Leonard V Norris Buildup

So this is what the best boxer of the last 30 years looks like. Amazing

 

34 years old.

Never fought at the weight for 7 years.

And was fighting a younger fighter in his prime.

Leonard wasn't considered among the elite in 1991 even before the first bell rang against Norris. Unlike Hagler who was considered the best 'pound for pound' in the world at the time he lost to a fighter returning to the ring after having one fight in five years. With Leonard visiting the canvas against the average Howard it just makes Hagler's defeat at the hands of Leonard even worse.

 

Well if Leonard beat the best p4p fighter why wouldn't he be considered the new p4p best? Isn't that being unfair to such a great fighter? I see it as a great injustice.

 

You're right, this was far worse. Leonard being active the way he was you'd think he'd have little to no problems with Norris if he could beat Hagler after a long layoff like that.

The way I see it, both Hagler and Leonard were 3-1 favorites. Hagler was probably cheated but Leonard was destroyed by a man we know little about and Terry was destroyed himself not long before if I recall correctly. Is that why leonard chose to fight him? :think

 

Leonard-Hagler took place in 87, the Norris fight took place on 91. Maybe Ray had slipped a tad.....

 

Robbi I'm waiting for my answer

 

Well I shall awnser that with fairness. Leonard wasn't anywhere near the 'pound for pound' top 10 at the time he challenged Hagler. As when he was inactive other fighters were ahead of him in the que. Curry, Hearns, Spinks, etc. So while Leonard beat Hagler it was one solid win and a massive upset against the man considered the best in boxing at the time, but not enough for him to be considered the new number one.

Tarver wasn't the considered the best when he beat Jones in their rematch. And Jones was coming off the Ruiz win and beating Tarver the first time. Tarver moved into the top 5. Another example is when Honeyghan beat Curry, it wasn't a win which elevated him to number two in the 'pound for pound' rankings at the time.

If Leonard had been active and beaten some quality fighters not long before facing Hagler, then yes he'd more than likely be the new no1. But it's all about averaging things out.

 

I think you backed yourself into a corner this time.

This is what I don't get:

How can Ray be past his prime and still beat the number one fighter in the sport after a 5 year layoff. Then he declines with

This content is protected

activity as he further shakes off the ring rust and dropping down to his more natural weight :huh

It makes no sense! He's suppossed to be even faster and shapper. He should be getting even better because now he has improved that much more and his competition, even if it is Nunn, McCallum, or Norris, is still not on par with Hagler.

On top of that he puts in a perfect performance in Duran 3 with a display of footwork not seen since the days of roadrunner vs. Wiley Coyote but is somehow shot to pieces and all because Terry Norris beat him up in the ring.

Just face it, I'm right and you're wrong along with the rest of ESB.

 

best fighter of the last 30 years-Sugar Ray Leonard atsch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAC7mS-cpMI

 

He just got older and his skills declined, it happens. Wheres the mystery in that? The Duran fight was embarrassing for both men and should have been the end of Leonards career.

 

Becuase he was a great fighter. It doesn't take a scientist to work that one out. Yes, he declinded further with activity and age and lets not forget he was only fighting once a year after that. So he was hardly active like he was in his prime during the late 70's and early 80's.

He dropped down to his natural weight, certainly closer to the weight he was in his prime, but he hadn't made that weight for 7 years. The man was 34 years old as well.

Hagler wasn't even willing to fight Leonard at 154lbs when he was active and in his prime. When negotiations began for a Hagler-Leonard showdown in 1982 later the previous year Hagler managed to weigh-in at 157lbs for the Hamso fight. Hagler wasn't wlling to drop another 3lbs to meet Leonard.

Hagler was younger and more active in 1982 than Leonard was in 1991 prior to facing Norris. An older and less active fighter will struggle with the weight more than one who is younger and active. Thats obvious. So at least Leonard gave it a go when fighting Norris. Hagler on the otherhand never even made the same attempt.

 

But we all know that age in itself does not cause that steep a decline. Barely a year before he was boxing circles around Duran proving the condition of his legs. There were no shouts of Ray being a shot fighter or warnings for him not to take this fight. Robbi and the rest of them are just W-R-O-N-G!!!!!

No shot fighter has ever given this strong a performance just prior to losing.

If you look at round two, Ray put in a strong performance and competed evenly with Terry until he started getting caught. He got his bell rung towards the end of the round. He hadn't fully recovered by the time round three was underway and Terry came thru his guard once again with a damaging uppercut. As I said before: you hurt Ray Leonard, you give him no time to box or think so you take him out of his game. Now he got to change his game plan. But what's he going to do if you are faster than him and he can't get to you?

Take a one sided beating that's what!

 

Redrooster - "How can Ray be past his prime and still beat the number one fighter in the sport after a 5 year layoff"

Awsner: Because he was a great fighter.

 

I'm off to bed. I have enjoyed owning this silly Rooster from Pasadena.