Oh the irony. And here you are mouthing off at a guy that has been telling you EXACTLY that for 50 pages. And people wonder why Hitler was able to convince millions of inbred moronic Germans Nazism was a good thing. LMFAO.
I take my hat off to you Red. For 50 pages now you have consistently fended of the morons, and fanboys, with the simple facts, which NOT a single one of them can refute. Leonard at 154. Won 1 ( versus a Danish Pastry ) Lost 1 ( Totally fukked by Norris ) End Of Debate. :rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl:rofl Here is the funniest part. Why did Leonard take the fight? Why was Leonard the favourite? Simple, because everyone including himself believed he would WIN. These fools claiming to be wise after the event were probably still in school when it occurred 25 years ago, and if they weren't you can bet your ASS they were screaming for Leonard and they were convinced he would win. If they claim that isn't the case they are liars as well as idiots. Their feeble, childish excuses for the complete domination, and humiliation are risible to say the least. Much like the way you have dominated, and humiliated them.
Foxy, you confuse and distract yourself WAY too much using capital letters. Do you have multitasking issues?
Yeah right ? Epic fail on rump rooster. He just flushed his whole ten year bull shlt argument down the can..
And these perceptions are verification of what ? That the man was at his pinnacle ? That's the stupidest argument ever contrived by anybody, and one that only a deranged fvck **** would ever come up with. And for the record that "Danish Pastry" who Leonard beat was probably better than anyone Norris ever defeated at 154 and also a few of the guys he LOST to there. I'll also ad that the aged 1987 Hagler who Ray beat ABOVE 154 would have had that dire lot of Norris opponents for breakfast...
watch out for the subtleties of their lies. remember, these people lack integrity when you see Magoo mention that he has already explained HOW leonard of the Bonds fight would destroy Terry, well NO HE HASNT! what makes his lie worse is the other lie behind it "I already did tell you my reasoning.. Numerous times and through multiple threads over the past ten years which fell on def ears" not only does he lack integrity, but is in fact a pathological liar I keep track of these things another poster here was just complaining that it took Terry three bouts to finally get past Santana, all the while "forgetting" to mention the fact that he fouled out twice you think these people are into details? it's never been a secret that Terry fouls out. he's even lost a few because of them and nearly fouled out against leonard Had he done so you can be sure they would have spouted more lies such as "Leonard would have eventually figured him out and broken him down in the middle to late rounds" the beauty of that fight was, he didnt foul and we all got to see what actually happened for ourselves :happy there was no late rounds comeback :nono Terry won every round easy :yep and leonard's performance demonstrated just why he sat out the prime of Hagler, and ducked Micheal Nunn. Pryor too
You're the one who said he was shot to **** and compared him with Ali from the Holmes fight You sir, are a pathological liar why not tell us here and now exactly what is it about the Bonds fight that inspires you to say such things as "Leonard would catch up with Terry and break him down late"
Prior to facing Leonard, Kalule had had 36 fights. 34 of which were in Denmark. That should tell you all you need to know, despite the pathetic fanboy ramblings of the nonentity magoo.
redrooster makes some good points. I think SRL was clearly "over-the-hill" but the manner in which Norris dominates is cause to question whether SRL ever beats him. There are a lot of people who assume Lennox Lewis would beat a prime Holyfield, based perhaps on far less dominant wins against a past prime version. There are people who think Floyd Mayweather Jr, would have dominated a prime Oscar De La Hoya, despite having a rather close fight with a past prime version. The list of similar cases can go on and on. These are all "bigger names" than Terry Norris. And SRL is as big as any. If SRL had lost to a bigger "star" in that manner in 1991, the idea that the man was simply better anyway wouldn't be as controversial. In fact, the dominance of the win would be seen as sheer excellence rather than just a sign that SRL was a "shell".
You really should stop bullying magoo Red. You might get charged with child abuse, so re,****ed is the fool. Leonard himself admitted he never possessed the b,alls to face Hagler until he saw the Mugabi fight, yet this cretin wants to brag about the hotly disputed SD win. Forget the fact that even in his prime Hagler was slower than molasses compared to Norris, this creature's logic is " if Leonard beat ANY version of Hagler ( no matter how shot ) he must beat Norris.":roll::roll::roll:atsch
Disagree.. If Michael Nunn had fought and beaten him in 1991, people would have had the same reaction. In fact there were many who felt he was right to avoid Nunn for that very reason.. Because he ( Ray )was past it. Leonard entered the ring against Norris just three months shy of his 35th birthday. He had been off for 14 months. He had only seen 5 fights in 9 years and had been decked multiple times in two of his last three outings.. Not to mention charged with the task of slimming down to a weight he hadn't made in close to a decade. He was the very definition of a shot fighter. Ferdie Pachecho made that observation after the Hearns rematch and that was against an ATG.. And Not an obscurity like Norris..
