Whos is higher P4P: Leonard or Norris?

None of the things you say make sense. Not one.

 

What do I care how someone else voted? I have the proof and you don't.

Here's the problem: Leonard has to rely on polls which he will always win anyways

This content is protected

and Terry has

This content is protected

.

Terry gave the evidence and won the fight when he wasn't suppossed to have a chance. Thats what matters. :yep

 

I'm sorry. What seems to be your problem?

 

By your logic Keith Mullings is better than Terry Norris all time, because Mullings beat Norris, never mind it being at the end of Norris' career. Is that what you're saying?

 

By my logic Terry Norris won the fight because he was better than Leonard. Leonard was in top form coming off the Duran fight, perhaps his best performance next to the Hagler fight.

 

Maybe he looked decent in the Duran fight because Duran was past his prime, too, not to mention fighting 25 pounds above his natural weight class? Leonard was in his mid-30's for ****s sake, and you're trying to argue he was in his prime? Honestly? You're just ****ing nuts, man. ****ing nuts!

 

Why am I nuts? He was able to utilize his legs in flawless fashion to pitch a shutout. I don't call that shot. Being shot comes from taking repeated beatings and age, as was with Hagler.

Leonard has never taken such beatings. He just went down a couple times because he didnt take punches well.

Age by itself isnt necessarily a problem when you're active the way Leonard had been. Check out the proof.

Monzon was in top form at the same age, or 35 to leonard's 34.

Hopkins was 36 when his star was just beginning to shine.

Walcott 37 when he finally achieved success winning the championship. That's three years older than Leonard was if you can count.

Likewise with Dick Tiger at 37 winning his second title, beating a man nine years younger

Archie Moore one of the more respected lightheavies, in the midst of making numerous defenses.

I'm sorry but you have no case.

 

Red Rooster getting owned again.

 

Insulted maybe, owned, never. I have only been owned once when I began posting on another forum but I returned with a vengeance like Tommy Hearns one June afternoon in 1984 and like Tommy am now unbeatable and with no Haglers in sight.

 

Dickheads, by the looks of it

:yep

 

edit

 

.

 

Ha!
I owned you clearly in a debate about the merits of Riddick Bowe.

I offered a detailed and concise break down of what I saw as the flaw's in your arguement of "Why Riddick Bowe Was So Bitchin",only for you to give a half arsed argument that I didn't know what to look for in a great fighter.

You never even tried to address the questions I posed to you about Bowes inadequacies,you just fled the argument,which in my eyes is an "ownage" in my favour.

You let me down Roost as I anticipated and expected another tragic/comedic gem of a post from you labouring your ridiculous statements.

 

Ha!
I owned you clearly in a debate about the merits of Riddick Bowe.

I offered a detailed and concise break down of what I saw as the flaw's in your arguement of "Why Riddick Bowe Was So Bitchin",only for you to give a half arsed argument that I didn't know what to look for in a great fighter.

You never even tried to address the questions I posed to you about Bowes inadequacies,you just fled the argument,which in my eyes is an "ownage" in my favour.

You let me down Roost as I anticipated and expected another tragic/comedic gem of a post from you labouring your ridiculous statements.

I