Floyd Mayweather vs Ray Leonard...

yeah, the last guy to interject his two cents, was Air Francis (get it? Air Francis? )

he hasnt ben back

Now we have this latest - Louden with the usual "styles make fights", capping off his stupidty with "what's Terry Norris got to do wih anything?"

well actually, EVERYTHING,, but I had to spell it out

yet this LOUT, says he's been following this thread closely for the last several weeks

see how they play dumb?

 

What are you talking about??

There has never been a truer adage than - styles make fights.

You are trying to claim that Floyd would have had success against Ray, because Tommy was out boxing Ray.

That has nothing to do with anything. Floyd and Tommy are completely different.

What has Hagler got to do with anything?

Yes, he knocked out Tommy at a higher weight, which was a great win. Which proves what?

Marvin was an aggressive southpaw, that fought NOTHING like Ray.

Why have you even mentioned him?


With regards to the Norris fight, yes, Norris didn't hold the physical advantages over him, that Tommy had held over Ray.

But Ray fought Tommy in 1991, when he was clearly a completely different fighter to the one he'd been several years earlier in his peak.

Or are you trying to claim otherwise?

Terry Norris beating a near 35 year old Ray in 91, at JMW, doesn't tell us that Floyd would have beaten Ray at 25, fighting at WW.

You're not allowing for circumstances.


In 1981, Ray and Tommy were at their peaks, and Tommy's physical advantages played a huge part.

In 1991, there was no physical advantages that played a part, BUT Ray was clearly PAST HIS BEST.

The versions of Ray from 1981 and 1991 are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT!


You have used extremely poor examples to try and put forward a case for Floyd beating Ray.


Let's look at your terrible logic.

Tommy out boxed Ray, and Norris beat him, so that means Floyd would have done?

Ray stopped Tommy, and Norris beat Ray.

So would that mean that Norris would have easily beaten Tommy?


It's ridiculous.

Again, you've not allowed for circumstances, and a different clash of styles.


Your argument is weak.


It would be like someone saying 'There's no way that Ali could have beaten Wlad K, because Ali lost to Spinks and Norton'


If you want to debate who would have won between Ray and Floyd, then analyze their skill sets and pick better examples.

Once again, the version of Ray that beat Tommy at WW, was bigger, more powerful, stronger, and was just as skilled and as fast as Floyd is.


Terry Norris' name shouldn't even be mentioned in this debate.


His fight against Ray isn't relevant to the discussion.

 

What do you mean EVERYTHING??

Ha!

Again, what has Terry Norris' victory over a near 35 year old Leonard, have to do with how Floyd would have done against a 25 year old Leonard who was at his peak, at a different weight??


1. Was Leonard the same fighter at 35, in 91, as he was when he was at 25, in 81?

Answer = NO!


2. Does Floyd fight like Terry Norris did?

Answer = NO!


Which tells us that Terry Norris beating Ray in 91, means NOTHING, when discussing what would/could have happened if Floyd had've fought Ray at his best.


Do you understand?


You've given two extremely poor examples.


1. Of a fighter that's a lot BIGGER than Floyd, in Hearns.

2. Of a fighter that beat a faded Leonard, in Norris.


It means nothing.


Let's do a head to head between Ray and Floyd.


Floyd:

Height - 5'8
Reach - 72'


Ray:

Height - 5'10
Reach - 74'


Skill - Ray
Power - Ray
Shot variation - Ray
Footwork - Ray
Defence - Floyd
Speed - Ray
Heart - Ray
Size - Ray
Strength - Ray


Ray held too many advantages IMHO.

 

I haven't been back but I have been watching with amusement. Everything I've got to say on the matter I've already said. I don't think there's anything else I need to add.

 

Do we all agree that Rooster and Foxy (the cerebral one) are actually one and the same ?

 

you dont want to include Terry in the debate for the way he outboxed & outsped Ray

Floyd is four years older than Ray was when Terry beat him. FOUR YEARS! and Floyd is still unbeaten. Not only that but Ray only had 30 + fights which wouldve extended his career by several years - at least. Look at Monzon, at the same age. In fact, Ray was hardly touched in his career, including his last fight where he by utlizing his footwork all 12 rounds WITHOUT SLOWING.

you see anything wrong with ray's legs in his last fight?

FACT: Ray was unbeaten in the last 11 years, picked up 3 more titles, and had vastly more experience than Terry. How does that put Ray at a disadvantage?

when Terry destroyed Ray, he also destroyed the notion that Ray couldnt be outboxed by anyone other than Tommy Hearns. No wonder you dont want to factor in Terry's showing.

but life is like that Louden, we cant make up our own rules and when our heroes get destroyed and shown for what they are, we may not like the facts but we must be honest with ourselves and others

so you see? size is not important in defeating Ray. Duran proved that. Norris proved that. Camacho proved that. And I'm sure Pryor & Mayweather would have too

I love Ray but Floyd is all wrong for him

 

If Ray held the edge in skill over Floyd, then why was he so easily defeated by age 34 with only 30 + fights while Floyd at 38, and 40 + fights, has yet to be whipped?

same goes for footwork, heart, defense, speed - all of which go to fast Floyd becuz after all, Floyd has yet to be whipped and Ray more than met his match by the speedy Norris

Ray was no match for Norris and may not even be a match for Floyd. I still can forget the troubles he had with Howard, a diminuative 5-4 in welter who put Ray on the seat of his pants

I dont think Floyd would destroy Ray the way Terry did but he would certainly sting him, enough to get his respect and keep him in line for all 12 lopsided rounds

Ray cant handle a good boxer andas we all saw in the Norris fight, you dont need unusual physical traits to outbox him; just a lot of speed

 

well you asked me about the two matchups. just between us two, I never believed your claim that you favored Terry over Ray but I went along with your ploy. The important thing to take from that fight was, Terry beat Ray fair and square at his own game - boxing.

I actually dont trust any Leonard fans, especially Louden. The more he tries to convince me of what he says, the less I believe him.

Waynegrade, I just think he resents Floyd so much that he'll say anything. he doesnt really mean it

 

Rooster,save your breath you are blocked Write your next note via your alt,Foxy

 

Another fvcking Liar.

Your oversized mouth in comparison to your moronic sized brain would never allow you to block anyone.

 

That DOLT keeps saying I'm blocked but with no results and still expects me to fall for it

yeah, he is a liar, and none too bright

 

louden. we all know that's the name of a cough drop

 

You just keep astounding with your,knowledge` ?? We just love how the person (who is clearly insecure about his lack of intelligence) finds the need to use insults and name calling to make themselves feel better. It,s a boxing conversation page... Can you leave your names and immaturity for your own circle ??

 

redrooster,

No, I don't want to include Terry in the debate. Because unless you're debating what would have happened between Floyd and the version of Ray that Terry fought, it's completely irrelevant.

Ray had retired two or three times, and should never have come back against Terry and Camacho. He was way past his best.

How on earth can you do a direct comparison between two fighters, from different era's, different backgrounds, who fought different opponents, at different weights? Everyone's circumstances are different. Some guys age faster than others.

Bernard Hopkins looked better in his late 30's to early 40's, than what he looked in his 20's.

Look at Muhammad Ali. He aged rapidly, and he was old by the age of 32.

Wlad K beat Haye at 35/36, and Ali lost to Leon Spinks at the same age. It means nothing.

Floyd's unbeaten and he should be respected, but he didn't fight the guys that Ray did.

How did it put Ray at a disadvantage?

Because he was nearly 35, and he'd slowed down considerably. He was at the end of his career.

Terry Norris was 24.

Wow! He destroyed a 35 year old fighter at the end of his career.

Danny Green knocked out Roy Jones in under three mins in 2009.

So what?

It would be like me saying to you "I think Roy Jones could have beaten Bob Foster and Michael Spinks"

Then you replying with "No chance! Glen Johnson, Tarver, Calzaghe, and Green all beat him"

Nobody gives Terry Norris huge credit for the win.

No, but you can look at things objectively, and you can allow for circumstances and put things into context.

If you want to do a fantasy match up between Ray and Floyd, look at how they both fight, and analyse their skills.

Ray was bigger, stronger and was just as fast and as skilled, and he would have had zero respect for Floyd's power at WW.

Floyd is a safety first fighter.

He hasn't got the tools that Hearns held over Ray, he wouldn't have been fighting the version that Norris fought, and he also fights NOTHING like Roberto Duran.

Ha! Camacho? What when Ray was 40!

Duran pressured Ray for 15 rounds in Montreal and fought beautifully.

Are you seriously suggesting that Floyd would have fought Ray in the same manner as Duran did?

They're completely different from each other.

It's no good being ignorant saying blah, blah, blah, when I mention the old adage of 'Styles Make fights' because it's true.

Frazier gave Ali hell.

Foreman DESTROYED Frazier with ease.

Yet Ali beat Foreman.

Floyd would have been at a disadvantage in almost every department against Ray.

In what way?