Is Sugar Ray Leonard overrated?

This is bang on. Hearns was only interested in a rematch with SRL at 147, and started to flirt with higher weights as he "lacked worthy opponents" there (at 147). When the WBC and WBA removed Hearns from their 147lb ranking and put him into the 154lb division Steward was threatening lawsuits. They wanted him rated at 147lb in the hopes of securing a rematch.

 

almost forgot to mention don't believe those lies written by that poster Ike,, that Donald was shot; he was just beaten by better fighters

Just compare his lifeless victims with his conquerors:

contrast skinny little anemic, scrawny even, SCARED over hyped Milton McCrory with big strong, hot and ready to fight powerhouse Lloyd Honeyghan

Bleeder Colin Jones vs young, strong, busy, tough Rene Jaquot who gave Norris a damn good workout (and a competitive fight)

James Green who was on a serious losing streak since 1983

vs M. Nunn (on a most impressive win/demolition streak - fast, left handed, deadly and I almost forgot, the middleweight champion of the world)

Inept, inconsistent M. Starling who foolishly thought that stomping his foot scores points and was the way to beat Curry

vs the one and only Norris

all those other joes, who knows who they were? Did anyone really check them out?

 

I'm sure they could have made it happen at 154. I seem to remember a bout between Howard & Leonard taking place at this weight

They did meet later at 168

John, why do you suppose Leonard dropped out of the running? was it because Leonard didn't think of himself competitive enough at this time?

 

Well you'd know all about that, your an expert on telling lies. :yep

 

I'm thinking he had eye trouble and then surgery

This content is protected

.

 

talking about the time he met Kevin Howard. Since Leonard won his bout with Howard and Tommy won his bout with Duran, I see no reason why a rematch could not immediately have been set that same summer

 

Oh? and which lies would those happen to be?

go ahead and name them if you're not too overly intimidated

 

Yes being 35 years old, off for fourteen months, having fought only five times in nine years, getting decked in two of his last three fights and slimming down to a weight he hadn't seen in ages placed him head over heels higher than Norris.. In fact, he was in such great form they should have evened the playing field by having Leonard enter the ring hand cuffed. What was Norris's excuse for getting KTFO in two rounds by Jackson? Or getting poleaxed in four rounds by a welter weight in Brown? Or getting himself DQ'd twice against a journeyman? Or being embarrassed by the abysmal Keith Mullings? Were these guys better than a prime Leonard too? Oh weight, please don't answer that. Fact is, Norris never faced a prime Leonard, Hearns, McCallum, Duran or Curry.. The last one might be the only man I'd always pick Terry to beat due to the fact that he wasn't made for that division, but I'd bet money that he'd get iced by the previous four..

 

Nice post

Very articulate and well thought out.

Maybe Rooster can learn a thing or two from such eloquent writing.

 

here come the excuses

Leonard magically turns one year older when he loses a fight

congradulations! You should write for SI, who wrote in their article that Norris - srl was a 4 point fight and stayed off the subject of the coverage itself

Oh look, here's another one

"slimming down to a weight he hadn't seen in AGES"

that was his best weight considering his age and you're trying to turn that into the reason he LOST? A weight in which he figured to have even greater speed?

and so what if he was dropped? getting hurt is part of Leonard's history going back to his second pro fight. why are you acting like it's something that's suddenly gone into effect since 1984?


Then there's the Geraldo fight - staggered badly three times in the same round, by a slapper

had it been Norris in front of him, I can assure you, Leonard would have lost more than just the 3 round

Look at the Duran fight, staggered repeatedly throughout

then there's the Howard fight which showed he's beatable. Norris would have beat his ass easy

When you come up with these lame excuses, it doesnt make you any more believable; it just shows you cant accept reality (Sugar can't handle speed)

14 months without a fight shouldn't be a reason for the whipping he took

hadnt he been off 3 years in the Hagler fight?

what's 14 months compared to 36 months?

and we're talking Norris, not Hagler

do you see where you went wrong, Magoo?

In actuality, the layoff was valid for Hagler but for Norris, the rust was actually a thing of the past with 12 + 9 + 12 + 12 rounds more of activity (uno mas) in which we saw a finely tuned Leonard unload with 8 punch combos along with non stop movement

but in your own feeble way, you're taking activity and turning it into INactivity

then you're turning Leonard's best weight and trying to turn it into the reason he lost

Did you at any point see Leonard tire?

No, because he was already dropped early and hurt badly the next round and that took him out of the fight!

so even THAT excuse won't help you

late in a fight yes, early, no

Leonard was just a poor tactician when it came to handling movers, speedsters and the like

Julian Jackson was one thing, but Leonard had nowhere near the power, or the tenacity of Jackson

Leonard? He's just a a boxer/runner although can be dangerous counter puncher

but when you try to throw this hypothetical PRIME leonard that HE Grant first brought up, it has to be dismissed

Prime Leonard did not burn down the house with Kevin Howard or even Larry Bonds

and fared poorly against whatever movement Hearns gave him

He was physically stronger than Tommy we could all see that. It shouldnt have taken him that much longer to take him out if he had him hurt in the 7th

and it shouldnt have taken him 11 just to take out Bonds

so how are you going to convince me that Norris - srl would turn out any different?

the result would always be the same: Norris UD srl

 

Jesus Christ its hopeless.

 

well with the logic you used (much of it fabricated) it was bound to fail

because #1 Norris beat Leonard handily

and #2, it took him 11 just for Bonds, and 9 for Howard

With Jackson, it's easy to see and can be proven; he took out Norris in two but with Leonard, he's never done it and when he tried, failed miserably

a win over the faster Norris is all that separates Leonard from greatness

The loss to Norris hangs over his head like a cloud

 

I thought Floyd was much better. no matter how hard I try or faults I try to find, I simply cannot

the man was flawless

 

Yes, it fades next to the logic you used that because Leonard did better against Hagler than he did against Norris that age and inactivity mean nothing.. Never mind that leonard was four years YOUNGER against Hagler... Never mind that he was facing an opponent who was equally past his best and not one who was prime as Norris was.. So your reasoning that because he beat a 37 year old Duran 14 months prior to fighting Norris ( and one of the few outings he had in most of a decade ) that he was prime or close to prime? Outrageous..

 

Rooster's got tunnel vision and logical gaps.

I accept it.

I am satisfied after my long post where I hit on all relevant points. He couldn't respond with logical arguments - just name calling.

It's no big deal.

The large number of posters backing our positions shows Rooster is a lone wolf (except for Foxy, which says it all.) on this one.

Like you said, five years ago he was saying the same stuff.

I actually take his intended disparaging remarks about Sports Illustrated as a compliment.