BoxRec

Mr E wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:No way in the world that he would fight evenly with Ken Norton. That is just silly to think that.

Right. VK would beat him.

At what sport? It certainly would not have been boxing.
Please don't tell me you are one of those people that think Norton could not take a punch and cite fights at the end of his career. Klitschko is not Foreman. Norton had a good chin, was hard to hit, had a good jab. Norton was several levels above klitschko. I'm guessing Ezzard forgot about Norton, whom holmes beat.

I guess I will just say that I compeltely disagree with Mr E and Ezzard about this. Yes at times some of these guys could be lazy. On a given night he could beat say a disinterested Page or Tubbs. However, it's not like Klitscko is some kind of punching machine himself. However, more often than not they completely outbox him.

Could have stood up to the punch of some of these guys? You guys seem to assume so but he has never had to fight anyone with power except for a woefully out of shape Lewis. None of them would have trouble hitting him and winning a decision if they had to.

Again I don't see why witherspoon is consider so much better than Klitsckko but not the other guys. Tubbs, Page,Thomas, Dokes,Smith,Berbick, Weaver etc all had roughly equal ability as Witherspoon. Snipes, Williams and Bey were not far behind. You can call some of them muscle bound but they were all quicker and more skillful than Klitschko.
Witherspoon had 8 fights against these guys and they were competitive. There is a reason Witherspoon could not dominate any of them. They were about as good. If you think Witherspoon would have beaten him, than logic should tell you that several of these other guys probably would as well.

All of these guys were better than Byrd (who I guess is the 2nd best fighter he ever fought) and Klitschko couldn't even beat him. (Yes I have heard the excuses.)

I think we have all said what we need to say. We are so far a part on this. If you guys want the last word, you guys can have it.

I think of Noton as a 70s fighter...

Klitschko has a high punch output. He doesn't sit down on them but just uses accumulation to slowly paste the ring with his opponent.

The Klitschkos don't seem to have missed any challenger. It's a weak era but then so was the 1980s. My final shot would be that they are comparable eras in terms of contenders.

Ezzard wrote:I think of Noton as a 70s fighter...

Klitschko has a high punch output. He doesn't sit down on them but just uses accumulation to slowly paste the ring with his opponent.

The Klitschkos don't seem to have missed any challenger. It's a weak era but then so was the 1980s. My final shot would be that they are comparable eras in terms of contenders.

Except the most important two of all. Each other.

Hmmmmm...

I can't hold that against them and half the crowd would shout fix even if they did fight.

Ambling Alp wrote:At what sport? It certainly would not have been boxing.

When people write about speculative match-ups between fighters of different eras with the kind of certainty you profess I always wonder how many fights they have been in themselves. I think Klitschko would have beaten Norton, pretty strongly and for a number of reasons, but I sure don't discount the possibility that I could be wrong. I am amazed that you don't see any gray area at all.

Please don't tell me you are one of those people that think Norton could not take a punch and cite fights at the end of his career. Klitschko is not Foreman.

I take it by this, then, that you are one of those people who excuses some of Norton's performances by arguing something akin to the following: (1)Norton was "inexperienced" when he fought Garcia the first time, so getting creamed by him doesn't count. (2) Foreman was an absolute monster/killer, so getting creamed by him doesn't count. (3) Norton may have been slightly past his prime against Shavers, and Shavers was also a monster/killer, so getting creamed by him doesn't count. (4) Norton was definitely past his prime against LeDoux, so fading badly and being badly hurt by him doesn't count. (5) Norton was way past his prime against Cooney, so getting creamed by him doesn't count. In fairness, there's a little hyperbole there, in the sense that those are probably more extreme positions than the ones that you actually take, but it does serve to frame the issue.

IMO, Norton was a terrific heavyweight but not a great one. He did not have a glass jaw but he certainly did not have anything close to a great chin. From the Foreman, Shavers, and Cooney debacles, the lesson is less that he was knocked out but how he fought. Specifically, he seemed tentative and intimidated and, consequently, he did not put up as good a fight against any of those guys as far inferior talents put up against them in other contexts. Eddie Futch has stated uncategorically that Norton seemed intimidated by "big punchers," and it's hard for even Norton's biggest supporters to deny that. Absolutely and without question, Norton was FAR past his best by the time he fought Cooney, but he didn't lose that fight on lack of reflexes or timing-- he lost that fight because he didn't know what to do and so presented a sitting duck target. The reason that fight is relevant to the anlysis despite Norton's age at the time is because it continued a previously-established pattern of how Norton responded to big, strong, puncher types. You can bet that Norton would have lost in the same fashion to Sonny Liston, Cleveland Williams, Ron Lyle, Razor Ruddock, Gerry Cooney at any time in his career, Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, etc. I know this is a big Norton board and a lot posters here will disagree, but that's the way it seems to me.

Now, you are correct that Klitshcko was no Foreman. But he was much bigger and stronger than Norton was, or at least I suspect he was, and I think he would have backed Norton up and probably worked him over pretty thoroughly during the course of the fight. At the end of the day, I like VK's chances in this fight in a big way.

But, while I might bet a C-note, I sure wouldn't bet my mortgage. And, of course, I happily concede the possibility that I could be wrong.

Ambling Alp wrote:Again I don't see why witherspoon is consider so much better than Klitsckko but not the other guys. Tubbs, Page,Thomas, Dokes,Smith,Berbick, Weaver etc all had roughly equal ability as Witherspoon. Snipes, Williams and Bey were not far behind.

I don't think Spoon was better than Klitschko. My assessment of the talent of the heavyweight of the 80s, as I set forth in an earlier post, though, is that Spoon was among the most talented, along with Thomas, Page, Dokes, Cooney, and Tubbs. I base my assessment on how they looked to me in the ring when they were in shape and (presumably) motivated. I think that group was a step above Coetzee, Tate, Weaver, Berbick, Smith, and Bruno, and 2 or 3 steps above guys like Snipes, Bey, and C. Williams. Just my opinon based on watching the fights at the time and revisiting them later on film.

Mr E wrote:IMO, Norton was a terrific heavyweight but not a great one. He did not have a glass jaw but he certainly did not have anything close to a great chin. From the Foreman, Shavers, and Cooney debacles, the lesson is less that he was knocked out but how he fought. Specifically, he seemed tentative and intimidated and, consequently, he did not put up as good a fight against any of those guys as far inferior talents put up against them in other contexts. Eddie Futch has stated uncategorically that Norton seemed intimidated by "big punchers," and it's hard for even Norton's biggest supporters to deny that. Absolutely and without question, Norton was FAR past his best by the time he fought Cooney, but he didn't lose that fight on lack of reflexes or timing-- he lost that fight because he didn't know what to do and so presented a sitting duck target. The reason that fight is relevant to the anlysis despite Norton's age at the time is because it continued a previously-established pattern of how Norton responded to big, strong, puncher types. You can bet that Norton would have lost in the same fashion to Sonny Liston, Cleveland Williams, Ron Lyle, Razor Ruddock, Gerry Cooney at any time in his career, Mike Tyson, Lennox Lewis, etc. I know this is a big Norton board and a lot posters here will disagree, but that's the way it seems to me.

That's an analysis I can agree with.

Ezzard wrote: My final shot would be that they are comparable eras in terms of contenders.

You must be joking . . .the 80s wasn't great but in terms of depth the HW division was far superior. The top guys in this era besides the K brothers (Adamek, Chagaev, Brock, Chambers, Peter) are on the level of the 2nd tier fringe contenders of the 80s, guys like James Broad, David Bey, Marvis Frazier and Jose Ribalta. Hell, I was rewatching Lionel Butler vs Lennox Lewis (yes Butler was more in the early 90s but he was what you'd call a 2nd tier guy) and thinking "man, this guy had everything Sam Peter has but was more talented".
I don't even see any of the contenders nowadays being on the level of a James Tillis. If fat-ass Chambers could give Povetkin issues Tillis would've boxed circles around him. David Haye? He would've gotten bludgeoned by the likes of Witherspoon, Thomas, Bruno, Coatzee. EVen vs someone with a weaker chin like a Carl Williams he'd only have a puncher's chance as the Truth was a better boxer with better stamina. This era of HWs is by far the worst since the the Marquis de Queensbury rules got instated.

As for a peak version of Witherspoon vs the Klitschkos, I'd favor him by KO over Wladimir but predict Vitali to win a decision.

Tillis was a good fighter. He extended Tyson the number 2 of the 80s.

I suspect Haye and the Klits would have gone through most of the 1980s HWs in a slightly less spectacular fashion than Tyson did.

I'm happy to accept this is the worst era (I don't think there' much in it) but I stand by my observation that it's a comparable era to the 1980s.

My issue with both you and Alp here is that you are massively over-selling the 80s HWs. Haye would KO Williams in 5-6 rounds. Both Klit brothers would bash him up.

I lived through the era. Holmes dominated for years with a spare tyre around his mid-riff. He was eventually beaten by the Light-Heavyweight champion (first time ever) Spinks fought at a great disadvantage and won where Bey, Williams and Smith couldn't...

Wow, IMO you are seriously over-rating Haye. He wouldn't have beaten Berbick let alone "gone through most of the 1980s HWs" . . the guy was given issues by the pressure of Mormeck and a washed up Ruiz for crying out loud.