Is Sugar Ray Leonard overrated?

Seriously, try reading my last two posts again and try to work out on which points of yours it was I was actually disagreeing with.

 

It looked like he was peaking in the Jackson fight during the first round

but then came the second.

You see? THAT'S how you fight a Terry Norris!

but give Terry credit; he came back from it to have the greatest comeback in boxing history (thus disproving that Leonard's comeback in the Hagler fight was the greatest in history)

I was totally amazed the way he took the more experienced Leonard, unbeaten in ten years, and thoroughly out sped & outboxed him, much to his fans disappointment

i was also impressed with the way Terry overcame Taylor's early edge in speed

by the second Brown fight, I was no longer impressed b/c I already knew what TN could do

It was just another speedlicious day at the office

PS: i was also impressed with the way Terry's left hook slammed into the side of Mugabi's head

and one more thing: I was quite impressed with the way pressuring Gatti was dropped by Terry's instantaneous left hook in the blink of an eye

Terry is the greatest superwelter of all time

 

you forgot to mention his winning the title and his easy victories over:
Leonard
Mugabi
Brown
Taylor
Blocker
Curry

all the stars of the 80s and beat them all with ease

you may resent Terry Norris and his accomplishments, but what he did stands as much a part of history as Leonard Hearns 1, Duran Leonard 1 & 2, Ali-Frazier, Ali-Foreman, and every other big fight we can think of

 

Better than Ali's after being beaten by Frazier, the epic schooling of George Foreman against huge odds?

Better than Foreman's?

 

A stellar list to be sure.. But the names belie the actual "quality" of the opponents. The "timing" of those meetings is as important if not more so than the name the announcer shouts out. If truth be told Gianfranco Rossi was about as good or better than most of those guys around that time.

 

I think it's plain to see that you avoid addressing questions you don't like the look of. At the same time, you have no trouble putting words into people's posts that were never there, upon which you base an elaborately assumptive and, ironically, self-righteously delivered argument. It is and has been, at times, genuinely funny.

However, I wasn't "telling" you that you shouldn't use the Bonds and Howard fights, was I? I do, nonetheless, find it odd how you harp on about them, as if these contests somehow represent the de facto measure, against which Leonard should be judged, without balancing these bouts and their context with the bigger of his fights and how these went.

If all you want to do is focus on the less notable and altogether lesser performances, while suppressing, as best you can, Leonard's achievements, then your extreme bias becomes obvious.

Likewise, you celebrate the positive qualities of Norris without balancing these against the opposition he faced and some of his poorer results. In short, you do not apply the same criteria when rating Norris, as you do in your rating of Leonard. Added bias.

And, by the way, it was Hearns I suggested would have torn through Mayweather and his 147/154 resume´; not Leonard.



As occasionally amusing as it has been, it is very difficult to have any kind of sensible debate with a poster that does not properly read and/or misinterprets what he/she is reacting to. I wonder if this is because you are so wrapped up in the sound of your own ideas that you are incapable of really comprehending the viewpoint of anyone else but yourself.

In any event - Fortunately, there's a consensus, across the vast majority of Boxing pundits, historians and fans, who feel quite confident in affirming Leonard's place in history, as a Pound-for-Pound All-Time Great. And, while anything is more or less up for debate, it's thin ice the dissenters stand on, in this particular debate - as this thread truly proves.

 

No, I think I exposed your line of thinking just right. saw thru you a mile away. picked up your scent two blocks down the road

your type will usually things such as "Fortunately, there's a consensus, across the vast majority of Boxing pundits, historians and fans, who feel quite confident in affirming Leonard's place in history, as a Pound-for-Pound All-Time Great."

which is loser's lingo for "our guy couldnt cut it in the actual fight so we have to settle for seconds"

and then you play dumb saying such like "I can't understand why you focus on Bonds & Howard"

and then YOU DO IT AGAIN!

I don't HAVE to suppress what he did; he does a fine job all on his own!

let's not complicate the issue and try directing my attention where you want it and away from where you dont want it (tricks used by politicians, radio talk show hosts, and of course, writers that cannot back up their ****)

using your rules, i have brought up the leonard of those years you felt he was most impressive

what was it in those fights you feel would enable leonard to catch up with fleet footed, trigger fisted Norris and defeat him

if you don't reply directly to the question or try changing the subject, I'll have to assume it's because you are lacking a plausible answer

as it is, I'm already very suspicious of you

 

hey there poor sport

what part of "favored over Norris" don't you understand?

Or had you forgotten once again?

later, clueless

 

no less amazing considering how he had to s****e himself off the floor and begin from the bottom up

it's how far one rises and Terry could go no lower, nor rise any further

It's now a part of history like Ali-Foreman, like Ali-Frazier, like Leonard- Duran 1, 2, and ugh, 3!

like it or not, the Norris achievements must rightly take their place in history even if they don't stand out in the public's consciousness

 

He was favored over Norris on reputation and goodwill name recognition alone.. Had nothing to do with how he looked leading into that fight.. There were many who felt Ray should have retired after the Hearns rematch. It was a lot like when a lot of people picked Jim Jeffries to beat Jack Johnson.. Never mind the fact that Jeffries was north of 35 and hadn't fought in six years..Terry was seen as an obscurity then who was just starting to come into his own.. The fact that one was "favored" over the other meant absolutely nothing with respect to the stages of their careers...

 

Exactly.

 

Bonds and Howard are not similar to Norris in style. Therefore, it is not really necessary to ****yze those fighters/fights to envision a likely scenario for prime Leonard v. prime Norris.

True, Leonard was not very impressive against Howard. He was coming off a full two years of inactivity and eye surgery. He realized it was a bad performance and re-retired. It was his mediocre performance in that fight that made his challenge of Hagler, a full three years later, without a tune-up, seem to be suicide.

I would say the Bonds KO was a good performance. Bonds was a safety first lefty with a solid defense. He was not the type to be blown out early. Leonard bided his time, won almost every round, then closed the show late.

To see how prime Leonard dealt with speed, I would point to the Benitez and Hearns fights. He dealt with both fairly well.

True, Benitez didn't have Norris's hand or foot speed, but he was much better defensively.

Hearns had excellent hand and foot speed, plus had a huge height and reach advantage. Norris would have no such advantages.

Leonard's durability helped him in those fights and I suspect it would if prime Leonard faced prime Norris.

These fights also highlighted Leonard's flexibility. He out boxed the boxer Benitez, and turned puncher to beat the slick boxing Hearns, because Hearn's physical advantages made it most difficult to be out boxed.

It's true that prime Norris would likely be tougher than prime Kalule. Kalue was really the only prime 154 pounder Leonard fought while he himself was in his prime.

If Norris is smart, he won't goe toe to toe.

He did that with Brown, another natural welterweight who arguably punched as hard or maybe a little harder than Leonard, but was slower - and the result was, to say the least, not good for Norris.

If Norris moves and boxes, utilizing his best attributes, it will be a long fight.

Leonard will move forward, working the body, blocking many of Terry's quick flurries.

As the fight gets in to the later rounds, I suspect Leonard's moderate but effective pressure, will be enough to get Terry to come down off his toes for significant stretches.

Leonard will begin to land more frequently.

By the 10th round, Norris a little tired, gets more sloppy defensively. He goes for broke and commits to a series of toe to toe exchanges.

Leonard hurts him badly and smells blood. He tears into a now stationary Norris and leaves him helpless on the ropes

The referee stops the fight. Leonard is a TKO winner.

 

I find it more ****ogous (Anulagous) to the comeback of Roger Mayweather after he was starched by Freddie Pendleton.

Both Norris and Mayweather got starched with a couple of punches and didn't really absorb a bad beating. They both returned to their normal level and got title shots about a year after their setbacks. Both faced big punching, but vulnerable guys in their title shots. Arredondo had previously starched by Hamada and was probably damaged goods. Mugabi had been punished in a brutal fight with Hagler and had been stopped by Duane Thomas. He was also damaged goods.

While Mayweather did not go on to reign as long as Norris, he only lost his title to a great fighter - JC Chavez. Norris lost his to a beyond his prime Simon Brown.

Neither could be termed "The greatest comeback of all time."

 

It is really quite simple. You claimed Tommy went up in weights to fight the guys I mentioned by design, ( some garbage about him making 147 again if a Leonard rematch had been on the cards ) as opposed to necessity. If you can't comprehend your own claims that is not my problem.

 

How about you trying to spin in ever decreasing circles and disappearing up your own ass, seeing as that is where your head spends most of it's time?:good