Thoughts On Terry Norris?

So Hearns' ATG victory over Benitez, who himself considered 154 his best weight, is not good enough because it is somehow Hearns' mistake that Benitez couldn't punch hard or brawl? Hearns doesn't deserve credit for outboxing a master boxer? But a guy who feasted on old men is somehow more deserving of a higher standing because he stayed longer at the class? This is such a stupid argument. Extremely hypocritical as well considering the quarters it is coming from.

 

Hearns' victory over Benitez is more valuable than anything on Norris' ledger, but I think it's legitimate to mention that the Puerto Rican lacked the tools necessary to really challenge Hearns. Ironically, someone like Barkley proved to pose a far greater threat despite being a lesser fighter.

We're just having a discussion.

 

Half of boxing is having the right tools. Fighters have beaten other greats who were younger, 2-3 weight divisions bigger with 8 inch reach advantages. If we aren't making any special concessions for them, then we can't for Benitez either. It was Benitez's mistake to box Hearns. It was his flaw to not learn how to brawl.

Norris also got by his great handspeed and most of his best names were already faded, and a perfect stylistic matchup for him. That and he doesn't have true great wins at 154 like Hearns does. A better question is whether Norris really deserves to be in HOF rather than the absurd proposition that whether he was a greater 154lber than Hearns.

 

Nobody is advocating for making special concessions, we are merely acknowledging the reality that Benitez lacked the tools to really trouble Thomas Hearns.

The most accomplished 154lbs fighter of all time is rightfully in the HOF.

I personally think he ranks higher than Hearns at 154lbs, who managed 4 titles defences in total to Norris' 16.

DP hit the nail on the head - this all depends on whether you prefer quality or quantity.

 

Lol. I know why you are bigging up Norris. Benitez only lacked the skill against Hearns, not the tools. If this was a certain other fighter an excuse like 'lacked the tools' would make some people to lose their minds.

Norris has no case over Hearns at 154lbs. His best victory is either Castro or Quincy Taylor. One of them is literally popular for a lucky punch. Besides, light middle was far from Castro's optimal weight. When people mock IBHOF for wayward picks, Norris is among the 1st fighters that come to mind.

 

There's no good faith discussion to be found here.

 

Oh the irony

 

Explosive speed and power, could box too, and probably should have been more of a cautious boxer but he was too game for his own good and was hittable and had chin issues. But he had a lot of solid entertaining performances and won a lot of belts.

 

well said

 

Quality over quanity in this case which in my view ranks Hearns above Norris at 154 lbs.

Benitez and Duran were better scalps at 154 then anyone Norris beat

Norris's best wins at 154 were a shot Curry, a faded, inactive Leonard and a past his best Simon Brown who had become somewhat one dimenional and , who had starched Norris a year earlier.

Hearns was at his best at 154 lbs.

He was flawed but Norris was more flawed.

BTW head to head at 154 Hearns beats Terry.

Terry doesnt have the height and reach to outbox him and if he tries to brawl he will be pulverized.

He would face the same issues against Hearns that Benitez did but with a much worse defense.

He would not survive the distance as Benitez did.

 

Brown was a better fighter than Castro in a p4p sense, but was a welter moving up and his best was behind him. Castro was atleast the naturally bigger guy and his best was ahead of him, so I rate that win as better than Brown. On that note however, Castro got outboxed (arguably twice) by a 47 year old grandpabody Duran, so there is that. I really dislike Terry, he lived up to his name. Terrible.

 

i meant to reply to somebody else. I actually liked your post.

Yes Castro was super tough but didn't have the power to take advantage of Norris's whiskers.

 

Hearns didn't stay at 154lbs long enough to be considered the greatest in the division's history in my opinion. He might be the most formidable in a H2H sense, but Terry campaigned there infinitely longer and accomplished more in terms of both world title defenses and former world champions defeated.

 

Norris' title defenses are the most blatant examples of cherry picks. It's practically impossible to ignore just how shot most of those good names were. Despite staying there at 154 for his entire career, he never unified the division. The clearest example of a manufactured career.

You are just bigging up Norris because he made Sugar ray look like a goddamn amateur in the ring. Trying to make that whooping look less bad. It doesn't even surprise me at this point given how blantantly and hypocritically you discard logic whenever it facilitates nuthugging the golden boy more. Fighters grow 12 pounds at age 27, weight divisions disappear, fighters go from being prime to shot in 5 months with no documented reason etc. And now this manufactured star is being put across as the best in the division's history. To quote your uncle, paranoid john, you are leaving a trail a blind man's deaf could follow (or something like that). Norris doesn't belong anywhere near 'best of' lists.