BoxRec

good fight, i lean toward norton going through some shakey spells or even a kd to come back and stop sanders within 5-8 in a battle. ken far more reliable and probably has become a bit underrated as a fighter. this is a man who was about 10 seconds away from having wins over muhammad ali and an unbeaten larry holmes, two of the greatest. i bet he thought through the end of that holmes fight a lot afterward, he was winning the final decisive round until that final few seconds

2128778 wrote: ↑16 Sep 2026, 13:21

gilgamesh wrote: ↑16 Sep 2026, 12:58 Sanders defeating Wlad was the 2003 Ring Magazine Upset of the Year.

Norton beating Ali likely would've been 1973 upset of the year, but they didn't give that award until 1980 unfortunately.

Biggest upset of the Year.
Wasn't a big win.
OK guys, whatever you say. What do I know?

Yeah, Wlad was viewed as Lewis's heir apparent at the time.

He had a solid 2002, with his fights against Botha, Mercer and Mccline all being televised on HBO.

Before the first bell for the Sanders bout rang, Larry Merchant said something like: "Can anybody beat Wladimir Klitschko?"

I remember the line "The Next Big Thing is about to become the Last Big Bust"

There aren't too many occasions where an up and coming prospect or contender takes a devastating loss like that and then still goes on to all the great things people thought he was capable of. Usually a bad loss like that throws it all off for good, but not for Wladimir.

I think Kenny would wreck him.
One of those fights that on the face of it makes for a compelling case, not for me, Ken would f*ck him over big time.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑16 Sep 2026, 12:50

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑16 Sep 2026, 09:49 He thinks they are because kltischko-Sanders was for the WBO title!
He can't it through his head that just because a fight is for a paper title hled by a corrupt organization that it might not mean mcuh.

Nobody was running around going "Theres a new WBO champion!'
Everyone knew that Lewis was the real champion.
Call this one of the biggest wins in title history is absurd.

Btw Norton-Ali was for the prestigious NABF title. Lets count that.
Sanders would have absolutely no chance of beating Ali if it was him instead of Norton in that fight. None.

That win for Norton was one of the biggest wins that anyone ever had.

Ultimately, it goes down to this;
If Sanders was at the same level as Norton, than why wasn't a contender except for one year?

Brother you constantly tell me that Wladimir Klitschko isn't a great fighter. Thinking Wladimir isn't great is much more preposterous than having Sanders and Ken Norton on a similar level.

And brother I always ask you to name

gilgamesh wrote: ↑16 Sep 2026, 12:50

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑16 Sep 2026, 09:49 He thinks they are because kltischko-Sanders was for the WBO title!
He can't it through his head that just because a fight is for a paper title hled by a corrupt organization that it might not mean mcuh.

Nobody was running around going "Theres a new WBO champion!'
Everyone knew that Lewis was the real champion.
Call this one of the biggest wins in title history is absurd.

Btw Norton-Ali was for the prestigious NABF title. Lets count that.
Sanders would have absolutely no chance of beating Ali if it was him instead of Norton in that fight. None.

That win for Norton was one of the biggest wins that anyone ever had.

Ultimately, it goes down to this;
If Sanders was at the same level as Norton, than why wasn't a contender except for one year?

Brother you constantly tell me that Wladimir Klitschko isn't a great fighter. Thinking Wladimir isn't great is much more preposterous than having Sanders and Ken Norton on a similar level.

And brother, I always ask you to name the great heavyweights that got stopped by 3 non-contenders in their prime and you can't ever name anyone else.

Like you keep ducking why Sanders was only a contender for 1 year?

How about showing some guts and answering the questions?

Love how you try to make the Sanders win over Klitschko as comparable to Norton's win over Ali because Ring Magazine called it the "Upset of the Year'. Priceless.

3 of the 4 people who knocked out Wladimir Klitschko were Heavyweight Champions

3 of the 4 people who knocked out Ken Norton were not

Many All time great fighters have more losses in less fights than Wladimir. Many of them lost more times in their prime than him. Sanders and Brewster were formidable Heavyweights. There's no great shame in losing to guys like that.

The Purritty loss is embarrassing but forgivable when you recognize what went on there and how he bounced back from it later. You can't win em all in this sport.

2128778 wrote: ↑16 Sep 2026, 13:21 "Can anybody beat Wladimir Klitschko?"

Ross Puritty is the answer.

Wladimir Klitschko has more wins in Heavyweight Championship fights than Joe Frazier and Mike Tyson combined. What a p*ssy.

You can throw Ken Norton and Sonny Liston in there too. Beating him isn't easy. If it was he wouldn't have been Champion for nearly 10 years.

Vernon Forrest isn't defined by his losses to Ricardo Mayorga

George Foreman isn't defined by his loss to Jimmy Young

Lennox Lewis isn't defined by his loss to Oliver McCall or Hasim Rahman.

Why is there a double standard against Wladimir Klitschko? He did all a man could possibly do to redeem himself from embarrassing losses.

And I don't "try" to make Sanders win over Klitschko as comparable to Norton's over Ali. It is comparable. Both are all time great wins over all time great Heavyweights.

Norton beat the better fighter. Sanders won in more decisive fashion. Each win was huge.

If we can please just move on to another subject rather than discussing Wladimir for the 14,000th time in the last 6 months that'd be great.

We all know Alp saw Wlad lose 5 times and he missed everything else he did. It's been covered.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑16 Sep 2026, 16:48 3 of the 4 people who knocked out Wladimir Klitschko were Heavyweight Champions

3 of the 4 people who knocked out Ken Norton were not

Many All time great fighters have more losses in less fights than Wladimir. Many of them lost more times in their prime than him. Sanders and Brewster were formidable Heavyweights. There's no great shame in losing to guys like that.

The Purritty loss is embarrassing but forgivable when you recognize what went on there and how he bounced back from it later. You can't win em all in this sport.

Three of the four he lost to were World Champions? That's priceless. Brewster and Sanders won their so called titles in fights against who? wait for it.... Klitschko!

Two of Norton's ko losses were when he was past his prime. One when he was totally shot.

How about we use names here: Klitschko got stopped by Ross Purrity, Corrie Sanders, Lamon Brewster and Anthony Joshua.
Norton was stopped Jose Garcia, a prime George Foreman, Earnie Shavers, and Gerrie Cooney.
Gee, which group was better?

Norton best win was over Ali. Klitscjkos was over Chris Byrd. Wow, another close call.

Still waiting for names of great heavyweights who were stopped by three non-contneders in their prime?

How about some names that lost to just 2?

Still waiting on why Sanders was so good yet was in the Top 10 for only one year of his entire career?

Ambling Alp II wrote: ↑17 Sep 2026, 19:57

gilgamesh wrote: ↑16 Sep 2026, 16:48 3 of the 4 people who knocked out Wladimir Klitschko were Heavyweight Champions

3 of the 4 people who knocked out Ken Norton were not

Many All time great fighters have more losses in less fights than Wladimir. Many of them lost more times in their prime than him. Sanders and Brewster were formidable Heavyweights. There's no great shame in losing to guys like that.

The Purritty loss is embarrassing but forgivable when you recognize what went on there and how he bounced back from it later. You can't win em all in this sport.

Three of the four he lost to were World Champions? That's priceless. Brewster and Sanders won their so called titles in fights against who? wait for it.... Klitschko!

Two of Norton's ko losses were when he was past his prime. One when he was totally shot.

How about we use names here: Klitschko got stopped by Ross Purrity, Corrie Sanders, Lamon Brewster and Anthony Joshua.
Norton was stopped Jose Garcia, a prime George Foreman, Earnie Shavers, and Gerrie Cooney.
Gee, which group was better?

Norton best win was over Ali. Klitscjkos was over Chris Byrd. Wow, another close call.

Still waiting for names of great heavyweights who were stopped by three non-contneders in their prime?

How about some names that lost to just 2?

Still waiting on why Sanders was so good yet was in the Top 10 for only one year of his entire career?

I'd put Sanders and Brewster above Shavers and Cooney personally.

Foreman is one of the Top 5 Heavyweights of all time so it's no great shame in losing to him obviously.

For me to tell you how many Great fighters lost to 2 so called Non Contenders, I'd need to know what your definition of great is. Is being one of the 50 best of all time worthy of inclusion? Is being one of the 100 best of all time worthy of inclusion? What is the cut off of greatness to you?

Tell me how many World Heavyweight Champions won 20 plus Heavyweight Championship fights?

How about some names? I got news for ya. There's only 3, and Wladimir is one of them.

Shavers and Cooney were far from perfect. However, they were brutal punchers and very good fighters. They were far better than Brewster and Sanders. We should not have to debate this, but once again, here we are.

If it wasn't for Klitscjko losing to them, nobody would remember Brewster and Sanders. People would still remember Shavers and Cooney if they never fought Norton..
And once again, Norton was past it when he fought Shavers and obviously when he fought Cooney. Klitschko was in his prime when he stopped by Sanders and Brewster.

Yes Klitschko is one of the 3 who won 20 or more WBS title fights. And this one of things that you just don't get about boxing. Statistics in boxing are often very deceiving. You can always find an easy win.
How many Hall of Famers did Klitschko beat in those 20 wins? Any?
Quality trumps quantity.

As far as who is a great heavyweight, do this:
There are some Hall of Famers who weren't really great fighters. But lets pretend they all are. How many heavyweight Hall of Famers were stopped 3x by non-contenders while they were in their prime?

Quality trumps quantity in boxing. Remember that.

Cool man. Like I said. It's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

I'm tired of discussing Wladimir Klitschko with you. You don't get it, you don't wanna get it, you ain't gonna get it. I'm over it. If you think he sucks, you can think it all you want, but if he sucks then almost every Heavyweight who ever lived sucked because he's better than most of them.

I got Sanders over Norton in a Mythical fight
I got Cooney over Sanders in a Mythical fight

I got Sanders over Shavers in a Mythical fight primarily because I think he'd get there first, but if Shavers got there first then it'd be Shavers.

Have never said that Klitschko sucks. Just overrated by some people. Other people know that he had great strengths but also bad weaknesses which prevented him from being truly great. And some people underrate Norton and focus on his fights when he was past his best and not when he near his prime. Others know how good he really was. I do answer other people's questions, unlike you. And I'm tired of Klitschko constantly being brought up.

What questions did I not answer? If you're referring to the "What great fighter lost to Non Contenders" on the way up question. I've answered that before.

Jack Dempsey and Jack Johnson.

How great does a fighter have to be before you consider them great? If I knew that there may be more answers than those 2, but of the people that are generally considered great by most people, those 2 would be the answer alongside Wladimir.

Henry Armstrong lost 3 of his first 4 fights against names that nobody has ever heard of is Henry Armstrong a bum? Or do you recognize that Armstrong improved, and became a better fighter after his losses?

If you can recognize that some people can lose, and become better afterward. Why can't you recognize it when Wladimir did it?

Thought you were done with this. Ok.....

I have asked you many times (including on this thread) what great heavyweights were stopped three times by guys outside the top 10 when they themselves were in their prime.
You always duck it.
This did not happen to Dempsey or Johnson three times. It would be pushing it to say it happened to Demspey once. He was just reaching his prime when he got stopped by Flynn.
It never happend to Johnson when Johnson was in his prime.

I can't find one great heavyweight (near his prime) who was stopped more than once by someone outside the Top 10. None.
Yet it happened to Klitschko three times! That should be a giant red flag about Klitschko. Some people get this and other don't. If Klitschko really was a great, this wouldn;t have happened to him... three times.

Yes Henry Armstrong lost 3 of his first 4 fights. People that understand the sport understand that he was nowhere near his prime yet. He had a very brief amateur career, which was not rare at all at the time. These are Preliminary fights at the bottom of the card. Do you follow other sports at all? This is akin to looking at what a major league baseball player did in A ball after High School. Nobody considers it all. People that know boxing know that Armstrong's loss that early in his career are meaningless.

You have to look at how close a fighter is to his prime (whether early when he is inexperienced ) or late (when he old and/or has taken a lot punishment) . You also have to look at how close the opponent is to his prime.

We should not hold Klitschko's losses late his career against him. (Or give his opponents much credit). We should hold the embarrassments to Purity, Sanders and Brewster against him.

You see Wladimir's failures only and not his success. I saw his failures. They were embarrassing. They're not the only thing that defines his career to me though because I see the whole of his career not just the times he lost.

You ask for an answer of men who lost 3 times in their prime. I give it to you and you try to weasel out of it and make new excuses.

You hate Klitschko and are unable to properly assess him or be honest about his achievements.

Other fighters lost more than him, but it's cool because they were "Pre Prime" or "Post Prime" only Wladimir ever lost embarrassingly in 120+ years of Boxing. Just that one guy. Makes a lot of sense Alp and doesn't sound like you're biased at all.

My favorite is when you say "Literally ANYBODY could rack up 20 title defenses against bums" and then you can't name me 5 other fighers thst ever did that thing that ANYBODY can do.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑20 Sep 2026, 15:17 You see Wladimir's failures only and not his success. I saw his failures. They were embarrassing. They're not the only thing that defines his career to me though because I see the whole of his career not just the times he lost.

You ask for an answer of men who lost 3 times in their prime. I give it to you and you try to weasel out of it and make new excuses.

You hate Klitschko and are unable to properly assess him or be honest about his achievements.

Other fighters lost more than him, but it's cool because they were "Pre Prime" or "Post Prime" only Wladimir ever lost embarrassingly in 120+ years of Boxing. Just that one guy. Makes a lot of sense Alp and doesn't sound like you're biased at all.

My favorite is when you say "Literally ANYBODY could rack up 20 title defenses against bums" and then you can't name me 5 other fighers thst ever did that thing that ANYBODY can do.

Excuse, me, you are saying I weaseled pout of your question? I asked many times great heavyweights who was stopped 3x by fighters not in the Top 10 when they themselves were in their prime? You would never answer it. Because there aren't any. But Klitschko did.
Now you gave two guys, Johnson and Dempsey. Nether lost three times to guys outside the top 10 when in their. Neither were stopped three times in their primes. So no, they don't count.

Yes it matters if the fights were well before a fighter's prime or well after it. It also matters if their opponents were well before their prime or well after. That's not "weaseling out". This is something that just about anyone who has followed the sport for a while understands. For the life of me I can't understand why you don't get this.

I don't hate Klitschko. I am rating him the same way that I rate anyone. I hate it when people who don't understand basic parts of the sport rank someone much higher or lower than they should. He has embarrassing losses that great heavyweights simply don't have. His victim's list" is not impressive all when you compare him to great heavyweights.

As for the title defenses, other fighters couldn't do that because there were always other good-great fighters out there. Then the as they start getting older, new fighters come along that are good.
ie. nobody was going to have 20 title wins when there is just 1 or titles and Frazier, Foreman, Ali etc were all active.

That didn't happen with Klitschko. He was not the best when Lennox Lewis was around. Then after Lewis was gone, there was really nobody that good. Klitschko piled up one meaningless WBS title defense after another.
You are also counting WBO title wins when the WBO was a minor title nobody cared about. When he won the WBO title from Byrd in 2000, nobody considered Klitschko the real champion. Nobody. Those should not count at all. And that 6 fights right there.
You can't compare a guy who fought when there were 1 champion with a guy who fought when there were 4 and think that fair to compare title wins. That is just stupid.

Put Klitschko in an earlier era. There are 1-2 champions. Do you seriously think he is going to be the champion for several years and have 20 title wins? Of course not.

For the life of me I can't understand why you don't get this.

Always with this dumbass line as if you know something that I don't.

Maybe Klitschko does good in another era. Maybe he doesn't.
Maybe Joe Louis does just as well in another era. Maybe he doesn't.

They didn't have to fight in any other time, but their own, and they did what they did in it, and they did more than just about anybody else did in their respective era.

You don't have to consider Klitschko as great as Joe Louis. Nobody does. I don't either, but it's not outrageous to consider him on the same level as Mike Tyson, Joe Frazier, Riddick Bowe, Oleksandr Usyk or the likes of that as a Great Heavyweight Champion who made his mark in his era. Whether or not you consider him to be above or below those names doesn't matter, but he's at least in the conversation with them. He's earned that.

Jersey Joe Walcott....Lost to those tremendous household names Kayo Palmer, Carl Mays, Henry Taylor, Al Ettore, Billy Ketchell, George Brothers, Roy Lazer, Johnny Allen (Johnny Allen had a losing record, and he beat Walcott when Walcott was 2 years away from challenging for the Heavyweight Championship)

Jack Dempsey...lost to Jack Downey, John Lester Johnson, Fireman Jim Flynn and Willie Meehan 2x. Oh how everyone quakes in fear at the mere mention of Titans like John Lester Johnson and Willie Meehan.

Jack Johnson...lost to Klondike Haynes, Joe Choynski, Hank Griffin, Marvin Hart (the man often considered one of the all time weakest Heavyweight Champions even in his own time)

That's 3 Great fighters with losses in their Prime. But you have excuses for all those guys don't ya? Because you're full of sh*t. You have a double standard when it comes to fighters from the here and now as compared to fighters from then. You bend over backward and reach for any half assed argument you can pull out of your ass to try to tell me why one guys' losses are embarrassing and someone else's aren't.

All losses are embarrassing. Nobody likes to lose. But Wladimir just like these 3 men mentioned above came to be known more for winning than losing. For anybody that isn't blind that is.

It matters if a fighter was near prime or not.

In the old days, fighters were not coddled when they first started. They took whatever fights that they could. It might be with little notice. Or fright after they just had a fight. Or against someone with more experience. Most old-time greats had losses when they were on their way up.


Jersey Joe Walcott did not have a trainer most of his career. He was 16 years old when his lost the first fight that you mentioned. After he got Florio as his trainer, his career skyrocketed.

After Walcott lost all the fights that you mentioned, where was he ranked in 1947? #1. Knowledgeable boxing people knew that he had not reached in his prime yet in the fights you mentioned. They recognized that he was a far better fighter after got a real trainer and scored several big wins. It matters if a fighter has reached his prime or not.

Demspey had not reached his prime when he fought Downey and Johnson. It's pushing it to say he had reached it when he fought Flynn. Meehan was a 4 round decision because California temporarily had that as law.

Johnson had not reached his prime when he fought Haynes (his 4th fight), Choynski,(Hall Famer) lost a 20-round decision to Griffin. The loss to Hart (later the champion), was considered an awful decision. So no, none were embarrassing.
It matters if a fighter had reached his prime.

Amount of Fights (not including No-Decision wins) each guy won over Hall of Famers:

Johnson 9
Walcott 7
Dempsey 5
Klitschko 0

Of course, to some extent these numbers are deceiving, but less so than counting WBS title defenses.

Amount time each fighter got stopped someone not in the Top 10 when they themself was in his prime:
Klitschko 3x
Dempsey 1x (And that is pushing it)
Johnson 0
Walcott 0

And those numbers are not very deceiving.

Excuses for fighters you want to make excuses for.

Same old Alp. You keep being wrong bud. I'll keep being right.

Wladimir went to be Champion for almost 10 years when he started training with Emanuel Steward but you don't excuse his losses before Steward as him being Pre-Prime do you?

Why is that?

Because your criteria changes from fighter to fighter like I always say and like you always prove. Over and over.

One thing that stands out for Wlad is that he never beat the #1 in the division. He became #1, but didn't have to beat the lineal champ to do it.

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑22 Sep 2026, 05:26 One thing that stands out for Wlad is that he never beat the #1 in the division. He became #1, but didn't have to beat the lineal champ to do it.

There wasn't a Lineal Champ to beat. The circumstances of the time. It's always like that when a title is vacated. The only time they ever handled a vacated title 100% right was when Marciano vacated and they had a Tournament to crown a new Champion. That should be standard protocol when a Champ vacated i think.

gilgamesh wrote: ↑22 Sep 2026, 12:56

keithmoonhangover wrote: ↑22 Sep 2026, 05:26 One thing that stands out for Wlad is that he never beat the #1 in the division. He became #1, but didn't have to beat the lineal champ to do it.

There wasn't a Lineal Champ to beat. The circumstances of the time. It's always like that when a title is vacated. The only time they ever handled a vacated title 100% right was when Marciano vacated and they had a Tournament to crown a new Champion. That should be standard protocol when a Champ vacated i think.

I know that, but that doesn't alter the fact that he didn't beat the man. Ali beat Liston, Frazier and Foreman. Wlad didn't beat a single guy in their league.