Who would've troubled Leonard more:

Absolutely. Hell yes. **** yeah. Tho Norris didn't have the greatest chin, Leonard didn't have the greatest punch either. And you know he never really knocked out Duran, Benitez, or Tommy Hearns. IMO, Hearns burned out late. He took Ray's best shots earlier in the fight-trillions of them, and didn't go down.


And we all know Tommy didn't have the best chin-never did. And that means Ray would be out of luck when he needed a knockout which is the only way he could win. And if you're talking a 12 round fight against Norris that would mean biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiig trouble!!

But even if scheduled for 15, you still have to go with Norris. If not, you'd be proven wrong again.

 

It wasn't like Leonard dominated the welterweight division, people. Let's sober up a bit. He was handed a royal ass kicking by the lightweight champion, and serious beating at the hands of the WBA champion. Terry Norris was a seriously dude. He knocked out John Mugabi in 1 round. He dropped Leonard twice and soundly beat him. You guys say Leonard is an all-time great. Well, this fight wasn't even close. Norris made Leonard look completely ordinary. You have to give Norris his due. Norris knocked out Donald Curry in 8 rounds. He stopped Meldrick Taylor in 4 rounds. He stopped Maurice Blocker in 2 rounds. He lost to 39-2 Simon Brown, but he regained his title in a commanding 12 round performance. Simon himself was a damn good boxer, his losses being a split decision to Starling and a 12 round decision to McGirt. That is a serious list of accomplishments on Terry's part. He successfully defended the WBC super welterweight title 16 times. You don't take a serious dude like Norris, a dominant fighter at 154 lbs and say that Leonard, with his uneven record among the elite of the welterweights, is going to wipe the man out. Come on, people, let's get at least a little bit real. Leonard was good, but you guys are drunk on hype.

 

Oh Jesus.... You know what? **** you. I said the dude was good, but he isn't God. Stop sucking his dick.

 

I really don't understand why anyone would pick Leonard over Norris. maybe Terry didn't give him enough ass beating the first time. or maybe it's the fact people are in denial that Terry could do that to him-a class B fighter dominating a legend.

Forget about the uppercut failing or Terry's chin letting him down-it ain't gonna happen!

Reach a problem for leonard? I didn't notice it being a problem for Hagler.

And you're right Lethal; even during his younger years, Ray was no ball of fire at jr. middle.

In his one performance, none of his supporters can say he outright annihilated Kalule, an average and very slow handed, stiff european fighter.

What they would like to say is that Ray did annihilate Kalule, who was an oustanding jr middleweight, along with other flattering performances, so that they could prove their point.

Sorry, but there were no other performances and Kalule wasn't great. it's doubtful he was even very good since Davey Moore trounced him next.

 

Good analysis. I picked Pryor based mainly on what Nick has already stated. If Arguello was a naturally bigger man than he was, I would have picked him.

 

You're obviously a buttock jockey who needs to realise that I don't suck dicks and wouldn't derive any gratification from doing so. This is simply because I'm not of the homosexual persuasion. In other words I'm not a perverse **** sucker like you.

So **** YOU, you dumb ******.

 

Thing is, Mugabi aside, they were all welterweights. Norris was a good fighter, don't get me wrong, but he did prey on smaller men for most of his career.
Norris always tried to be a banger and that's what cost him against Brown in their first fight.

 

Like Duran did in Montreal, Pryor came over the top very well. The Hawk would have been there to be hit, and maybe even dropped for a flash KD or two. But at peak, he appeared impervious, to either head or bodyshots. He would have swamped SRL, overwhelming him with sheer relentless volume. Decisioning a peak Pryor would have required the brilliantly composed defensive ingenuity of a Locche. (Nico at his very best would have given Armstrong and Duran headaches.)

However, Ray would not have been a good matchup for Arguello. SRL had speed, toughness, mobility and strength. When Ray was on his toes, he would be dominant. Others found themselves in trouble with Alexis when they could no longer continue their movement. But off his toes, SRL was able to hang tough with Duran and Hearns. Not the greatest defensive fighter when flat footed, but Ray would have kept Arguello fixated on defending himself. Alexis was not the metabolic freak Pryor was.

 

Arguello is indeed far too small here. When he was contemplating the match way back when one major boxing publication wrote an open letter to him almost begging him not to face SRL. Stylistically Leonard would be big drama for him P4P let alone at 147. Alexis was always going to have trouble vs a speedster like Ray and would not have the power at 147 to faze him whatsoever. Ray however hits a lot harder than Pryor. Alecis would be struggling to land a punch let alone be competitive.

The Hawk would have provided much more drama and entertainment, tho i reckon he would have been shot down pretty fast. He has no advantages whatsoever over Leonard. Leonard is faster, hits harder, has a more proven chin, is technically better, has a better defense and is just the plain better boxer. Leonards stamina is also soundly proven in great battles with Duran and Hearns. It took Pryor so very long to take out an ex featherweight and Alexis took loads of Pryor's best before finally succumbing. Pryor's defense is very leaky but his natural assets and lack of top level opposition of a similar size allowed him to get away with it. He's a great fighter, but against a fellow great (greater really) at a natural size disadvantage he is not winning. Leonard learnt from the Duran loss not to take a great little man for granted and is not coming in tactically flawed vs Pryor. Ray's blinding speed and sharpness will offset Pryor's awkwardness quite nicely.

Sound knowledge of Pryor tells us to expect the unexpected and i would not be surprised to see him up on his toes boxing early. It's either this or full scale assault in an effort to throw Leonard off early. Even if he goes toe to toe Leonard will go a lot better vs Pryor than he did against the better skilled Duran. I look for Leonard to shoot down the Hawk somewhere between rounds 3 and 6.

 

Pryor though Ray would still beat both of them.

 

Pryor's handspeed, volume punching, and skill-set ( he could be a very good boxer when he wanted to) would probably give Leonard more difficulty than Arguello's classical, stand-off style...but, Leonard probably wins both fights inside the distance.

 

I say Hagler...The one who fought Tommy hearns.Leonard would no place to hide in this one...He fought a terrific fight against an aging Hagler...But on any other day Hagler would have damn near stopped him.Too much pressure.

 

As was Ray Leonard!

 

Exactly. Norris was an all-time great at junior middle. Sixteen successful title defenses of the WBC crown. He regularly beat top welterweights with ease. Donald Curry and Meldrick Taylor weren't nobodies. And he avenged his loss to Simon, who was an excellent welterweight.

When it comes to Leonard, some people get sucked into another universe where the welterweight division of Ray's day was the greatest moment in the history of the sport. It was in fact a division in which the lightweight champion was able to beat the crap out of the welterweight champion. The other two top contenders where damn good boxers, but we aren't talking Ray Robinson and Kid Gavilan here. Benitez eeked out the decision that gave him the title and he lazied his way through the fight that saw his title taken from him. Hearns was an awesome boxer, but he was a literally starving middleweight - and eventual light heavyweight - knocking over second leaguers. Lest we forget, he was able to give the "master boxer" a boxing lesson for 12 rounds.

It nothing short of disturbing that when you try to bring people back to earth about Leonard they get all homophobic on you and call you a hater. What a bunch of idol worshipping dorks. It's a mental disorder with these people. But, obviously, there's no shaking them awake from their dream.

 

I'm not a Leonard fan as such, but do recognise he was damn great fighter. I have stated my reasons before why I dislike Leonard. One of them, winning two WBC titles against Lalonde, which was outright ridiculous. And he conned the public a few times after retiring, then coming back, thus making his wins look better. Especially when he retired after his fight with Hagler, then came back a year later to challenge Lalonde.

However, I think he'd beat Norris. If he can beat high quality opponents such as Benitez and Hearns in his prime, getting outboxed by Hearns or not, he would have dealt with Norris no problem.

Street Lethal, you would not make a good boxing journalist. Simply because you only see things from one angle, and one angle only.

I have game my reasons a bit more indepth previously on this thread why Leonard would beat Norris, which was strictly done with my head, and not my heart. And what the hell has being homophobic got to do with anything?.