Sugar Ray Leonard v Terry Norris prime for prime

Bad show from Norris in fights 1&2, very cowardly but then i expected nothing less from him tbh, never did rate the guy.

Can you imagine what a prime Leonard would have done to poor Luis?

 

Please, you havent a leg to stand on

my man has 10 defenses to his credit while yours has none

count 'em, 10 def for Norris - 0 for lennard

even at his weight of 147, Norris had more (10 vs 4)

Simply put, Norris was more successful at his weight class than leonard was at his

Not to mention this glaring fact

Norris 120

srl 106

what a fine performance that was

h2h, defenses, what have you, everything leonard did, Norris did it better

as for the original question, I find it surprising that given your level of confidence, none of you have been able to answer it

We already know terry can best leonard; he did it in the ring where it counts as opposed to on paper, hypothetical primes; cutting out leonard's limitations, granting him Julian Jackson's punch, making him immune to Terry's punching power, weakening terry's chin just weak enough, and other such journalistic gimmicks

the problem is how you prove your boisterous h2h claim when you have so little to work with. so far, not so much as I must interpret lack of an explanation on your part means you are unable to do so

otherwise, you would have done so by now, would you not?

I can def see why you people go thru life so angry, frustrated, desperately WANTING to prove yourselves,, but unable to do so

three months and counting now. I expect an explanation before the year is out or I'll continue laughing in your faces

 

to tell the truth, that's not what's really bothering you

what bothers you is this:

Norris 120

srl 106

It's an argument that never gets old, never fails, and never goes out of style!

why do you think you're always changing the subject!

 

You are confusing me with someone else....
For the record i think Norris would always beat Leonard prime for prime, i just think you are somewhat loopy insisting that the SRL that did fight Norris was prime.

But as i said, i never rated Norris that highly anyway, he just happened to come along at the right time, even then he had to resort to dirty tactics.


Must try harder.

 

Nice way to avoid the question... I'll ask again, and I'll put it a little differently.. Why was taking THREE WHOLE FIGHTS to get a single win over Luis Santana supposedly better than Sugar Ray beating Larry Bonds the first and only time out?

 

so I did. there's so much hateration here for Terry it almost seems like the norm

as forTerry, see my recent hands of stone vs Terry post which someone else started. I think you'll find it's somewhat balanced

 

you can ask all you want. your stalling tactic still dont tell my why a prime lennard defeats Norris

 

I already did tell you my reasoning.. Numerous times and through multiple threads over the past ten years which fell on def ears... Now answer my question which is: Why was taking THREE WHOLE FIGHTS to get a single win over Luis Santana supposedly better than Sugar Ray beating Larry Bonds the first and only time out?

 

What he would have done to Norris .. No one even rates Norris , not more than a fighter with speed but nothing special as many exposed in his prime before 30 unlike Leonard ... Haha truth hurts rooster


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

There's been a seismic shift here.
Red is now referring to "Terry" as "Norris"
Is his argument starting to waiver?

 

I can tell you that putting a whupping on rey the way he did, makes up for any faults you're looking for because in the end, terry beat rey, and in overwhelming fashion. so much so, it can only be considered mastery

it wasnt just a matter of Terry being the better fighter, the smarter fighter, the superior talent, and with the superior fight plan; Terry had rey COWERING in fright!

the leonard of the Bonds fight, of the hearns fight, would have surely met with DEATH had he been faced with Norris

Trust me, your man just hasnt got what it takes to deal with this level of speed

otherwise, we'd have seen fights between rey & Nunn, no?

Did your man's eye keep him out of that fight too, or was it just lack of heart?

This same lack of heart showed up in the Norris fight early and by round three, I'd already seen enough of this "man" to confirm what I had long suspected, so much so that I went against the grain and put my money on Norris

which is that he doesnt do well against younger faster fighters. they are indeed a threat to him which is why rey ducked Nunn and avoided the prime of hagler

Terry had the right style to reduce leonard from sweet to ordinary

I dont understand why you dont do a better job of sticking up for your man

 

truth? you self delusional pinhead!

THIS is truth:

Norris 120

srl
106

My man has 10 defenses at 154

How many does yours have?

 

"truth"

what a bonehead!

If only reality coincided with your truth you wouldnt have results like this:

Norris 120

srl
106

It's a fact that can never be argued, never gets old, and never goes out of style

 

well, that's it for today. They're having another tough day it seems. Looks like I'm the winner again

 

what argument? I'm RIGHT and that's all there is too it!

Honestly, if rey had given Terry a good fight and made it close, I'd have to agree with you all that rey in his younger days would have taken it but becuz terry took him out of the game so easy, and demonstrated how poorly a boxer vs a faster boxer fares, I cant give rey a realistic chance

rey ALWAYS does poorly vs boxers with above average speed

When you're schooled the way terry schooled rey, and the way Camacho dominated before knocking him out......

combined WITH the way he blatantly bypassed (ducked) Micheal Nunn combined with bypassing Hagler while actively fighting Howard, one can only conclude that rey cannot handle fighters of this sort, of this quality