Sugar Ray Leonard v Terry Norris prime for prime

IN his first twenty bouts Norris lost twice to Derrick Kelly and Joe Walker. In Norris first top class bout he was koed by Jackson.

In comparison Leonard's first top class bout was against Benitez whom he stopped for his first championship.

Norris was very lucky to face Leonard at the twilight of his career. The comparative numbers are so one sided in Leonard's favor its impossible to really compare the two. Leonard was an upper level fighter and his numbers prove it. Norris something less and his numbers show this to be the case.

 

He didnt have problems with Leonard

picky selection of opposition would only meaningful if Terry LOST to Leonard

actually, it was Leonard's opposition that should be closely examined

26 straight punching bags with no mobility

and after that, a couple of big names, followed by more punching bags and a washed up Hagler, followed by more punching bags

Nothing to prepare him for a fighter like Norris who aced him in a one on one matchup

Sugar had a chance to face Pryor but backed down in a face to face challenge

he never fought Curry like Norris did

and he blatantly side stepped Nunn which I believe would have prepared Leonard TREMENDOUSLY for Norris

because like many people, I had grown very suspicious of Leonard's steady diet of stiffs, Kalule, Lalonde, Bonds, that kind of synthetic fighter that does nothing to prepare one for a real fighter like Norris who can do so many things

 

well that's because Norris was the cause of leonard's career twighlight

You're right about one thing tho, the numbers really were one sided - in Terry's favor

Norris: 120

Leonard: 106

knockdowns scored by Norris: 2

knockdowns scored by Leonard: zero

Norris also caused all the hurt in that fight, something like every other round

Leonard hit Terry his hardest and honestly, I dont think Terry even noticed

Ray reminded me of a tick biting the ass of a giant bull

Well I'm sorry but you're really waisting your efforts with meaningless stats that dont help you against a speed demon like Norris because in the end, it was all Terry and ONLY Terry

see? you're still wrong :smoke

 

The numbers don't lie. Leonard far surpasses Norris. Norris was lucky he fought a faded Leonard in his next to last bout.

Really can't compare the two. Norris was a regional amateur champion. Leonard an international amateur champion and Olympic gold medalist.

Norris beaten NINE times. Leonard THREE times.

Norris koed four times. Leonard stopped only once and in his final fight.

Norris first dozen bouts were against nobodies. Pro debuts, no wins, few bouts. (Combined record 23-12). Leonard in contrast fought pros in comparison. (Combined record 183-75)

Norris champion in one division. Leonard champion in five different weight divisions.

Add to it Leonard fought a who's who of ATG champions. Hearns, Duran,Hagler, Benitez. And he has a win against every one.

 

In comparison to Norris embarrassing first 20 bout competition from 1979 to 1981 Leonard fought Wilfred Benitez, Roberto Duran (two times), Ayub Kalule, and Thomas Hearns. They had a combined record of 177-1-1 when he faced them.

Again incomparable.

 

Terry showed Sugar's deficiencies as a fighter namely that he could not deal with other fast boxers

as a pressure fighter, Sugar was just average and average pressure just aint gonna get it done when you're dealing with Norris

Norris who, could do so many things that he sometimes forgot to use them in fights

which is probably why I say that terry is one of those rare fighters who had TOO much going for him

I think a good tuneup for Ray would have been Micheal Nunn insted of Roberto Duran altho quite honestly, I think Mike would have destroyed him with that big left hand

PS: you dont really see Ray Leonard much on TV. he's not as big an attraction as you think. certainly not as recognizable as Ali or Tyson or even Holyfield

just talking truth brother. no hate agendas here, okay?

 

that's right, the numbers dont lie

Norris 120

Leonard 106

all else is irrelevent :smoke

 

too bad none of that helped him against Norris

hey look, I made my point much more strongly than you and with only half the effort! :smoke

 

Let's look at winning percentage:

Leonard 92%. Stopped only once in his final bout.
Norris. 84%. Stopped four times.

 

to get the diabetes, you first have to get the spoon in his mouth

But it was Terry who was dispensing with the mouthloads (full of red leathered fists that is!)

 

You have been replied to - many times. However, your argument made up of all manner of peculiar responses, throughout this thread and others, related to the same or similar topics, has demonstrated that you have an utter lack of perspective when it comes to Sugar Ray Leonard.

Almost every statement you make in any post regarding Leonard is flawed to the core, e.g. claiming you have “proved [your point] using the numbers” and demanding those who disagree with your points to provide their ‘proof’.

This is the fundamental flaw in your approach to this debate (if one can refer to your contributions to this thread as being those worthy of the term ‘debate’); that which, in itself, renders everything you have posted on this topic, utterly meaningless.

The thread deals with a hypothetical contest; not the actual contest Leonard and Norris had in 1991. Thus, it is only opinions, preferably supported by reasonable 'evidence' - that can be put forward to make an argument - NOT 'proof'; there is no proof; something you cannot seem to get your head around.

The result of the actual fight between Leonard and Norris is not in question here but, nonetheless, you continually spout “120-106” (an incorrect representation of the actual ’91 result - one repeated example of your ignorance) as your 'proof' that Norris would have been victorious against Leonard, at any time. It can be stated categorically that this repetitious posting of the actual result does not constitute proof of your point, at all.


The secondary flaw in your argument arises from you disputing that the ’91 version of Leonard was diminished, in comparison to an ’81 version of Leonard. It is necessary for you pursue this nonsense, of course, to somehow but rather ineffectively patch over your primary flaw, as described above. Leonard has to be seen as a viable opponent for Norris in '91, in order for your incessant repeating of the result to have any chance of carrying a perceived value.

However, despite scientific facts about the effect of age on the physical body; despite the fact Leonard was weighing in for a division he had not competed at for nearly seven years; despite, in those same seven years, him having only fought five times; despite the video evidence of Leonard’s performances, as well as those of his opposition, from ’87 to ’89, clearly showing Leonard had significantly declined; despite it being, therefore, reasonable to suggest that Leonard was not near the peak of his powers in ’91...

...you insist Leonard was at an ideal weight, in good shape and dismiss those points to the contrary as “excuses”. Well done, you debating team supremo!!


The closest you get to a technical ana.lysis to support your claim that “Norris W12 Leonard is a constant”, is your attack on a couple of Leonard’s results, e.g.

I’ll remind you again that the Bonds fight ended in round 10 (you’ve already had your mistake pointed out to you but you choose to ignore it - just another indicator of your perpetual ignorance).

Even putting aside the fact that the Howard fight took place in ’84 (Leonard’s first brief return) and, by Leonard’s own judgement of himself, was a poor performance, your statement remains fallacious because it is predicated on your idea alone that these fights should have finished earlier - your logic going along the lines of something like...

...'Leonard was unable to close down these non-marquee opponents in less than 10 and 9 rounds respectively -> therefore, he would not be able to close down even more elusive opponents -> Norris was a more elusive opponent (too fast of foot for Leonard) -> therefore, Leonard would not be able to close down Norris'...

The logic is basic and faulty. It does not take into consideration the stylistic differences between these opponents and Norris; the relative durability of these opponents; the context of either of these Leonard bouts and, the fact is, Leonard caught up with both Bonds and Howard to earn stoppage victories.

Let's apply a similar logic to one of the world's greatest pressure fighters...

...'Julio Cesar Chavez was unable to close down and stop Danilo Cabrera, over 12 > therefore, regardless of the pressure-fighting-prowess of Chavez, he would not be able to close down and stop a boxer who is faster of foot than Cabrera > Meldrick Taylor was faster of foot than Danilo Cabrera > therefore, Chavez should not have beaten Taylor'...


Now - in typical redrooster style:

This content is protected

Who’s to say that the Leonard of ’78 to ’81 wouldn’t have caught up with Norris in the later rounds, just like he did against Benitez and Hearns? How you manage to interpret these Leonard victories as a clear sign that Norris would have beaten him in his prime is something you have done little to explain in anything like a convincing manner.

Whenever a valid point is raised against your already extremely limited arguments you, develop either a case of intentional obtuseness or give a response that is borne out of you being a genuine moron. I am still undecided as to which it is.

Who taught you that misinterpreting and re-framing points made against your argument would make you look clever? It just makes you look like you haven't understood the case being made. Nonetheless, you seem oblivious to this, judging by what follows, in the form of yet another literary bluster of not so fresh manure.

Surely, it would be better for you to ignore the points you have no answer for if you cannot admit your loss for words (and, you have ignored points and questions made on more than one occasion) rather than make some imaginary link between what is being suggested and what you want it to mean?

The classic case of this type of absurd response, of course, was your quite outrageous connection between Angelo Dundee's motivational words to Leonard (vs. Hearns I) and your opinion of Leonard's deficiencies...

And, though you did try to explain why you considered Angelo Dundee was agreeing with your sentiments of Leonard, your efforts appeared to me to be, in no uncertain terms, the metaphorical equivalent of watching a child take their first swimming lesson, in the deep end.

All things considered, it is your opinion and purely your opinion, through which you deliver the same song and dance; done so with such odiously fake confidence and without a shred of substantial evidence in support - post after post. And, sorry to disappoint you, but no sensible Poster on this forum is simply going to take your word for it, rooster. There’s nothing special about you or your point of view, which uniquely qualifies you to make statements and have them taken as read.

Just because you are unwilling or unable to acknowledge any credible point, which upsets your steady state of mindless Leonard-bashing, does not mean you have not been replied to. You have been and comprehensively outdone in the process.

 

That was a past-prime Leonard. The real deal would beat Norris. You know that, and it eats you up inside. But keep living in the Norris-is-King fantasy land.:good

 

I've already proven Leonard had the far greater opposition looking at each fighters first 20 bouts. Norris fought human punching bags. Leonard fought many seasoned fighters. Again it's completely incomparable.