Wlad Klitscko vs Ken Norton

Both at their peak. Who you got and why?

the fight is a tossup.overall id rate wlad the slightly better fighter.norton had problems with big punchers.foreman shavers and cooney took him out early.cooney was at nortons downside of his career.wlad is extra cautious unlike thoses fighters .thats in nortons favor.wlad had huge problems against fighters that came to fight and fought low or in a stoop.when that happened wlad was koed 3 times.nortons defence is far better then wlads stand up errect robot style.norton can and will land jabs to throw wlads timing off and norton can attack effectively from a crouch which wlad has problems with.wlad against haye was pathetic but a key to the outcome of this fight.very slight movement via the head or body or a step here or there wlad missed 75 percent of his jabs and landed maybe 3 good punches in the fight and haye did not run but he did not come to fight to win.norton will.
norton fought by far the much better competion and a far greater variety of fighters then wlad and that helps with preperation and in ring generalship.quality experience.wlads only chance is early the first 3 or 4 rounds but its unlikely do to caution and a guy actualy fighting back.after that its norton.ken was a good fighter not a great one but hes no brock chambers thompson or haye who did not fight.he also has more talent by far then them.ill take norton because hes not a limited robot whos easier to hit.the key is to fight back.norton will.wlads the slighly better fighter but not the winner here.

Nice, thanks.

Very good match there, and a hard one to call. Basically you've got a dominant guy in a terrible era vs. a top level guy from a great era. The problem is Wlad will never be considered "great" simply because he's had such poor competition; so anytime you try to compare him to other guys historically he always comes up short.

I picked Norton and I think Dmar pretty much covered what would happen in the ring; good post!

Tied at 5-5. Close fight.

Who the hell is voting for Norton? Wlad's jab would knock Norton out.

GrantZilla wrote:Who the hell is voting for Norton? Wlad's jab would knock Norton out.

...unfortunetly this is a classic case of highly overating wlads jab and of course making him superman.so powerfull that he knocks out a fighter far more talented then anyone hes fought with just a jab.he rarely hit haye with his jab because haye used basic simple angles and head movement.he didnt ko chambers with a jab.nor ibagimov charaev brock a washed up for years rahman.a sam peter a brewster etc etc.norton has a jab also and offesive weapons far better then anyone wlad has fought as well as ring smarts that is superior to hayes but this second coming of a ivan drago will crush a very good fighter with his jab..of course thoses that visulize norton wining a guy who beat ali 2 out of 3 fights in reality and fought holmes even for 15 rounds minus a minute fighters with far greater talent and abilty then wlad are totaly foolish.
everything wlad does has to work of his jab.throw that timing off on the jab which is not difficult to do by a fighter of nortons talent then you litterly own wlad if you punch back.this is a fight in which norton actualy has the reach advantage also .wlads reach is 81 inches nortons 80.by fighting semi low he negates a reach advantage of 5 or 6 inches not just one inch.having a good jab himself gives norton a excellent opportunity to control the fight offensively.combine that with several angles and a variety of punches that norton has in his aresenal far better then a purity or sanders or anyone else wlad has fought and its not difficult for this foolish guy to think norton wins...
wlad has no history in title fights against slop opposition of actualy koing anyone with a jab.nor does a liston a louis a foreman who i feel had not only a better jab but hit with more authority then the robot.nor a holmes whos jab had speed power and was delivered at differnt angles...
of course if wlad can ko a norton with a jab which is fictional thinking then a washed up fighter which is wlads next fight then surely wlad will ko him with just the wind of a missed jab.ivan drago is that powerfull..

Not a case of overrating Wlad. I am the last person who will overrate Wlad.

The Haye comparison is garbage. Haye went into that fight not to get knocked out, not to actually win it. Same with with Mosley against Pac.

So yeah, if Norton fought Wlad simply to survive and not get KO'd, then yeah, he probably wouldn't.

But Norton wouldn't have done that.

i feel the opposite of dmar. i feel that norton was the better fight but wlad has a devastating punch which would not be good for norton. could norton come in strong and KO wlad? of course. but if i had to put money on the fight, i would pick wlad. and like grant, im the last person to overrated wlad. i dont think he is very good but just a bad style match up for norton.

grant loves to change a topic or eliminate words or take things out of context..i said hes vastly overating wlads JAB not wlad.saying he ko norton with a jab and thats not the first time wlad was suppose to ko a fighter with a jab.the haye comparison is accurate and not garbage.did not wlad miss 75 percent of his jabs.haye caused that with simple movement of the head and body.he did not run.yes he did not come to fight.neither did extra cautious wlad.norton as grant admitted will come to fight.he will come to fight smart and could very well take advantage of wlads caution as well as the jabs he will miss.and if he does he wins.it wont take much to break wlads china chin if a guy comes to fight smart.

dmar5143 wrote:grant loves to change a topic or eliminate words or take things out of context..i said hes vastly overating wlads JAB not wlad.saying he ko norton with a jab and thats not the first time wlad was suppose to ko a fighter with a jab.

Um, I was being facetious with that comment.

Norton by KO

If someone has an exceptional talent for punching power, they could easily knock Ken Norton out. Earnie Shavers was a one dimensional clubber though he hit hard enough to break down walls. He knocked Norton out in a single round. Foreman took two rounds. Cooney took 54 seconds in the first round.

Though I cringe when I think of comparing Vitali to a 70s HW, if he could hit Norton, he probably could get him. I don't know many hard punchers who couldn't. Sonny Liston, Ron Lyle, Joe Frazier, Joe Louis.... some of these guys are great, some are not, however if they hit Norton, he would go.

Norton is not a bum. He's a big punchers dream but a scientific boxer's nightmare. Gave Ali, Young and Holmes hell. That's his story.

Frank wrote:If someone has an exceptional talent for punching power, they could easily knock Ken Norton out. Earnie Shavers was a one dimensional clubber though he hit hard enough to break down walls. He knocked Norton out in a single round. Foreman took two rounds. Cooney took 54 seconds in the first round.

Though I cringe when I think of comparing Vitali to a 70s HW, if he could hit Norton, he probably could get him. I don't know many hard punchers who couldn't. Sonny Liston, Ron Lyle, Joe Frazier, Joe Louis.... some of these guys are great, some are not, however if they hit Norton, he would go.

Norton is not a bum. He's a big punchers dream but a scientific boxer's nightmare. Gave Ali, Young and Holmes hell. That's his story.

Eddie Futch once told me that Norton had a "mental block" when it came to facing punchers. He froze up and got stiff. Norton would give any fighter in history without a one-punch threat absolute hell. Guys with a reputation for KOs take him out every time. I gotta go with Wlad. Match Norton and Wlad up with the other top 25 heavys of all time, and Norton probably wins more than Wvlad.