BoxRec

i have no idea. do you?

I have him between 50-100. That is a real achievement in my opinion. Probably nearer the 50 than the 100.
If he got a couple of those close decisions he may have been top 50.
Great fighter, intelligent in and out of the ring. Handsome, articulate and with an amazing physique.
Great wins over Ali, Young and a then undefeated Bobick were standout performances.
Great commentator too...very insightful.

evrenb wrote:I have him between 50-100. That is a real achievement in my opinion. Probably nearer the 50 than the 100.
If he got a couple of those close decisions he may have been top 50.
Great fighter, intelligent in and out of the ring. Handsome, articulate and with an amazing physique.
Great wins over Ali, Young and a then undefeated Bobick were standout performances.
Great commentator too...very insightful.

Would you be willing to list 50 heavyweights who were better?

Ambling Alp II wrote:Would you be willing to list 50 heavyweights who were better?

that is exactly my problem with ranking him.

the first five voters take out all possibilities
between top1o and top100 ... don't think
that would happen with many other boxers.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

evrenb wrote:I have him between 50-100. That is a real achievement in my opinion. Probably nearer the 50 than the 100.
If he got a couple of those close decisions he may have been top 50.
Great fighter, intelligent in and out of the ring. Handsome, articulate and with an amazing physique.
Great wins over Ali, Young and a then undefeated Bobick were standout performances.
Great commentator too...very insightful.

Would you be willing to list 50 heavyweights who were better?

Im very happy to do that but when I have time to sit and do it...definitely I could pick 50 above Kenny over all the eras - 100%

evrenb wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:

evrenb wrote:I have him between 50-100. That is a real achievement in my opinion. Probably nearer the 50 than the 100.
If he got a couple of those close decisions he may have been top 50.
Great fighter, intelligent in and out of the ring. Handsome, articulate and with an amazing physique.
Great wins over Ali, Young and a then undefeated Bobick were standout performances.
Great commentator too...very insightful.

Would you be willing to list 50 heavyweights who were better?

Im very happy to do that but when I have time to sit and do it...definitely I could pick 50 above Kenny over all the eras - 100%

Your list of 50 would end up being ridiculous. Norton is top 40 at worst.

I would reckon him to be inside the Top 50, but probably not by much.

The Ring had him ranked somewhere around top 25. I think that's a fair ranking. Not a top 20 heavyweight in my view, but damn close.

yancey wrote:I would reckon him to be inside the Top 50, but probably not by much.

Well he has a good friend in the top 10. Sometimes it's "Who you know".

I think some people are just throwing numbers. If you actually starting naming the heavyweights better than him, this is what I come up with:

He has to be behind Louis, Ali, Foreman, Johnson, Frazier, Holmes, Dempsey,Marciano, Holyfield, Lewis, Liston, Tyson, and Jeffries. That is 13 guys. The usual suspects when people make their Top 10 List.

I would also rate him behind Tunney and Bowe, but I'm sure there those who disagree with that.
However, after these guys there are many who are roughly even.
Langford, Wills, Jeannette, McVey, Sharkey, Schmeling, Baer, Charles, Walcott, Patterson and Norton are all fairly close. I would also include Corbett and Fitzsimmons, who have pretty much been forgotton these days.

So he probably should be rated somewhere between #16 and #28, which is a bit of a range.
All of the guys in this group had some big wins and great performances. However they also lost enough and/or had bad performances that have to be considered as well.

I would like to know who else you could reasonably say was better? Maybe John L. Sullivan or Peter Jackson who are really hard to rate.
That still puts him at number #30, giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt every single time.

Who else is there?

Ambling Alp II wrote:I think some people are just throwing numbers. If you actually starting naming the heavyweights better than him, this is what I come up with:

He has to be behind Louis, Ali, Foreman, Johnson, Frazier, Holmes, Dempsey,Marciano, Holyfield, Lewis, Liston, Tyson, and Jeffries. That is 13 guys. The usual suspects when people make their Top 10 List.

I would also rate him behind Tunney and Bowe, but I'm sure there those who disagree with that.
However, after these guys there are many who are roughly even.
Langford, Wills, Jeannette, McVey, Sharkey, Schmeling, Baer, Charles, Walcott, Patterson and Norton are all fairly close. I would also include Corbett and Fitzsimmons, who have pretty much been forgotton these days.

So he probably should be rated somewhere between #16 and #28, which is a bit of a range.
All of the guys in this group had some big wins and great performances. However they also lost enough and/or had bad performances that have to be considered as well.

I would like to know who else you could reasonably say was better? Maybe John L. Sullivan or Peter Jackson who are really hard to rate.
That still puts him at number #30, giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt every single time.

Who else is there?

Wladimir and Vitali - Ernie Terrell, Tim Witherspoon I would rate above..

Ambling Alp II wrote:He has to be behind Louis, Ali, Foreman, Johnson, Frazier, Holmes, Dempsey,Marciano, Holyfield, Lewis, Liston, Tyson, and Jeffries. That is 13 guys. The usual suspects when people make their Top 10 List.

I would also rate him behind Tunney and Bowe, but I'm sure there those who disagree with that.
However, after these guys there are many who are roughly even.
Langford, Wills, Jeannette, McVey, Sharkey, Schmeling, Baer, Charles, Walcott, Patterson and Norton are all fairly close. I would also include Corbett and Fitzsimmons, who have pretty much been forgotton these days.

So he probably should be rated somewhere between #16 and #28, which is a bit of a range.

i think you make a solid argument.

Thanks. Norton and the rest of these were really good, but not quite with about 15 others. If you weigh their pluses and minuses, Norton is right there with them and should be in that #16-28 range. A good debate would between Norton and one of them.

evrenb wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:I think some people are just throwing numbers. If you actually starting naming the heavyweights better than him, this is what I come up with:

He has to be behind Louis, Ali, Foreman, Johnson, Frazier, Holmes, Dempsey,Marciano, Holyfield, Lewis, Liston, Tyson, and Jeffries. That is 13 guys. The usual suspects when people make their Top 10 List.

I would also rate him behind Tunney and Bowe, but I'm sure there those who disagree with that.
However, after these guys there are many who are roughly even.
Langford, Wills, Jeannette, McVey, Sharkey, Schmeling, Baer, Charles, Walcott, Patterson and Norton are all fairly close. I would also include Corbett and Fitzsimmons, who have pretty much been forgotton these days.

So he probably should be rated somewhere between #16 and #28, which is a bit of a range.
All of the guys in this group had some big wins and great performances. However they also lost enough and/or had bad performances that have to be considered as well.

I would like to know who else you could reasonably say was better? Maybe John L. Sullivan or Peter Jackson who are really hard to rate.
That still puts him at number #30, giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt every single time.

Who else is there?

Wladimir and Vitali - Ernie Terrell, Tim Witherspoon I would rate above..

Ernie Terrell- Had some nice wins, Williams, Folley, Chuvalo, and Machen. Don't see how that matches up with Norton's best results. For example, a close loss to a prime Larry Holmes is more impressive than any of those wins. He also lost to Williams, Thad Spencer and Mando Ramos.

Wladimir Klitschko- biggest win was over Chris Byrd. Got embarrassed by Ross Purrity, Lamon Brewster, and Corrie Sanders. Not in Norton's league.

Vitali Kltischko- Biggest win was over Corrie Sanders. Lost to an obese Lennox Lewis and quit against Chris Byrd in his tow biggest fights fights. Not in Norton's league.

Tim Witherspoon- Had some nice wins, Page, Tubbs, Williams, Snipes, Bruno and Smith. However, 4 of those 6 wins were very close wins. He did not standout in a weaker era than Norton's. His most impressive performance was probably against Larry Holmes. Norton had a a close loss to a better version of Larry Holmes.
Witherspoon also lost to Thomas and got knocked out in one round by Smith.

Anybody else?

You rate Norton higher than the klitschko brothers?? Really? I would concede a couple of the others but I couldn't agree there.

Yes really. Not even close. Incredible how overrated they are by many people.

Wladimir has a glass jaw and poor stamina. The best fighter he ever beat was Chris Byrd. Big deal. He got embarrassed by three different opponents, none of whom were that good at all.

Vitaly-What are we supposed to impressed about? He didn't do anything particularly well. He was slow and easy to hit. He had two major fights in his career; he lasted six rounds against an obese Lennox Lewis and quit against Byrd. Best win fighter he ever beat was Corrie Sanders. Big deal.

Look at your list and see where you have Ali, Holmes, Quarry, and Young. Look at your list and see where you have Chris Byrd and Corrie Sanders.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Yes really. Not even close. Incredible how overrated they are by many people.

Wladimir has a glass jaw and poor stamina. The best fighter he ever beat was Chris Byrd. Big deal. He got embarrassed by three different opponents, none of whom were that good at all.

Vitaly-What are we supposed to impressed about? He didn't do anything particularly well. He was slow and easy to hit. He had two major fights in his career; he lasted six rounds against an obese Lennox Lewis and quit against Byrd. Best win fighter he ever beat was Corrie Sanders. Big deal.

Look at your list and see where you have Ali, Holmes, Quarry, and Young. Look at your list and see where you have Chris Byrd and Corrie Sanders.

i see your point but i believe you go too far.
vitali suffered an injury in a fight and never
showed the lightest cowardice in the rest of
his career. i give him the benefit of the doubt
that he was jus that: injured.

lennox was over the top but not totally shot
and he is in many list an ATG5. being ahead
on points after 6 is an achievement. not the
same as a win but an indication of sorts that
vitali was no bum as many portray him to be.

i think corrie sanders tends to be underrated.
he is not a club fighter and had his work ethic
been better he could have been a solid contender.
meaning that taking him out in a non easy fight
might not be a "Big Deal", but still some kind of
"deal".

and since someone mentioned wlad-purrity
before, norton had a non-world class early on
too. what i am trying to say is that yes, the
seventies were packed with ATGs, but not
everyone was superman.

i believe that young wlad would be taken out
by norton in five, older wlad could grab himself
to a decision win. vitali would win two out of
three against norton or maybe lose two out of
three, but it would be a real fight. he managed
quite a ko percentage in his career and i for one
think that these were not only glass chins he
faced. and he indeed could take a shot, indicated
by a few right hands of lennox, which left their
mark, but didn't knock him down.

summing up: not every seventies top ten takes
out the ks in two.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Yes really. Not even close. Incredible how overrated they are by many people.

Wladimir has a glass jaw and poor stamina. The best fighter he ever beat was Chris Byrd. Big deal. He got embarrassed by three different opponents, none of whom were that good at all.

Vitaly-What are we supposed to impressed about? He didn't do anything particularly well. He was slow and easy to hit. He had two major fights in his career; he lasted six rounds against an obese Lennox Lewis and quit against Byrd. Best win fighter he ever beat was Corrie Sanders. Big deal.

Look at your list and see where you have Ali, Holmes, Quarry, and Young. Look at your list and see where you have Chris Byrd and Corrie Sanders.

i see your point but i believe you go too far.
vitali suffered an injury in a fight and never
showed the lightest cowardice in the rest of
his career. i give him the benefit of the doubt
that he was just that: injured.

lennox was over the top but not totally shot
and he is in manys list an ATG5. being ahead
on points after 6 is an achievement. not the
same as a win but an indication of sorts that
vitali was no bum as many portray him to be.

i think corrie sanders tends to be underrated.
he is not a club fighter and had his work ethic
been better he could have been a solid contender.
meaning that taking him out in a non easy fight
might not be a "Big Deal", but still some kind of
"deal".

and since someone mentioned wlad-purrity
before, norton had a non-world class loss early
on too. what i am trying to say is that yes, the
seventies were packed with ATGs, but not
everyone was superman.

i believe that young wlad would be taken out
by norton in five, older wlad could grab himself
to a decision win. vitali would win two out of
three against norton or maybe lose two out of
three, but it would be a real fight. he managed
quite a ko percentage in his career and i for one
think that these were not only glass chins he
faced. and he indeed could take a shot, indicated
by a few right hands of lennox, which left their
mark, but didn't knock him down.

summing up: not every seventies top ten takes
out the ks in two.

It's really hard to rank norton. On the face of it, his best wins are against ali, young and that's about it. Most of his rep is about fights he actually lost. If you take the 3 ali fights and the holmes fight alone, then hes top 10 right? He could have got the nod in those fights against 2 of the top 3 heavys of all time.

Then when you see him getting crushed by foreman and shavers he's not so good. Then again you could argue those two are the two biggest punchers of all time!

I think he doesnt have many good wins and his record is littered with wins over average heavys so in summary.

If he fought huge punchers then he'd probably lose, against anyone else, he'd give them life or death so on achievements theres no way he touches the top 20 but he could well have beaten many of the men in that top 20.

Well, he doesn't have so many big wins/great peformances that he deserves to be in the Top 10.

However, he beat Ali! Thats a helluva of a lot more impressive than beating Sanders or Byrd.
I'm guess you are guys are into the myth that the Quarry fight doesn't count. OK fine.
How about Young? A prime Young was a helluva lot better than Sanders or Byrd.

Where are the big wins that either Vitaly or Wladimir beat?

Yes Norton lost to Garcia early in his career. If you want to count that, then count Wladimir's losing to Purrity and call it a wash.
Is getting destroyed by Brewster and Sanders the same as getting destroyed by Foreman and Shavers?

Yes Vitaly had an injury against Byrd. You have to tough it out, or it counts against you. All he had to do was stand there for three more rounds. Not to mention that he looked awful in the fight anyway.

Look at the shape that Lewis was in. He never looked like that in any other fight. He slower than molasses. And yet, Vitaly face looked like it went through a meat grinder after just six rounds.

It goes down to these two points:
1. Norton's losses are not nearly as embarrassing as either of the Klitschkos.
2. Norton's wins are much more impressive.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Well, he doesn't have so many big wins/great peformances that he deserves to be in the Top 10.

However, he beat Ali! Thats a helluva of a lot more impressive than beating Sanders or Byrd.
I'm guess you are guys are into the myth that the Quarry fight doesn't count. OK fine.
How about Young? A prime Young was a helluva lot better than Sanders or Byrd.

Where are the big wins that either Vitaly or Wladimir beat?

Yes Norton lost to Garcia early in his career. If you want to count that, then count Wladimir's losing to Purrity and call it a wash.
Is getting destroyed by Brewster and Sanders the same as getting destroyed by Foreman and Shavers?

Yes Vitaly had an injury against Byrd. You have to tough it out, or it counts against you. All he had to do was stand there for three more rounds. Not to mention that he looked awful in the fight anyway.

Look at the shape that Lewis was in. He never looked like that in any other fight. He slower than molasses. And yet, Vitaly face looked like it went through a meat grinder after just six rounds.

It goes down to these two points:
1. Norton's losses are not nearly as embarrassing as either of the Klitschkos.
2. Norton's wins are much more impressive.

Wladimirs longevity counts for a lot...Norton was only prime for about 6 years.

How many world title defenses the Klitschkos got?

Ambling Alp II wrote:However, he beat Ali! Thats a helluva of a lot more impressive than beating Sanders or Byrd.
I'm guess you are guys are into the myth that the Quarry fight doesn't count. OK fine.
How about Young? A prime Young was a helluva lot better than Sanders or Byrd.

better maybe, helluva lot no.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Where are the big wins that either Vitaly or Wladimir beat?

i hear you, but their opposition was just
weak too.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Yes Norton lost to Garcia early in his career. If you want to count that, then count Wladimir's losing to Purrity and call it a wash.
Is getting destroyed by Brewster and Sanders the same as getting destroyed by Foreman and Shavers?

i do not pretend i have a clear answer on
how to rate norton, that's why i started the
thread. and i have no problem if someone
rates norton before either k, but i dispute
that he beats both in a landslide.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Yes Vitaly had an injury against Byrd. You have to tough it out, or it counts against you. All he had to do was stand there for three more rounds. Not to mention that he looked awful in the fight anyway.
Look at the shape that Lewis was in. He never looked like that in any other fight. He slower than molasses. And yet, Vitaly face looked like it went through a meat grinder after just six rounds.

lewis had tons of power and yes, he won fair
and square, but he had to dig deep and they
went toe to toe and slugged it out. lewis was
marked, klitschko was marked more. that
happens when guys of that size and power go
all in. you can take everybody apart if you blow
up the weaknesses and ignore the strengths.
you can say vitali got his face corrected by an
old lewis or you can say klitschko was ahead on all
cards against a fading ATG5 when he was stopped
by being cut.

Ambling Alp II wrote:It goes down to these two points:
1. Norton's losses are not nearly as embarrassing as either of the Klitschkos.
2. Norton's wins are much more impressive.

i don't hold the injury loss against vitali. would
i have preferred if he had pulled a danny williams?
yes. did he prove after this fight that he was no
coward? yes, he did. for the other k-losses. purrity
was gassing out against a seasoned veteran in the
pursuit of a knock out in front of the home crowd.
the stupid thing about this bout is that wlad should
have re-fought him immediately.
brewster was a bad loss, no doubt. sanders was a
tricky old bastard, no bum.

and of course you are ignoring that both vitali and
wlad were dominating the division after their losses.

My goodness, you sound like a politician's spin doctor.
I will keep my points brief:
-Yes Young was a helluva lot better than Byrd. Watch Norton-Young and then watch Byrd against the Klitschkos. Not even close.
-It was an obese Lewis who fought Vitaly. And Vitaly still could not get past the 6th round no matter how you spin it.I have never seen a guy get more mileage out of getting stopped in 6 rounds.

-You don't hold the injury loss to Byrd? Well you should. He quit. He lost. It's that simple. Doesn't matter what he did the rest of his career. In one of the biggest fights of his life he quit.

-Wladimir gassed out against veteran in front of his home crowd? That is some serious spin. He lost to a journeyman.

Sanders? Come on. He was very limited fighter that doesn't really have mcuh else to brag about. That was another embarrassing loss for Klitschko.

-Yes I am ignoring their domination the last several years. Why? Because their competition has been absolutely wretched.

Yes rating Norton is hard. There are several other guys who are roughly even. The Klitschkos are not among them.

I was hoping to compare him to someone like Schmeling or Walcott. That would be much more interesting.