Where does Ken Norton rank as a HW ATG

I thought since I just did Ridd ick Bowe, and since Bowe and Norton are closely linked in my mind, Norton would be then next logical person to do. Plus, its time to get out of the SHW era and back to a more classic time.

Anyway, Norton and Bowe remind me of each other because in my opinion they were the clear #4 of their eras' 90's for Bowe, 70's for Norton. But their eras were arguably the two greatest era's in HW history, and their accomplishments were head and shoulders above their lower competitors. Ali, Frazier, and Foreman all deserve a higher ranking than Norton, but no one else really even comes close to him in that era.

I generally rank boxer's ATG position by their in era position; i.e. You can order an era's #1 as you will above other era number 1's, #4's above other era's number 4's, but never a #4 above a number 2 and rarely even above a 3. A lot of different, subjective opinions about the strength of era's, so its the only fair way to take subjectivity as out of it as possible.

Norton (and Bowe) is considerably higher in my rankings than any other fighters who were 4th best of their era, I even have him ahead of some 3's, due to the depth of the era.

For those reasons, I have Norton between 20-25, where do you have him?

 

No, you really can't. Because it's not logic that lets you believe that the 10th is better than the 1st. Unless your just talking about H2H, and you recognize that modern fighters will always have a huge advantage h2h. But this isn't about H2H, its about legacy, and dominating one era should be recognized as much more impressive than simply being a low level contender in another. Certainly, such a person has a much bigger boxing legacy, has made a much bigger impact, than any #10.

 

Rumdrunk, considering you've proven yourself immune to all forms of logic, you're the last person who should be talking. Its embarrassing this forum has you on as a moderator. I rarely agree with Butt, but he tries to be more respectful with his opinions and usually just posts informative stuff about his extensive boxing knowledge, which I appreciate On the other hand, you post stupid things in an obnoxious manner, bad on substance, bad on style, and bad on everything else.

 

Fair enough. The important thing is you see that it is a rational way of looking at it. I don't want to take the subjectivity out of it entirely, like you said, that's part of being a fan. But sometimes posters take the rationality out of it and just call subjectivity rationality, which is dangerous.