Sugar Ray Leonard v Terry Norris prime for prime

No, you and yours debate using concocted things like "Terry had a china chin"

all the while, he totally kicked Ray's ass and made ten more def than Ray (who had none )

Not a mark on my Terry. Ray's face was a twisted mask of pain. Why I thought Ray was going to have a nervous breakdown in the middle of rounds 9, 10!

what an ass kicking that was

Well, that settled that!

from that fight we know who would've won between Robinson (the real Sugar Ray) and Leonard (the fake Sugar Ray)

 

You know Red, you're argument which despite your aggression is mainly a losing one, would be better served if you didn't constantly refer to Norris as "Terry".
It simply comes over as Fanboyish.

 

just because some dude said Norris had a bad chin is no reason to blame it on all others that disagree with your point about PRIME for PRIME SRL vs Norris :nono

I never said such a thing you paranoid assumptive dingbat :rasta

here is the scoop Red, the thread clearly asks PRIME for PRIME, all I am saying is that I think there is a good chance that SRL beats Norris prime for prime. Thus your talk about Norris beating SRL soundly is off the threads POINT, SRL was not in his prime while Norris was, if you did a poll imo you would see most would agree that SRL was not PRIME in his fight against Norris, correct????

maybe Norris beats SRL prime for prime anyways, but to go on claiming others are FAN BOYs and morons etc for thinking otherwise is simply silly on your part that would only be backed up by such extreme forum idiots as guys like Foxy who come here to behave in ways they would never get away with in public without getting smacked :deal

those are facts Red. If you disagree I dare you to make a classic poll of who would win prime for prime and prove me wrong.

that means you make a POLL and every single dude that votes SRL would win prime for prime is in your CLEARLY stated opinion a SRL fanboy that is a moron not knowing anything about boxing. Why don't you dare to see how many of our classic members vote for SRL (prime for prime) and therefore DISAGREE with you?

or you could take your extreme trolling style of thinking and go to GENERAL where there are lots more idiots just like yourself to play with :deal

 

Norris would always be the naturally larger and stronger of the two. But I'm not convinced that he was faster, more skilled, busier or more durable. Leonard's career is defined by "rising" to the occasion to beat elite fighters even under unfavorable circumstances, where as Norris often lost to lesser men who he was supposed to beat.

 

I'm sure you do know that feeling, very well - especially, after watching your boy Norris in his prime, getting nailed in every round, leading to his starching at the hands of aging Simon Brown, by the 4th. Norris didn't heed the warnings from his opponent (floored by a jab in the 1st; staggered by a right in the 2nd; same again, just on the bell, at the end of the 3rd) and instead just kept doing what he was doing until he got sparked; unthinkingly - without adjustment.

And, the devastation you must have felt watching Norris take over 9 months, 2 defeats in 3 bouts to retain his WBC strap against 'the Great but at the end of his 42-17-2 Career' Luis Santana. It must have been mortifying for you.

For my part, I have nothing invested in this debate to be even the slightest bit bothered by. Quite the opposite, actually.

I really don't know what convinces you that what you've written above somehow supports your idea that Norris faced Leonard in his prime. It is the second-biggest flaw in your argument, which flushed your credibility down the toilet from the outset. Of course, admitting your mistake would be too much for you to bear. You might have wanted to stop participating at that point but you would rather keep pulling that toilet chain, persisting in the attempt at peddling the same point, over and over again, until there is nothing left of yourself to send around the u-bend. It's thoroughly ruined you.

What 'failed argument'? Yes, we all saw the fight but there's often an odd, much less than one percent, that think they saw something else. That thin slice of oddity is you, in this particular case.

Why would I have a hurt ego over Boxing Matches that took place over 25 years ago? I'm not sure I had any feeling about it at the time - let alone now.

If anything, it is you and your buddy Foxy, who have consistently demonstrated an overtly emotional and biased view against Sugar Ray Leonard - a sure sign that your opinions on this matter are tainted; thus, making them unreliable. This, coupled with your poor attitude towards other Posters, who disagree with you, no matter how politely they put their case. :nono

Here's the thing - I'm not even a massive Leonard fan - but I know what I saw and can appreciate what I saw - so - no! I shan't give that up; certainly not on the strength of your twisted perspective. Fortunately, everything has been captured on film for anyone else to see (unless they have various issues with themselves and Leonard - similar to your own). You will never see anything different from the closed-minded view you have cultivated over, it would seem, many, many years - and that's fine by me.

Leonard is an All-Time Great; Norris isn't. Period. :good

 

yes and that is only from Ring mag, that would hold pretty true across all accredited boxing sources.

 

well in THIS fight, his circumstances were favorable, and was favored 3-1 over Norris. Yet failed apparently

so how do you explain that?

I explain the discrepancy in this fashion: Ray's previous fights show in just about all of them, including the hagler fight, that Ray performed admirably, but that all of those previous opponents lacked speed

the suspicious timing of the Hagler fight, the avoidance of Micheal Nunn, only gives strength to the theory that Ray was unable to deal with a Norris-esque opponent

The Norris fight finally confirmed the theory (first proposed in elegant fashion by Redrooster)

 

your theory is simple, part of it is based on the fact that when SRL got older and slower he was not nearly as good as he was in his PRIME :smoke

except for one thing, your theory then RULEs that SRL was in his prime which is totally untrue,,,,

that's the point which you FAILED to accept fairly in this debate, that's the point therefore whereby you started acting like a ignorant idiot :deal

again, not saying that SRL would win without doubt prime for prime, simply saying that SRL was not prime when he badly lost to Norris and saying that IF SRL was prime imo he would most likely beat a prime Norris.

 

He was favored on reputation alone. But the name and the resume belied the actual quality of the opponent. No one knew exactly how far Leonard had deteriorated nor how much Norris had improved. Given that nobody had seen Leonard in action more than once in the previous two years and against an opponent even more aged than he was, it was rather difficult to assess.

You kind of play both sides of the fence on this one. You've accused Leonard in the past of beating a "faded" hagler and arguably losing to him as well, but now that fight is supposed to be an indicator of why he was supposedly fresh against Norris.. BTW, the Hagler fight was four years earlier... Things change about a boxer in that length of time.

Nobody wanted anything to do with Nunn after he sparked Kalambay in the spring of 89'. Hearns himself said he wanted nothing to do with him publicly and I don't see the relevance of Leonard's opponent selection when assessing his performance against Norris.. If anything, his reluctance to meet more formidable foes was an indication of his doubt about his abilities at that point. But I won't try to claim what the man was thinking.The timing of the Hagler fight wasn't beneficial to either of them.. Marvin was ring worn and in the last fight of his career. Leonard was rising in weight for the first time to meet him and had been inactive for most of the past several years.. Both guys were past it.. Btw, Hagler was favored to KILL Leoanard as you pointed out the betting odds of Leonard vs Norris. Why didn't he?

You're entitled to your opinion. And after a decade or more of sticking to it, I doubt anything I or anyone else says will sway that.. Claiming that Norris would beat any version of Leonard is fine. But to base it on the premise that Leonard was anywhere near his pinnacle at the time of their actual meeting is an argument that won't hold water in most circles.

 

I never said I regarded him as fighter of the 80s

He didnt fight Pryor

he didnt fight prime hagler, he was afraid to

He never fought Curry or Nunn either

and it really doesnt matter when his prime was, great fighters dont take 11 rounds to take care of Larry Bonds and they dont get floored and retired by Kevin Howard

that's what's really hurting him

the problem is your inability to understand what I'm telling you; Ray Leonard doesnt have the style needed to beat terry Norris

geez, have you got a thick skull!

 

well yeah, how can you deny it?

Leonard timed Hagler after five years of showing no interest

personally, I felt Hagler was used goods after the Mugabi fight and especially watching him in sparring with the weaver triplets. he was horribly slow, mechanical, and off balance

as for Leonard, you also cannot deny that as good as he looked in the Hagler fight WITh ring rust, that he figured to get even better with each successive fight after

and after four such fights, it cannot be said that the reason for his poor showing in the Norris fight was due to him being rusty or carrying too much weight

AND plus the fact, he was favored

there is only ONE factor: the speed of Terry Norris

I'm sorry but you've got to agree with me on this one

 

His retirement from boxing due to an injury is largely what led to many of those fights not being made. Call it excuse making.. It is what it is. And the timing of the rise of some of those men as well as the various divisions they were frequenting in respect to his retirement or being tied up with other bouts also may have had something to do with it. Leonard fought and defeated Hearns, Benitez, Duran, and Kalule, and did it all within 22 months. That's a hell of a lot more than the above guys you named did.

So basically your claim is that great fighters never have flat performances? If you think Norris was a great fighter, then why did he have not one but several, including some which resulted in "losses" rather than just unimpressive winning efforts?

I don't see the Kevin Howard fight being any major ding against him. He beat the shlt out of Howard, and as unimpressive as it may have been he still won despite being off for more than two years and being a bit weary of protecting his eye. How is this any worse than getting your ass handed to you by Keith Mullings while still only being 29 years of age and an active reigning champion?

That may be true. But also something that can't be fully and accurately assessed unless both men are prime. You use "speed" as your number one factor for Norris always beating Leonard, when in fact early film footage suggests that Sugar was actually the faster of the two, not to mention better skilled, more durable, and having better stamina, accuracy, etc.. But I guess we all see something different.

I know this comment wasn't directed at me, as you were responding to someone else with this post.. But common... Do you really think you're in the unique position of calling others "thick headed?"

 

I seriously doubt Leonard remained dormant "intentionally" for five years waiting and hoping for Hagler to diminish, figuring that his own abilities would never deteriorate, and in the meantime getting over an inury that nearly blinded him, going through a bad marriage, having drug problems and no income from boxing.... This isn't exactly the game plan that fighters use to glory as we've seen so many times before.

He had just beaten the living dog shlt out of a solid top contender a year earlier. Meanwhile Leonard had fought only once in the previous five and in a performance that most felt confirmed his demise. Ad to that the fact that he was rising to 158 for the first time ever and against the division's best participant and most feared for his health.

There were many ( including yourself ) who have stated repeatedly that he didn't look that good against Hagler.. There are many ( including yourself who have stated repeatedly that he LOST to Hagler. I don't personally agree with this, but again you're playing both sides of the fence.. And the fact is, Leonard didn't improve after Marvin. He continued to take long layoffs while rising in weight to take on tough opponents who in some cases were younger and more active. This doesn't make for better showings.

He slimmed down to face Norris at a weight that he hadn't fought at in years, yet you've repeatedly pointed out that men like Hearns and Lalonde were forced to dehydrate themselves to meet him at catch weights. Why shouldn't the same concessions be made for Leonard? and having five fights in a nine year period is hardly what I'd call an active professional.. Semi-retired is a better term.. Hell you've even gone as far as to deny concessions for his age and inactivity against Hector Camacho.. I mean seriously?

Irrelevant and for reasons already explained numerous times over the years.

Which I believe to be inferior to that of a 1981 Leonard.. But the simple fact of the matter is that they didn't fight in 1981.

I don't agree. But you're entitled to your opinion.