Sugar Ray Leonard v Terry Norris prime for prime

You know something red I used to think that you just came around here to get a rise out of people and kept coming back for the attention like a stray dog comes around for free leftovers ... But I'm starting to see that after ten years you really DO believe that age and inactivity are irrelevant in boxing outcomes, which points to the painfully obvious... That you know FVCKALL about boxing.... Have a good life

 

aww, does that mean you're bowing out again?

it's funny because everytime you make a claim, you somehow find a way to back out of having to prove it

in fact, all u do is make outrageous claims and then u never back them up

I'd still like you to explain how you came up with a comparison between Ali-berbick and Norris - srl

tell us how you arrived to this comparison

you keep ignoring the reality of what actually happened, and then choose to replace it with your own version of reality as you wish it to be

Ali was a 39 yr old punching bag going into the berbick match, losing two of his last three and arguably 6 of his previous 8

lennard on the other hand, won his previous match handily, by outboxing, & outmaneuvering manos de puerco

winning 12/12

while never allowing his back to touch the ropes

and no losses in the last 11 years

therefore, I want to know how you arrive at this comparison of yours

personally, I think it's something that was just passed around with no merit

and actually, rey was better than the lennard of the hagler fight

no ring rust

obviously no ring rust means you are much sharper

fighting at his more comfortable 154 (lighter is better)

and he never tired

add to the fact rey was the favorite to win

this means he had no disadvantages as he had in the hagler fight

I'm asking you a fair question; why is lennard from the Norris fight and Ali from the Berbick fight a fair comparison when there are no similarities whatsoever?

the only thing I see is that both were in their 30s

is that it?

 

watch everyone, he's going to punk out

either that or he'll try and change the subject

that's how all srl fans are when the're stumped

Magoo actually wanted the mods to do away with this thread

 

At the end of the day the title of the thread is "Sugar Ray Leonard v Terry Norris prime for prime".
The totally reasonable argument by the people who say they think Leonard would win seems to be drawing an hysterical ire from Red and Foxy.
It's not unreasonable to think Norris would win the style issue is a legitimate argument although would a prime Leonard's speed not also be an issue for Norris?
I think Leonard would win but why the hysteria? And Red needs to stop constantly referring to Norris as "Terry" it makes him come across as one of those much maligned fan boys.

 

Dont you think you got it backwards?

we got this to point to:

Terry Norris 120

srl 106

what have you got, "redrooster calls Terry Norris by his first name and has got to stop it for risk of sounding like a hysterical fanboy"?

or how about comparisons with Ali-Berbick?

I asked why is this a valid comparison and everyone runs off pouting and in a bad mood

A teachr of mine once said that "if somebody makes a claim, they got to prove it"

and the sad fact is, you havent proven it

What if I said a valid comparison to Norris - srl is more like Floyd Mayweather Jr. vs Miquel Cotto?

why is that not a more apt comparison?

 

this is the lengths they go thru; they dream up the worst possible comparison they can find

and this proves their point :-(

 

I don't think the Berbick v Ali comparison is valid, Ali was a complete shell Leonard had more left than Ali, but he certainly wasn't prime.

 

No.. meaning that rather than relying on boxrec I relied on memory, and I don't recall the details of every fight I saw 20+ years earlier.. Who really gives a fvck about Luis Santana.

I only bring them up when Norris' resume is being blow to the stars which you frequently do.

If you think that Leonard should be ridiculed for losing to Norris at the near age of 36 and after having seen 5 fights in 9 years, then Norris must really be a shlt fighter.

He fought a great fight. But that isn't the point.

Childish.

I think I can come up with better.

He exposed the shell of a once great fighter.. Not particularly unique given that we've seen the same scenario hundreds of times in boxing history.

Who's names are redrooster and foxy.

I don't have to live with anything. I'm fine with how Ray Leonard's career panned out and I'm confident that the Norris and Camacho defeats do nothing to hurt his legacy.

Like what? that he was an awesome fighter. I think there are just a few who might concur with that.

Yes, T'was I who mad the claim. between 1979 to 1981 - a period of just 22 months he beat THREE Atg's in their primes plus a solid undefeated Jr. Middle. You'd be had pressed to find more than perhaps a select few runs that were as good or better than that, if you're an honest person but I won't expect that here.

utter nonsense. The fact that you devalue the careers of Hearns, Duran, and Benitez when they were prime OR try to build a house of cards to justify why they WEREN'T prime is transparent B.S and there isn't a single person here ( other than foxy ) who doesn't see it..

Show me a less than two year period where any of those guys beat three prime greats plus a formidable foe in an upper weight class. That's not to say that I necessarily rate Leonard above those guys when measuring the entirety of their careers, but that run was damn hard to match.

Nice try at attempting to claim that I considered Larry Bonds a great win.. But that's not what I was alluding to.. I'm talking about the TIME FRAME between November of '79 to september of '81. During which time he beat Benitez, Duran,Hearns, Kalule and even chalked up a few wins in between against some decent contenders.

Yeah okay Pal, talk to me about pathetic.

 

Drawing straws over who had a little bit more left is moot.. The point being, they were both shot to shlt.

 

It was a perfectly valid comparison to bring up Ali-Berbick.. And that wasn't the only comparison I made either. You ignored the other 2 or 3 I used.

 

I agree, I was splitting hairs!

 

yet you can't explain why it's valid

you merely responded with "both were shot to ****"

which is conclusive evidence that you cannot justify your claim

also, you made an earlier claim that lennard was almost 36, further demonstrating your deceit

why not simply say that he was 34 years old instead of trying to sneak the number 36 in there and trying to give the false impression that he is actually 36?


you also tried to leave the same false impression with your absurd comparison between Lennard and Ali of the Berbick fight

I find that disturbingly deceitful as well

not to mention your laughable claim that lennard had one of the greatest runs with just 4 bouts (two against grade B fighters)

i'm sorry but nothing you say even remotely rings true

 

I dont think the two are even remotely close and no sane (or honest) person would ever confuse the two

Prior to the Norris bout, lennard won 12/12 over Duran who had just decisioned Barkley

boxing, moving, throwing punches in bunches. the tape doesnt lie

Rey's abilities were still strongly evident, so much so that the audience voiced their dissaproval of too excessive movement

and since when has any shot fighter using excessive movement and winning 12 for 12, ever been accused of being "shot to ****" as Magoo likes to put it?

Never until now, unless one is a srl fan looking to invent excuses for failure

it's okay, he still lasted longer than Mugabi, Curry, & Taylor

Sugar rey was a GOOD fighter

 

Have not you learned ..
Arguing with a dummy makes you a bigger dummy, so I just ignore his stupidity

He can be one of 8 people worldwide that places Norris even in the same breathe As a peak Ray.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk