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)
Neither. 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.
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.
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". 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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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!