No I'm not wrong. Check all the facts All the greats have done it except for Leonard. I've researched it. Dick Tiger at 37 beat a 7 years younger Jose Torres for the title. Ali at 32 beat a 26 year old George Foreman. Not that WAS something! Hagler at age 30 beat 26 year old PRIME Hearns - in three. Now that WAS something! Duran at age 37 beat 28 year old Barkley They won, Leonard didnt. He showed in the Norris fight that he couldnt beat a younger man even if he just dropped a bit of speed That's what Mytwosense just convinced me of with his last post-that Ray leonard dropped a little speed You would think with all the championship experience (5 titles) he could handle a younger man but Norris proved to be his kryptonite
To call Jack Dempsey "vastley overated", is a great injustice to the immortal manassa mauler.Prior to his slaughter of the giant Jess Willard in 1919 ,Dempsey in his prime had about 25 first round ko's, flattening Carl Morris, Gunboat Smith, Billy Miske,Fred Fulton,Battling Levinsky etc.,all top fighters at that time.He was considered a rough tough destructive killer, bobbing and weaving, fast as a welterweight. His style was much like a later day Roberto Duran ,always on the attack. He than took a 3 year layoff going to Hollywood, rusty and pass his prime, he took on the great boxer Gene Tunney twice, losing his title, including the famous "long count" in 1927.He still had enough in his tank to ko a prime Jack Sharkey in 1927,at the age of 32 Dempsey should be judged by his prime years not by an old and rusty Dempsey of the Tunney bouts.In 1950 the top boxing experts who saw all the top fighters since Sullivan ,named Jack Dempsey as rhe greatest fighter of alltime. Were they that saw him in his prime missing something? I think not......
And Terry Norris. Then again I guess you could make the case that he wasn't great so I agree with you in that regard.
Did Terry Norris ever win a meaningful fight post-30 years of age? If you say Leonard never proved he could beat a younger opponent and thus is not on the level of the greats you listed, then doesn't the same go for Norris? Or are you being hypocritical? Norris beat an old man, and made a career out of beating older/smaller men. Deal with it.
That may be A, but he did accomplish the equivalent: he beat a fighter that was even faster than himself-Taylor, something Ray Leonard had never been able to accomplish
Taylor was also a former light welterweight. And Thomas Hearns wasn't exactly slow: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmLya0g815U[/ame] 1:35 onwards Who would you say was more of a threat, a prime Thomas "Hitman" Hearns or a former 140 lber with no power above 147+ lbs like Meldrick Taylor?
That's more than what you acknowledged. No, Norris went so far as to say this: "His good days are behind him." Nice of you to selectively edit the quote though. Yes it is, or have you forgotten what your original statement was? (as usual): Glad you think a lot of Clancy's words, because he said the EXACT SAME about Leonard while commentating his rematch with Hearns. :deal Why not? You just said getting whupped by Mullings, Rosenblatt, and Boudouani were "justifiable" - or were they simply better fighters than Norris?? :think
So what?? You just said "ALL THE GREATS HAVE DONE IT," not some "equivalent" that you just pulled out of your ass to save face. So BY YOUR OWN LOGIC, Norris cannot be considered great. More like something Leonard had never been able to find while he was still in his prime. But if you want to blame Leonard for being so darn great though, go ahead. As is, fighters like Hearns and Benitez were at least as fast as Norris and most other fighters in general.
To answer your question, yes they were either probably shot or bums to begin with. I don't think you looked over Keith Mullings record before you asked me this question. He just would have blitz Mullings and Leonard never showed he could beat anybody after he got whooped by Norris because Leonard retired like a sore loser. Leonard retired because he knew he was still world class, and if he would have continued he would have done well, but he didn't want that because it would give more accolades to Norris win over him and Leonard did not want that at all. I believe I made this statement earlier in this thread.
this wasnt till three years later at a more suitable weight. In fact, entering the Hagler fight Hagler took care of that speedster in quick fashion
What do you mean "probably shot"? Were they or weren't they? Yes I did. He beat one guy that was 23-0 and another that was 39-1. Were they both "shot" when he beat them? You probably did, but you never PROVED it, which is what I asked for. What is the BASIS for claiming Leonard would've blitzed Mullings (or anyone at that stage of his career)?