SRL vs Pernel

Hearns was 6’1” w a 78” reach. Different match. That aside who didn’t have problems with exceptionally talented tricky boxers ? Still, Ray was himself exceptional. Plus the bigger, stronger, faster, harder hitting man. Ray wins by decision but a stoppage wouldn’t shock me.

 

Oh wow. Just wow.

 

I'm not going to even debate. Your lack of knowledge is pretty bad.
Ray only landed about 250 punches on Duran in that third meeting and over a hundred were jabs.
People age its really that simple.
That's like comparing Rosenblatts win against Norris and saying Norris was still in his prime despite the fact he wasn't.

 

I'm not fan but he handled Benitez pretty impressively. Wifredo was the definition of tricky. I don't think Whitaker had enough offense to keep Ray from toying with him. Keep in mind Leonard was also much faster than Pernell.

 

Agreed Pea would only be a slight underdog vs a 34 year old Leonard coming off another long layoff.

 

This matchup is like the old saying "a great big man always beats a great little man". It applies in this matchup. One was a great lightweight, the other, a great welterweight. Leonard had exceptional hand speed, even faster than Whitaker IMO. He's just a bigger guy and great one at that, who could do a lot. He could think in the ring every bit as good as Whitaker. Some fans are under this impression that PW never lost a round, this is not so. There were fights he did not look too good either. Before the McGirt fight, he said everyone made a fuss over how good Buddy was, and he wanted to shut him out. The fight was close and McGirt gave him fits. Buddy was not SRL. I frankly think Pernell would be in over his head. He would have to use all his guile just to last the distance, which he may or may not do.

 

Age alone can ruin a fighter. Carlos Monzon is actually a bad example as he started to struggle so he quit.

You never fought as I can tell. Try doing things at say 37 years old that you did when you were 25 and I promise you it will be different.

And here's a huge one: as people age thier bodies can't absorb or take the punishment as they did in thier younger years. The ability to take punishment declines as you age.

The first Hearns was a rough fight hence the eye damage Ray received and the first Duran fight was a very punishing fight hence Rays swollen face.

Larry Holmes never took drugs yet I'm pretty sure the 45 year old Holmes wasn't nearly as effective as the 28 year old Holmes. Why? AGE.

Roy Jones lost it because he got older and kept jumping up and down weight classes.
But when he was YOUNG nobody hardly ever touched him. Age comes at the drop of a dime and it can all the sudden show up in one fight.

Pernell is a much greater fighter then Norris could ever DREAM about being. And Pea has the resume to back it up.

I keep asking the same question and for some reason you don't answer it: Name the 4 best wins of Terry's career.

 

I'd leave it, Cobra, mate.

He comes on here to go on about Norris' win over Leonard (6 fights in 10 years) as if it means anything and it is all he ever mentions. We'd never seen speed like it, Ray was prime, Terry was untouchable.

You mention that Ray was 34 and had fought, on average, once every two years for a decade (in which he had developed a decent sized coke and booze habit) and it gets dismissed as irrelevant. Then he moves on to the Camacho debacle (age 41, first fight in six years).

It's gone beyond moronic. @Mark Dunham you can't believe what you type, it's clearly some kind of a joke which has never worked. You are very, very boring.

 

What a great post.

 

Would be a close fight but Pernell would have been too small and weak v Ray who fought a few fighters that would have beat Pernell, Benitez, Duran and Hearns were all better than Pernell.