Sugar Ray Leonard v Terry Norris prime for prime

Do you think Michael Nunn would have been a clear underdog against Leonard ?

 

No one ever said Ayoub Kalule was an ATG or even close.. But it was a very good win if put into proper context. Leonard was in the midst of a busy schedule, part of which involved meetings with some of boxings best fighters. Somehow he found the time to rise in weight to beat a prime 36-0 champion with five title fights in decisive fashion before dropping back down to beat Hearns three months later.. Norris never did anything like this. And kalule rebounded to have half way respectable career later by beating some good fighters in Sumbu Kalambay and Lindell Holmes before retiring with a record of 49-4. Hell he was decisively better than Luis Santana, Keith Mullings, or Dana rodenblatt, all of whom BEAT Norris... But be that as it is, carry on with your tired diatribe of falsely claiming that I called him an ATG if you feel that gives you any ground.. It's laughable that you write off Kalule as a bum when Norris filled his resume with The shells of once great fighters, men who were rising in weight or guys like Brett Lally and Pat Lawler, while all the while refusing to move up in weight ( as Leonard did ) or taking on any prime candidates... Hell if Terry had opted to fight Gianfranco Rosi it might have been the *****iest thing he ever did.

 

No I don't. But that's just the thing though.. Norris was an obscurity.. And his resume is largely built on beating a shot Leonard. And you have two people here ( or more like one with two accounts ) who are claiming that this one showing against a completely past it fighter would indicate a replicated performance prime for prime..

 

There's more to his resume than Leonard.
Leonard obviously made the mistake of thinking an "obscure" champion would be the easier fight and a relatively mediocre fighter, but there's no reason for us to do the same.

Michael Nunn was being groomed as a star, and Terry Norris was a relatively unheralded title-holder, but with hindsight I don't see any reason to think of Nunn being above Norris.

 

Magoo, do what i did....lie through your back teeth and agree with them.
Take away their ammunition and they lose the attention they crave.
I won't indulge in any communication with either from now on as i have much more important things to do in my life....like cutting my toenails.

Rooster will take his beliefs to the grave and Foxy will drift from week to week, getting the occasional ban whilst regaling us with tales of his brave heroics.
Waste of time, the pair of them.

 

Norris deserves some credit for the win.

 

As does Trevor betbick for beating Ali all those fighters that beat Robinson after he faded etc


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Agree 100%! But the debate is that rooster is suggesting that Norris faced a peak Leonard, that factually obviously intelligently and anyone with s iq above 10 knows this is false


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Agree


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Preach!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Muhammad Ali had taken an absolute awful beating against Holmes 14 months prior to the Berbick fight, he didn't look remotely world class against Holmes, and was already suffering from the condition that he had the rest of his life. Ali was almost 40 with slurred speech, and heavier than ever.

Ray Leonard won title fights in 1987, 1988, 1989, and drew with Hearns, took a year off, and fought Norris at the beginning of 1991. He may have been past it but there's nothing to suggest he was at the same level that Ali was for the Berbick fight.

The very fact that the two are being compared, proves that Norris isn't given his due credit.

 

Yes, we know Leonard wasn't peak. That's where rooster is most clearly wrong, imo.
But I think rooster raises a good point when he mentions how dominant the manner of victory was.
Maybe Norris is better than people give him credit for. He won so convincingly but people assume that was only because Leonard was shot.
It could also be that Norris was better, prime and fast/skilled, than most of the guys SRL had ever defeated anyway, as rooster points out.

That doesn't mean I think Leonard would always lose to Norris. But the possibility shouldn't be dismissed.

 

Levels off erosion in skills etc isn't my point. My point is Ray Leonard that fought once 1 time in five years was not peak when he beat Hagler. That ray that was known for coming on strong at the end of fifteen round fights, vs Benetiz,Duran , hearns ,was shot in 7 rounds vs Hagler. That Leonard was not the same Leonard of 1981.

Ray knew this too, that's why he avoided Nunn, and other better true beasts at the time to face Hearns, Duran Lalonde, all good names but not peak or great young stallions like nunn. I never argue the point that the Ray that came out of retirement was 50% of the peak version on speed ,stamina etc, and he cherry picked to maximize revenue which is exactly what modern fighters are doing today (Mayweather) . But peak Ray fought a 2-3 year stretch that never had been done before or since , fighting 4 fights vs all time pound per pound great while each was peak young, and not ever lost a fight or had not lost in 8 years and had beaten twice the opponent that he lost too.... Then he came back out of retirement, moved up 2 weight classes with only 1 fight (not at that weight class) and beat a fighter who was only 32, undisputed at that weight class the happened to be his natural weight class, had not lost in 10 years and had only allowed one challenger in 13 defenses that chance to finish on their feet... Ray beat this champ. No one ever has did what he did from 79-87.. Never. That can't be disputed!!!

After Ray (a fighter who had 1 fight in 5 years) fought and beat Hagler, he retired again. Yes in my opinion to avoid the nuns , Jacksons, etc. HE WAS NOT THE SAME FIGHTER. Hell he was cocained out, he was a part time fighter averaging 1 fight every 2 years or so, vs the senior tour, then he moved up to face a young light heavyweight champ that he made fight at 168. Then he tried to drop weight move down to face a fighter with a weak chin that he felt he could catch and stop, be knew ( reference the interview before the Norris fight where he interviewed himself,,,) that he no longer had the speed to deal with these younger fighters but he thought his power, ring generalship, experience and will would overcome what drugs age inactivity had robbed him of. This was all admitted prior to the fight. So being out sped etc was not shocking, what was to many was Norris ability to avoid getting stopped and Ray not having any answers for the younger Norris.



So we have 3 questions

1- Would prime Leonard beat prime Norris - we do not know . In my opinion the 1981 vs would annilhate Norris of any age

2- was Leonard peak or even close to peak when he and Norris fought - only s idiot would think so!

3- does Norris who beat what great all time poind per pound top 50 fighters before they was shot? Name one???






Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I agree with all that.