Red Rooster: When You Go To Bed At Night, Is There A Tinge of Guilt?

Telling the truth is not a sin.

 

redrooster, you don't speak the truth. You speak opinions. You just don't seem to respect the opinion of anyone that differs from yours.

I agree with you when you believe that Norris would have given Leonard problems at any time in his career. Norris is an all time great at 154. You just need to acknowledge the fact that Leonard was not at his physical peak.

I will be 31 in a matter of days. I had really fast hands in my teen years, and early 20's. That speed was there no matter what. Once I hit age 28, I needed to work out a few weeks to feel as fast as I once felt. Now that I am past 30, I have yet to feel any of my former speed.

If you can not beat your opponent to the punch, you are in for a long night. You can try to argue that a prime Ray Leonard would not consistently beat Norris to the punch, but you are foolish in thinking that Leonard was in his prime at 34.

 

Well Bernard Hopkins was just as fast at 36 as he was at 28 when he lost to Roy Jones and Jersey Joe Walcott had more success at 37 than in previous years when he was alwasy losing fights. Archie Moore reached the height of his career in his fourties. Those are facts.

Leonard may not have been at his prime but he was by no means over the hill . For some reason, people seem to foget how terrible he was in the Hearns fight. If I'm wrong then why was his own trainer telling him he was blowing it?

Leonard had never been in the situtation of having to track down a moving target and I have to tell you he wasn't very good at it. And once again he found himself in a similar situtation with Norris, a man who was tougher than Tommy and more versatile. Leonard just never faced anyone with this kind of speed in his career.

I was hoping Leonard would put aside these foolish matches with Lalonde, Hearns & Duran and maybe get some muscle in his pants so that he could tackle Micheal Nunn but I knew he would just chicken out the way he chickened out of the Hagler fight years before. Ray was just plain scared of certain fighters unless they looked sick or old. Does anyone here dare deny this?

And i do agree with you that Norris is an all time great. Many people can't stomach how easily Terry beat up Ray leonard but they act like Leonard beat him and don't even realize it! They're delusional.

 

90% **** is what he speaks

 

So Leonard was exposed by an all time great fighter? Doesn't seem so shameful to lose to a great* fighter like Norris

* By your accounts

 

Only in a close fight. The greats always lose close hard fought bouts to each other.

 

... and the other 10 percent is crap. :yep



Ps: Only messin' rooster. Still, there ain't any harm in being honest and accurate with more of your points, no-one will penalize you for it.

 

I'm just going by what I saw happen in the ring. There's no arguing this fight was as one sided as it gets and it shouldn't have happened considering Leonard's reputation and quality of opposition.

 

Red, by your rationale, both Keith Mullings and Laurent Bouduani were better fighters than Terry Norris because they both knocked him out.

 

154 All Time Rankings
1. Keith Mullings
2. Laurent Bouduani
3. Dana Rosenblatt
4. Terry Norris
5. Hector Camacho

 

Okay, you got me. Rosenblatt wasn't a junior middleweight.

 

No the analogy I would use is closer to Hearns-Duran.

 

What about with Chavez vs Camacho? Wasn't exactly close.

 

No comment.