape at 230+ pounds which is the heaviest weight of his career except for against Berbick.

Credit to Young for beating Foreman but he lost to Norton.

Young couldn't really take advantage of a very poor version of Ali and Norton showed more willingness to win their fight which is why he won it.

The above examples is why Young didn't quite make it due to his best attribute his defense sometimes being a weakness because sometimes he just wasn't active enough or willing enough to take a fight by the scruff of the neck.

And that's the difference between Young and Holyfield and I think defense is the only attribute Young has over Holyfield everything else Holyfield trumps Young in.

 

Imo Holmes would win. Knocked out once in his entire career.

 

He fought in the 70s thats all he needs. He had 3 good fights with Ali. There was only 1 world title during his career. Not 3 like with Holyfield. He wasn't a world champ so what?

 

Holyfield was two time lineal champion. Regardless of how many belts there were Holyfield won them all 3 in one outing when he pole axed Douglas. Douglas was deffo the man having beat Tyson who had cut a swathe thru the top end of the division. So talk of three belts in Evanders era is null and void.

There's no flies on Holyfield let it be said. The man was a top 10 heavyweight from 1988 until 2003...........15 years. That's pretty extraordinary.

 

If you keep getting title shots after losses and win about half your fights you hold the belt multiple times. There are many HWs who'd have won belts or multiple belts if they had Holyfields oppurtunities to fight for and win titles.

Holyfield had great longevity no ones taking that away from him. But part of that is the fact he was kept on top because of his name and suffered less for losing big fights than any other HW besides maybe Walcott(who didn't have multiple belts to fight for).

 

Holyfield totally deserved a rematch with Bowe given he had multiple defenses under his belt. He actually won the rematch. After losing the last fight of an ATG trilogy he and Tyson were matched in a fight that was years in the making and what a great many people were keen to see. He axed Tyson twice. After the Bowe trilogy loss he wasn't beaten again until 5 years later by Lewis. It's hardly like he wasn't deserving of the opportunities he got. The man earned them. Kenny got multiple shots at the title and would have got another if he beat Shavers - the ball was in his court.

I find Kenny above very good and just short of great. As i said earlier if the judges had gone his way against Ali of Holmes he would have nailed "great" imo. So he was somewhat unlucky.

 

"He fought in the 70s that's all he needs"

I don't understand what you mean ? So fighting in a good era regardless of your credentials means you're automatically an ATG ? How is that logical ?

"He had 3 good fights with Ali"

Yes as I already said Norton had a troubling style for boxers but did poorly vs punchers. Whilst he might do well vs the likes of Ali more than likely if he fought any dangerous punchers in any other eras he likely loses to most of them. Hence that's what I mean that Norton has too many glaring weaknesses against other styles that I don’t think he warrants ATG H2H status.

"There was only 1 world title in Norton's era"

Yes this is true but as @JohnThomas1 said Holyfield was a Lineal champion multiple times which in most cases means you're the man at that time. Holyfield was also considered amongst the very best Heavyweights in the world for well over a decade.

Would Norton beat a 1996 version of Tyson ? I seriously doubt it. Or a prime Bowe for that matter ? or be competitive vs Lewis ? Or beat even an older Foreman ?