Sugar Ray Leonard v Terry Norris prime for prime

Foxy comparing members that think SRL could of beat Norris if he was in his prime to Germans that blindly believed the Jews were evil

 

Picking Norris to beat Leonard in his prime is fine. But to make this assessment based on their actual meeting, where Terry essentially beat up the "shell" of a once great fighter is one of the strangest doctrines I've heard. It would be like picking Johnson to always beat Jeffries, or Marciano to always beat Louis or Holmes to always beat Ali on the premise that they beat their older renditions.

 

yes, I have to admit I have no clue if they really believe what they say or are just trolling thinking they are funny by going so overboard while insulting members :think

 

Not according to Leonard's fanboy vermin it isn't. Which is why they should rightly be abused and treated with sheer contempt.

Had Leonard fought a half dozen title fights at 154, and ONLY lost to Norris in the last one, then fine. It would be quite plausible to dismiss Norris's chances in a prime v prime match up. But W 1, L 1, doesn't cut the mus**** against a guy who won, and defended world titles at 154, 18 times. Red might well have an unhealthy liking for Norris, who knows? It is none of my business one way or the other. I don't have any like or dislike for they guy, I'm merely going on what Leonard DID at the weight, plus the fact that he wanted nothing to do with Hearns at 154 preferring to fight Finch, and Howard instead.

As it is the Norris haters are merely crying " My boy was an ATG, Norris wasn't "

Fukkin pathetic, like kids shouting " My Dad's bigger than your dad "

 

I'm not about to say anything that hasn't already been mentioned. But In all fairness, Leonard DID beat elite men both above AND below 154. Norris never beat anyone noteworthy EXCEPT at 154.. And his victims were mostly past prime former stars or ones who were never much good to begin with. He also has a few prime losses threaded throughout that title run. Ray's record at Jr. Middle is admittedly short. But his one signature win was against a 36-0 champion at his Pinnacle with five world title fights behind him and whom he took apart convincingly. He also moved up and beat that guy in between bouts with superstars just months apart. His other showing obviously was when he was pushing 36 years of age, semi retired, and slimming down to that weight after not having fought there in years..yet he still had the grit to go the distance even after it was painfully clear the fight had been lost. So who do I think would win ( if it matters ?) I'll go with the man who both looked better on film and had the better resume. Sure Norris may pose some stylistic problems but I'm not convinced they would negate the spectacular abilities of a man who was beating ATGs just months apart a decade earlier.

 

You've won me over Goo, SRL it is!

 

Oh common my friend. You never needed my help coming to that conclusion

 

Jeffries himself admitted that he could never have beaten Johnson, even in his prime

taking what happened in the fight to determine the outcome at any point is perfectly valid in this case because he wasnt touched in his previous fight

Why cant you bring yourself to admit the obvious? He was perfectly funtionable

Ray Leonard had gone 11 yrs with no losses

and no one picked him to lose

 

Oh please! You're doing what SRL fans have ALWAYS done; make even his worst opponents out to bet better than what they were

Kalule, a man with no speed whatsoever, looked like he was anchored to the spot, pivoting on one foot

no speed, no punch

I could see from that fight alone, Terry would kick ass with his speed

He'd leave him in the dust by consistently beating him to the punch

what happened in their fight is exactly what would happen at any point which is why I've said the results of Norris - srl is a constant

They just didnt have any speedsters in those days which is why his career took off

I've even had several dreams about it. Leonard with his wins over big name opponents until he faces Norris. Loses big then tries again but loses again. Goes back to the drawing board with decent wins on the comeback trail but loses a third, then months later, a fourth

see? aint nothing changed but the dates on the calendar

My whole point has been that it was Terry's SPEED that did the trick. I've highlighted the word, spelled it out and you still dont get it

Simply put, Terry's speed was to Leonard what krytonite was to Superman; he couldnt do a thing about it but take his punishment

It takes some nerve to tell everyone "you cant rely on what happened in their fight. Go by this instead; the guy that looked better on film and resume

That's complete garbage. I use the results of what happened, not a hypothetical outcome the way I WISH it would go

Leonard had enough time to catch up, he couldnt do it

what Dundee told Ray in the Hearns fight, blowing the fight, didnt happen until he met with the next good boxer without the defensive deficiencies of Hearns, the lack of stamina, or strength and with better speed & mobility

 

but that's only because of people like yourself who resent the way Terry exposed the limitations of SRL to critics like myself

I'm betting you think "I wish Norris had never been born!"

and that's all this really amounts to - hatred towards Terry, a great champion or as I call it, resentment

it's really Leonard's fault because he could have avoided all the scrutiny and avoided the ridicule by defending his middleweight title, or even facing Micheal Nunn himself one on one in a 1989 fight

Personally, I like NEW talent however unknown it may be so long as see that talent is capable, rather reputable but tired out pugs like Hearns & Duran, or Lalonde who, talentwise, didnt so much as register as a blip on the radar screen

 

i noticed that too. regarding the hagler fight, they have to put on an act like "I didnt notice anything wrong with Hagler!"

talk about an act

to think that these people have to go thru life putting on an act just for the sake of defending their hero

I'm sorry I busted their man's bubble but it shows the difference between barely passable performances against so-so competition, and fighters with real speed, and all around talent like Terry

Personally I also believe the others who would have given Ray a trouncing were prime Hagler (by KO), Nunn (also by KO),, Hearns mid 80s version (also by KO) and McCallum (points)

and Julian Jackson? HELL YEAH! KO 2

 

fairly stated :thumbsup

 

No, they really believe it. Nobody sane would troll that hard for that long.

I think part of it is subjective bias - in Foxy's case, a seething hatred for Leonard. In Rooster's case, an infatuation with Norris.

I think another factor is tunnell vision - not seeing the big picture.

Also, they both seem to have the type of personality where they don't seem to respect the imput of others. Such rigitity and lack of humilty makes it difficult to shape a broader perspctive.

 

Dude, the fact you're actually dreaming about Norris/Leonard shows some serious OCD.

I still don't get why you can't understand that Leonard's speed in 1980-82 was much better than it was in 1991 when he faced Norris. Thus, in a prime v. prime scenario, Norris's speed advantage is much less or even non-existent.

I guess that is why you have to rigidly adhere to your rediculous assertion that Leonard was still prime in '91.

But, we all see what you are doing, here.

None of believes Leonard was prime in 91 or that prime v prime Norris would have a huge speed advantage.

And we don't believe that because we have an obsessive fascination with Leonard.

In fact, many of us didn't even much like him.

But if you put logic first, and personal feelings second, it is easy to envision a prime v. prime matchup being much more compettive and at least in my view, because of his huge advantage in resilence, Leoonard winning a late rounds TKO. Prime Leonard had the speed to catch Norris much more frequently than he did in their actual fight, and the power to hurt him.