Sugar Ray Leonard was a 3-1 favorite against Terry Norris

This is all true. That's why if a guy is smart, he can do very well gambling on the sport and picking those live underdogs really pads the bank account. Losing them however kills things.

But there were a few concerns I had with simply liking the norris chances a lot and not quite loving his chances. The main one is the house fighter/follow the money rule. If the bout goes to a decision or there is a controversy, Mr Ray Leonard is not the guy getting screwed. Never. What that translates to is a guy like Norris has to flat out dominate the guy to win. It cannot be closely contested.

Like you said, this was the first time in his career Ray was the old guy fighting reflexes. He'd made a career out of having the shoe on the other foot. Time for us to see how Ray does this time.

It went like you and I thought. Ray has to have the reflexes advantage to be effective. He's pretty much lost without that single advantage and just can't turn to other things to win the fight. I thought the punch variety and accuracy of Norris was underestimated by the Leonard camp and certainly was not a guy Angie Dundee would have approved of as an opponent.

The really funny thing out of all of this is the Leonard backers did the same thing a few years later against Camacho. Thank you for these bouts and backing Leonard to that degree. He was backed the way late Tyson was backed and if a guy wants to wear some blinders the way horses do, they have that right afterall.

 

Absolutely point on !! Frightening to think of what a prime Hearns would have done with Terrible !!

 

Right ! It`s like saying Marciano took out a prime Louis or Joppy took out a prime Duran. It`s been idiotic to say that SRL was anywhere near his prime...

 

Rooster, I LOVE how you seemingly forget MULLINGS BROWN JACKSON ROSENBLATT BOUDUANI Blind or amazingly stupid ????

 

yeah, these guys NEVER learn, even going into the Camacho fight, let alone to get it right the first time when Sugar's only loss was to a name fighter. No way is he going to lose to someone the crowd wasnt familiar with

they just dont understand this basic law: Sugar couldnt handle speed

and yes, I made a mint on that Norris fight, Camacho too. I was able to find just about everyone who thought they could make easy money off me, thinking Norris & Camacho were jokes. Notice that Norris N Hector were the only two opponents of Sugar's career that possessed substantial speed?

it was the SPEED that did him in!

and ironically it was the Jackson fight that gave me the confidence to make such a bet. Norris just had too much speed. add to the fact Sugar had never faced anyone who was remotely as fast, and the fight turned into a rout, w Norri's speed dominating at every turn, Terry's shots plastering every sq. inch of Sugar's anatomy

 

no, it's not at ALL like those fights becuz Sugar was winning, w no noticable droppoff



you're just making it up!

In fact, Sugar went 11 yrs w/o a loss (why do u keep forgetting that?) :huh

thing is, it may take u the rest of your life to figure out what I realized in 4-6-87

 

I already got a preview from the Weaver triplets so it's not nearly as much surprise as u would hope.

posted the photo about 4 yrs ago on ESB so no one here's going to doubt me.

takes more than an inner city fitness trainer to bum a guy out

by the way u should work out harder, your amrs look a bit flabby

 

mullings brown rosenblatt jackson boudani

 

Rooster, some idiot ran a thread pitting your boy against that bum McCallum. You need to get on it ASAP and set all those fools straight who have the audacity to think that the Bodysnatcher would last even a minute against rock jawed Norris. Even though McCallum soaked up eveything JJ had to throw while chinny Norris took a nice long nap before rd two was even over

 

what do they have to do with Sugar's 11 yr unbeaten

streak?

 

probably more Sugar fans feeling helpless their man didnt do better against Terry. trying to cheer themselves up by writing imaginary outcomes that will never happen

that matchup dont interest me anyway. Mike was more established than Terry in 91

but come summer '92, my man leaped ahead in the ratings

 

Spread the word Rooster !! Preach preach !!

 

Forget Hearns. Norris wouldn't have beaten a prime Curry either.

 

How satisfying to know that Norris beat both soundly

both TRIED tho

 

poor Curry fans, Leonard fans, Brown fans, Mugabi fans, Hearns fans, McCallum fans. all they can say is "Norris never would've beaten prime so & so" as tho the burden of proof should be on Norris who is just too good a fighter for their tastes

Hagler, Jones, & Norris always DID win their fights too easily