Very good or great? Volume 6: Terry Norris

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Boxed Ears, Jun 25, 2011.


  1. Boxed Ears

    Boxed Ears this my daddy's account (RIP daddy) Full Member

    56,577
    11,088
    Jul 28, 2009
    Terry Norris


    This content is protected



    [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZlBLQHT8mM[/ame]


    Official Record: 47 wins, 31 by knockout - 9 losses, 4 by knockout (3 by DQ) - No draws


    Record in Major World Title Fights: 19-6
    Record in Unified World Title Fights: 5-0
    Record in Linear World Title Fights: ???
    (Not sure where we're starting from there, first Santana rematch (would be 7-2, from that to Mullings) or Vaden to Mullings (5-1), illuminate if you can, lads)


    WBC Light Middleweight Champion

    1990 Mar 31 – 1993 Dec 18

    WBC Light Middleweight Champion

    1994 May 7 – 1994 Nov 12

    WBC Light Middleweight Champion

    1995 Aug 19 – 1997 Dec 6

    IBF Light Middleweight Champion

    1995 Dec 16 – 1997 Mar
    Vacated

    Linear Light Middleweight Champion of the World

    1995-1997

    Victories Over Champions:
    16 over 16

    1. Quincy Taylor
    2. Steve Little
    3. Buster Drayton
    4. Jorge Vaca
    5. John Mugabi
    6. Rene Jacquot
    7. Sugar Ray Leonard
    8. Donald Curry
    9. Jorge Fernando Castro
    10. Carl Daniels
    11. Meldrick Taylor
    12. Maurice Blocker
    13. Simon Brown
    14. Luis Santana
    15. Paul Vaden
    16. Vincent Pettway



    *Unified Major World Titles

    *Four-time World Champion

    *IBHOF Member



    What's the verdict for you, gentlemen? :huh


    Volumes 1-5:

    Very good or great? Volume 1: Ken Norton

    Very good or great? Volume 2: Ernesto Marcel

    Very good or great? Volume 3: Genaro Hernandez

    Very good or great? Volume 4: Chris Eubank

    Very good or great? Volume 5: Diego Corrales



    (Mention errors if you've spotted them, please)
     
  2. horst

    horst Guest

    Neither. :D

    Nah, I would concede that Norris is a good pick, who could be argued to be a great lightmiddleweight. Hell, even I'd say he was a great lightmiddleweight, and I'm hard to please, as you know.
     
  3. Armstrong!

    Armstrong! Active Member Full Member

    1,008
    3
    Jun 10, 2011
    I feel that he's great! People will often disagree with that, because he isn't the most durable fellow but he did succeed and has quite a few big names on his resume. Combine that with the fact that he won four major world titles, unified the belts and is undefeated in linear championship fights, with more than three times wins than losses in championship fights, etc.

    He was great.
     
  4. Boxed Ears

    Boxed Ears this my daddy's account (RIP daddy) Full Member

    56,577
    11,088
    Jul 28, 2009
    :lol: Pop, I was just reading some of one of Addie's old threads on combination punchers, and I honestly thought before posting "I bet if Popkins sees this, he will take the opportunity to say "Neither". :lol:

    http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=187467
    Oddly enough, found this thread only because of my Google image search for Norris pictures.

    :? That's not what...wasn't at least Mullings for the linear title?

    CBZ is down with that anyway.
    http://cyberboxingzone.com/boxing/jrmiddle.htm

    But, yeah, the accomplishments on paper do make quite a case, I think. But I also understand the reservations some would have saying he was great if they have really strict criteria.
     
  5. horst

    horst Guest

    :lol: Did you see me trolling on that thread, trying to provoke that Norris fan?

    I really need to grow up.
     
  6. PowerPuncher

    PowerPuncher Loyal Member Full Member

    42,723
    271
    Jul 22, 2004
    Great, he was a beast, his resume for me is only borderline great, it could be greater if he had Trinidad, Whitaker, DLH on it, but those men were protected from Norris, they all would have been treated like Meldrick Taylor was. As it is he has the Leonard win, which imo is great in itself, even if Leonard is past his best. Then there's the fact he slowly punished the man who was ****ing his wife (Vaden) in a unification. Some were past their best weight/prime yes, but he beat several current and future champs and undefeated contenders. Beating 16champions is some achievement

    The manner of his wins needs to be accounted for in greatness though - dominating Leonard, taking Mugabi out in 1, taking Blocker out in 1, dominating Curry, dominating Vaden, Blocker taken out in 2, Castro who'd go onto beat Reggie Johnson shutout. His chin is a weakness, but all boxers have some weaknesses and I don't actually think his chin is as bad is as made out, he was only stopped by big punchers and if he didn't brawl with his chin in the air so much he wouldn't have been ko'd by Brown. I think if he was careful he could have avenged his loss to Julian Jackson
     
  7. Jorodz

    Jorodz watching Gatti Ward 1... Full Member

    21,677
    52
    Sep 8, 2007
    interesting thread and terry seems to bring out some very polar opinions

    i have him at the best 154 pound fighter ever but my top 3 is very interchangeable

    i would have to call him very good and certainly one of the 80s/90s most talented fighters
     
  8. Threetime no1

    Threetime no1 Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,890
    94
    Oct 29, 2010
  9. he grant

    he grant Historian/Film Maker

    25,663
    9,751
    Jul 15, 2008
    Great skills plus great heart minus a great chin is simply very good.
     
  10. salsanchezfan

    salsanchezfan Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    15,803
    11,441
    Aug 22, 2004
    Very good. Record a bit spotty to be considered great (yes, I am discounting the DQ's to Santana), and the division then didn't have a lot of depth.

    Had he campaigned in the mid-80's, when the 154-pounders were considered possibly the strongest division going, then maybe.

    Would have been some interesting fights there for him then........a better verison of Mugabi (whom I think he still stops), Jackson (well, we saw that), McCallum, Hearns, Davey Moore.........mixed results there at best, I think.
     
  11. Jorodz

    Jorodz watching Gatti Ward 1... Full Member

    21,677
    52
    Sep 8, 2007
    good call sal and i think that would have either solidified his claim as best ever at 154 or made him an also ran, depending on the results

    i see him always taking mugabi (faster hands, faster starter), losing 2/3 to jackson, winning 2/3 against mccallum, getting SLAUGHTERED by hearns and outboxing a green moore
     
  12. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,182
    Sep 15, 2009
    I think he's a great certainly.

    He's certainly a top 15 lightmiddleweight so that qualifies him by default.

    As for p4p i've only gone as far as 50 and he aint there yet.
     
  13. bodhi

    bodhi Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

    19,229
    257
    Oct 22, 2009
    Great lmw, not overall though. Fun to watch.
     
  14. lufcrazy

    lufcrazy requiescat in pace Full Member

    82,092
    22,182
    Sep 15, 2009
    It's hard defining just what great is.

    Let's say for example you class great as the top hundred atg, and say mosley is number hundred. If alvarez does enough to make the list and mosley drops out is he suddenly un-great?

    Or what about guys like corbett who would have been atg, yet people have since overtaken him, is he no longer an atg?

    I suppose the easy way out is just accept the ibhof as the threshold of greatness and in a way you couldn't argue against someone saying that.

    Or if someone is a great lightmiddleweight is that or should that be enough?

    For example take sven ottke (beat you to it pop) a great supermiddleweight surely, but is that alone enough to call him a great?

    I've decided someone needs to come out and offer definitions for these terms just for the sake of clarity!
     
  15. Swarmer

    Swarmer Patrick Full Member

    19,654
    52
    Jan 19, 2010
    Solid, except for his chin. Wobbling at the refs instructions...