Sugar Ray Leonard v Terry Norris prime for prime

I think Benitez carried the weight surprisingly well and would have been a very tough fight. Duran, not so much.

 

Perhaps. But I don't think he was necessarily "better" at jr. Middle than he was at welter. But fair call

 

Terry Norris lost approximately 17% of his professional fights by the age of 31, and some of them to guys who were mediocre. His best wins were has beens, guys rising in weight or average contenders who were here today and gone tomorrow. It would take an astonishingly low IQ for one to say his resume was even remotely on par with sugar Ray Leonard's... There's a reason they called him "Terrible" Terry..

 

Great post


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

there's reason they called him terrible and that reason is the pain & humiliation he caused sugar rey

Oh look, the score!

Norris 120

srl 106 :|

and in defenses, Norris 10

srl 0 :deal

Terry was simply bigger, better, faster and the difference in their skills was reflected in the fight's score

btw, sugar rey makes up Terry's resume

note that you dont see any half dead specimens like Hagler on it either (didnt he look horrible?)

 

better to ask how many did he fight?

what we call slim pickings

it really shouldnt have taken him 11 to dispose of bonds

think what Norris would have done to him

 

that's like trying to prove rey would whip terry in his prime

the burden of proof is yours yet again

good luck

 

yes, and also notice how they stay away from the Norris Brown rematch. They simply cant acknowledge the way terry made easy work of brown

far easier than Mcgirt

You are right tho; they threaten to blow down my argument but when it comes right down to it, they don't do it because they cant

and so are forced to regurgitate the same "it's idiotic to think Norris can match rey's resume"

along with "well, rey had much better amateur competition while Terry faced only regional"

It's all pretense you know, but the truth of the matter is those dont even make for being a consolation for what really matters

which is h2h results

there's no substitute for victory because if there were, they wouldnt bring up lennard's wins

which is why Terry's win over rey is perfectly valid

 

like who, Micheal Nunn?

the truth is there was nobody but punching bag Kalule & Howard, and Lalonde which all amount to low quality opposition

you can throw Hagler in there but even then, it was his last fight, a fact I'm sure you'd like to forget

not to mention the fact it was a split dec while Norris - rey was a landslide (thanks in full to Terry's brilliance & ninjistic speed)

 

look at the BS fly!

He was cleared to fight before the fall of 82 so you are **** out of excuses

the truth is, he could fight anytime he wanted, and in FACT, he did

1984, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1991, and even 1997!

in reality, rey's problems IN the ring were due to stylistic weaknesses which werent fully exposed until rey faced a speedster named Terry Norris

on Feb 9, 1991 Norris exposed sugar's limitations and turned him from sweet to ordinary (actually, he made rey look horrible) and is it any wonder why rey cant gain acceptance by his critics?

It's the Redrooster rule in action which reads, the slower a rey lennard opponnt, the better rey performs and the faster a rey lennard opponent, the worse he performs

 

not much of a comeback from the naysayers

I think they've been disheartened

 

Feathers flying everywhere

 

on a related note;

Norris 120

srl
106

as a famous Arkansan once said "It's the score stupid"

 

"Sugar Ray was fast but on the days he met someone faster, he became slow"

 

speed - it's all relative