Top 5 most overrated boxers of All Time

No, he looked just as fast and impressive here:

[yt]SS_AQK2idU8[/yt]

Note what the commentator says at :44.

 

They were.

Then they fit into the other category of "bums to begin with."

And you can't prove he wouldn't have blitz Mullings, what me and you have here is a difference of opinions. But like I said deep down you know that Leonard of the Norris fight beats Mullings.

 

Funny but I have gone thru the the entire fight and can't seem to find that comment. Must be another of your bogus claims since this time Ray was further ahead on points than in fight 1

You sent me three quotes and all of them say the same thing. Go check it yourself. It says Ray was just a bit slower than in his prime. And we can see this from UNO MAS. Tim Ryan congradulated him afterwards saying "what an absoultely magnificent performance"

Steve Farhood said Ray fought "the perfect fight"

 

You call that fast?

Stop trying so hard to impress me

 

Concerning the video in the last post: Leonard is damn lucky that wasn't the Hearns he faced the first time around. The Hearns he did face was too much for most of the fight!

 

Prove it.

Wrong again; both of them were considered prospects and/or rated contenders at one time.

Yes I can. Leonard couldn't blitz guys at that stage of his career, and Mullings didn't get blitzed. The facts are right there in front of you.

No we don't. You have a claim that is completely unsubstantiated, and I have that is substantiated.

Prove that.

 

So I guess a prospect and or rated contender can't be a bum according to you.

You don't have any proof because Leonard retired after his ass whooping to Norris so you can't say factually that he couldn't blitz a Mullings level fighter.

Substantiated by what?...that he had no answers for a prime Terry Norris?.....If that's your argument then its not a very good one at all because as I stated at least 3 times in this thread getting your ass whooped by a prime elite version of Norris is not an indication of being shot. That statement right there is how me and you got into this mini debate.

Prove that you don't feel that way by taking a lie detector test.:rasta

 

This content is protected

 

Frankly I thought Leonard would do a lot better against Norris, despite the fact that he had been dropped in training by a sparring partner while trying to deliver his "Buster Douglas uppercut." Leonard was 34 and looked very speedy in his last fight. By fighting so infrequently over many years and avoiding rematches against his toughest foes, Leonard never really received the accumulation of punishment that, say, Hagler took during his long career of fighting hard scrabble opposition and engaging them in thrilling wars. Perhaps the worst beatings Leonard received were from the ex-lightweight champion Duran and an overtrained Hearns (who had the side of Leonard's head swelled up pretty bad before losing his legs). And those fights were years before Leonard stepped into the ring against Norris. No, Leonard's style should have been on with longevity written all over it, I always figured. For a speedster like him, 34 isn't that old. So when he was dropped twice and completely outclassed by Norris, I wasn't very impressed with Leonard. Of course, Norris didn't get any credit. He only won because Leonard was "shot" or (according to Leonard) Leonard didn't take Norris seriously (he was looking past Norris to a third fight with Hearns). Norris has a solid career. Mugabi and Leonard are pretty good names to have on one's resume.

 

:rofl

 

my bad wrong thread.

 

Why you think George is overrated mate?

 

Then you must be deaf, because he commented all through the fight how Leonard has deteriorated, as did his co-commentators Hagler and Tim Ryan.

Either that, or you're a knob.

And had been down and hurt more times than in fight 1.

No, I sent you FOUR quotes.

No, only TWO say the same thing.

I just have, and you're wrong once again.

No, one says he appears shopworn and "headed for a fall," and the other says "his good days are behind him."

You said it was enough to listen to reports on Uno Mas, remember?

Everyone I quoted saw Uno Mas anyway.

 

Yes, just like the commentators did at :44 and everyone with half-a-brain did.

I don't have to try. You already said you were impressed with him when he looked equally fast against Duran. :deal

 

That's right, a bum is someone that isn't good enough to ever approach a contender or prospect level. That's precisely what it means to be a bum.

I have plenty of proof, because he hadn't been able to blitz a Mullings-level fighter in nearly a decade, and hadn't even been able to score a stoppage in three years.

See above.

Neither is getting beat by Mullings.

No, when you tried to backtrack from your original definition of what makes a shot fighter is how we got into this debate, which was this:

Fine, send me one.