Sugar Ray Leonard v Terry Norris prime for prime

Probably. But he also had the speed to protect it. Something Leonard didn't like or couldn't handle. But hey, this is ESB where people like Leonard get elevated to Ray Robinson status, when in actual fact he couldn't carry the REAL Sugar Ray's spit bucket. The excuses for his defeats are almost on a par with that other fukking idiot Tyson's. My personal favourite is the moronic " he only lost to Duran because he fought the wrong fight "

You can apply that stupidity to every fighter who ever lost a fight. :roll::roll:

 

you're still mad SRL whooped your boy so badly in their second fight :deal

made him quit, just like I made you quit :rasta

 

Before rebuking me for using the term "prime", perhaps you should re-read the title of the thread. It specifically references "prime for prime"- you clot!

By referring to a prime Leonard as "mythical", are you disputing Leonard even had a prime? You are aware that Saad's post refers to a 'fantasy' match-up; the imaginary encounter taking place when both fighters are in their "prime"? I do wonder.

Good grief. For a poster who has claimed in the past that he likes his posts to be well thought out, you do leave a lot of ambiguity and nonsense in what you submit.

You also use the words "proof" and "prove" like you own them in this argument, when all you have is 'evidence', in the same way that those leaning towards a Leonard victory use 'evidence' in debating this fantasy match up. The difference being your insistence on 'proof' from those who disagree with you, whilst citing your own weak evidence, stretched beyond any reasonable length to meet with your 'opinion', which you then imply proves your case. How cretinous...

Yes - Leonard lost to Norris in their actual encounter (By the way, 120-106 was not reflected in any one of the scorecards, individually. Two of the judges had Leonard winning at least one round so, if you want to stay factual, stick to the actual facts and not your own twisted version of them to suit your banner-waving style of debate). However, you consider the actual Leonard/Norris result as proof that this same outcome would have occurred in any other encounter at any other time, between the two. It's difficult to know where to begin with such a regressively minded starting point - especially, since you:

a) seem not to recognize that Leonard was significantly diminished by the time he fought Norris, having previously argued that Leonard's victory in the Duran rubber-match was proof of this.

b) use the Leonard/Bonds result to try and support your contention that Leonard's performance and the end result would have always been the same in a match with Norris (I honestly can't believe what I'm writing but, yes, you have actually alluded to these viewpoints of yours...)

c) think that Angelo Dundee's motivational corner talk, during Leonard/Hearns I ("You're blowing it now, son! You're blowing it!") equates to agreeing with your opinion that Leonard was "nothing more than an average stalker at best". atsch

With regard to your belief that '91 Leonard was as capable as an '81 Leonard and that this is evidenced by the third bout with Duran:- This simply shows your ignorance on how age and weight can affect physical performance (e.g. reduction in speed of hand and foot, upper body movement, stamina and powers of recovery; weakening of concentration, split-second judgement and timing). And, if you have even watched the fights you use in defense of your argument, the same denial of Leonard's diminished state exposes your inability to actually see the contrast in Leonard's physical capabilities, across a 10-year time-span. You've asked for proof of the disparity. Well the evidence is in the tapes. However, there's no accounting for someone like you, either unable to see what's in front of them or simply not believing what they're seeing. You'd rather place your faith in spur of the moment commentary and, even then, take that out of context.

Moreover, Norris himself turned very old overnight, losing three bouts in succession, starting only months after a KO2 victory. He was younger than Leonard had been, when this downturn occurred, and was competing in his career division. You ignore this. Why is that?

In respect to Bonds, in which universe does Larry represent a comparative opponent, both in terms of physicality and style, to that of Norris? Bonds was known for making people look bad and yet Leonard won every round and finished Bonds in trademark fashion - with high-speed, accurate combinations. Simply put, you use this lesser event and performance, which was still summarized as a dominant performance and resulted in a TKO 10 - (Not TKO 11 as you constantly spout), so as to keep pushing your idea that Leonard was not as good in '81 as his 'fans' think.

Even when you try to apply the same line of thinking to the Leonard/Hearns I bout, there's, again, no physical or stylistic comparison to be made. This is just guff from you, which provides no basis for your grandiose claims in favor of Norris.

I can't really address your correlation between Angelo Dundee's famous exclamation to Leonard, during Leonard/Hearns I, and your opinion of Leonard as an "average stalker" (and, just to be clear, Gil Clancy used the term 'stalking' to refer to both Leonard and Hearns). Suffice to say, this type of nonsense from you is little more than a pathetic reach - to try and bridge a gap between what you want to believe and what actually happened.


You also state that: "The result of Norris - srl is a constant". If what you mean by this is that the result of their actual encounter will always remain static at: 120–104, 119–103 and 116–110 - then thanks for stating the obvious. However, if you are using the term "constant" in the scientific sense then you are more ridiculous than I'd first thought.

There are simply no legs in your arguments. The never-ending repetition of your inane ideas will bring you no closer to delivering a convincing case, in regards to the topic of this thread. Nor can your peculiar perspectives strike even the most minuscule of dents in Leonard's ATG status.

 

This is a better matchup than most people would want to believe. However, to even think the version Norris beat was even close to a prime SRL is not true

 

There's no point in arguing with Rooster, Foxy, etc, about Leonard being past prime for the Norris fight. In their minds, the Leonard who lost to Norris in 1991 was the same one who beat Hearns in 1981.. You can't reason with a concrete wall.

 

i know what the title means

but people like you keep repeating yourself as tho you need to clarify it

you dont need to clarify

and to say there are no legs in my argument, you actually have it backwards; that's why your side hasnt been able to do nothing more than spit out the words " It specifically references "prime for prime"

the repetition has to be due to the fact you & yours are stuck and cant prove your case

repetition is proof of your frustration and inability to present your case

I proved mine but you cant prove yours

and as further proof, Ray dodged Nunn and went for Duran because Mike was slick, quick, and would make Ray Leonard sick (as Norris would shortly do later on)


now let's address some of your complaints one by one as I systematically break them down

This content is protected

but you seem not to recognize this. I specifically mentioned the names Bonds, and Howard, and Hearns

and no I don't recognize Leonard had significantly diminshed. why would you?

let me guess; you DONT have an answer

Some nut had just last night compared him with Ali from the Spinks fight

Did Leonard have his back to the ropes for extended periods of time?

No. what he did do was box, use his legs with no visible signs of tiring

are you disputing this?

moreover, he was fighting at his more natural fighting weight of 154, and without the layoff he had going into the Hagler fight, so he figured to be much better without the ring rust and without the extra weight

problem is, Ray Leonard is not a guy who can take the fight to a faster opponent and that's where he went wrong

back in leonard's day, he didnt really have opponents that were fast like Norris, like Nunn, like Jones, like Floyd

all they had was benitez and Tommy who at that time was underweight and still 3 years from his prime

This content is protected

well if he had problems with a Larry bonds with no speed, no punch, then terry would make him look a lot worse, and he did :yep

i'm sorry but your explanation was just pathetic. "known for making people look bad" is not an excuse for being a poor finisher

look at Julian Jackson: Norris made him look bad for one round, but it didnt take him 10 more rounds just to catch up with him

in other words, try again!

Boy, I'm really making a ****** out of you and it's no wonder with replies such as "Larry had a history of making people look bad"

yeah? Which people?

Answer that one!

3) I can't really address your correlation between Angelo Dundee's famous exclamation to Leonard, during Leonard/Hearns I, and your opinion of Leonard as an "average stalker" (and, just to be clear, Gil Clancy used the term 'stalking' to refer to both Leonard and Hearns). Suffice to say, this type of nonsense from you is little more than a pathetic reach - to try and bridge a gap between what you want to believe and what actually happened.

This content is protected

okay, you're really stretching it this time. "you're blowing it" obviousy means "can't you get your ass in gear?"

or "get out there and take it to him"

to which Clancy in agreement said Leonard is taking too long close the distance

and the reason we saw back then was the same reason we saw in the Norris fight

and finally, looking at Leonard's final bout with Duran, the legs worked So well, he was booed throughout for using them too much

and were those 8 punch combinations he unloaded?

and so we have to conclude that Ray Leonard was physically NOT in decline functionally speaking but rather that he has never done particularly well when the opponent in front of him gives him side to side movement, and can unload the kind of trigger fast shots that Terry intimidated Leonard with

If SRl had problems with the movement of Bonds & an already injured Hearns (round 7), he's not going to get anywhere with Norris

simply put: the results of Norris-srl is a constant and will always end up as Norris UD srl

 

it's a stylistic problem for Leonard and nothing more

he couldnt handle the speed and therefore Norris UD 12 srl

if I were wrong, the others would have proven it by now

the problem is, they didnt have anyone who was really fast in those days; a Terry Norris, a Roy Jones, a Floyd Mayweather

the only other guy Ray could have proven himself against was Micheal Nunn who was slick, quick, and would have made Ray Leonard sick

a guy who could box, bang, N move

and Leonard wasted it instead on retreads

personally, I think Ray was too heavy in the Hearns rematch which slowed him down

he was more comfortable at 154 which he weighed in at for the Norris fight

 

I understand your point, and I do think the stylistic matchup for this causes issues for SRL, no matter the point in his career. However, you keep trying to say that SRL wasn't diminished by the time he fought Norris. This isn't close to true and I believe you know this as well. You seem to be being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse when it comes to this specific part of the argument. In his fight with Hearns, he was Prime and at the height of his powers. He was 25. In the Norris fight he was 35. Human anatomy and physiology has taught us that you're not prime when you're 35. That is not your physical prime. So way, no how. You feeling like it doesn't "look" like he's diminished, doesn't contradict years of research on the subject. He unquestionably wasn't as good then, but the question would still remain if that would make a difference in the outcome. Who knows, but I'm only saying, he was diminished by that point.

 

I will say this, and you can check me on it: Norris said before the fight that once leonard went flatfooted that he wouldnt stand a chance

and Leonard has no choice other than to go flatfooted -same as in the Bonds fight, when pursuing a moving target

only problem with Bonds was that he was not a legitimate opponent

and still, it took Leonard 11 to dispose of

I'm sorry to say this but as a stalker, Leonard gets no higher than a C-

as a boxer, counter puncher, an A

But when forced to pursue an opponent faster than himself, timing a moving target, he is straining to reach mediocrity

no less an authority than Larry Holmes said that Norris beat Leonard because he had the style to beat him

That's not Redrooster; that's Larry Holmes

and I'm sure he said it for the same reasons I gave

and thus I can rightfully say with 100% confidence that the results of the Norris - srl fight is a constant with Norris winning every time

 

Okay, and you're entitled to feel that way. I also believe Norris style would cause issues for SRL, no matter the point in his career. I agree. For now, I'm only talking about your claim that he wasn't diminished when he fought Norris compared to him at the height of his powers. So question remains, do you feel like SRL was just as good physically for Norris as he was for Hearns in 81?

 

sure you doubted yourself. You needed help so you started to thread thinking it would settle the matter

and I must say, the evidence is less than compelling

especially when compared with Rooster's

a one sided trouncing

A thorough ****ysis of Leonard's weaknesses and Terry's strengths

of Leonard's lacking competition (all of whom were speed challenged)

the intentional avoidance of both Nunn & Hagler. Between you and me, I believe prime Hagler would've have leveled SRL, and that's why leonard pursued the fight years later when for years he avoided hagler like the plague

how many speedsters had Leonard faced?

It was only Hearns who even then assumed the role as the aggressor the first few rounds and was caught then brutally pounded

Only after he became a damaged fighter was Steward forced to change tactics and have Tommy move

You could see obviously that Leonard had major problems dealing with a moving (albeit a damaged) target

let me assure you, Norris would have had no such problems and would have glided effortlessly to a UD 12

for one, Terry would beat Ray to the punch consistently and thus be the one doing the damage

Ray did not have a stationary target in front of him, and thus would never be able to get clean shots at him (thus ending the myth that Norris' chin would hopefully let him down)

even IF Ray got close enough, Terry would simply tie him up. You can see evidence of this numerous times in their fight (it's not simply hypothesis)

defensively Norris was much better than Hearns, keeping his guard high which is something that ESB forumers STILL dont understand (due to lack of brains)

and on the other side- offensively, it's even worse for Leonard and better for Norris due to the fact that Norris unleashes punches so fast, opponents arent prepared to take them

it's not just Leonard tho; it was nearly all TN opponents and out of all of them, only Jackson was actually successful

In summary, I would have to calk this mismatch up to the one liner "styles make fights" and for SRl, Terry's speed & movement make him all wrong for Leonard

 

offesnively I dont think he was quite as sharp as he was in the Green fight but Green was a punching bag whereas Tommy gave him more of a moving target where I could see Ray was struggling to "get off"

It was then that I suspected Ray had problems with this style of fighter. Fortunately, that type of fighter was few and far between in those divisions until Nunn came along

as one SI writer put it "Nunn is a poet in a sea of punchers"

the best I ever seen Ray conditioned as a fighter was the first hearns fight, strength wise

i wasnt impressed with him in No mas but in the hearns fight, at least he did some fighting and you cant argue it because Tommy was hurt on at least 4 different occasions

However, the reason Tommy got hurt in the first place was because he got caught coming in and I have never said Ray didnt cut it as a counter puncher. (Read my previous post)

the other fight was the hagler fight. He looked sharper than I thought he would and this was his all around, best performance ironically since he never belonged at that weight, and came off that layoff

but,,, before anyone gets excited, I saw an early preview of hags defeat to the Weaver triplets the month before. Between the two events I saw, it shows how far down Marvin came. accept the word of one how knows

 

That is truly the pot calling the kettle black. You’ve been repeating your same rubbish for years, without any attempt at clarification; because utter nonsense, which has no basis in reality, cannot be clarified - ever.

Another meaningless response. Try reading and comprehending the thread title properly, next time.

Already answered.

Yes - Already answered.

It was closer to his natural weight of around 10 years prior. You have no evidence that fighting at this weight in ’91 was an advantage - so stop portraying it as such.

These are purely your opinions. You have no evidence of any substance to support these opinions and, by asserting them, you do great fighters and the fights they participated in a disservice.

No need for me to try again. You base your opinion of Leonard having problems with Bonds on little more than the time it took Leonard to stop Bonds. You fail to take into consideration, amongst other factors, that Leonard dominated the fight and finished the fight very nicely.

I’ve no doubt you actually believe that, which makes you all the more a sad case.

If you had actually ever watched the fight, you would know that Bonds was discussed, both in the pre-fight build up and by the commentary team during the contest, making a point of explaining why he was unable to get fights and that he is known for making people look bad. Answered.

What are you blathering on about? This still doesn’t in your wildest acid trip of a translation equate to Clancy and Dundee ‘agreeing’ with your assessment of Leonard as "nothing more than an average stalker at best". This is exactly what I mean by referring to your views as “peculiar perspectives” - this one is particularly strange.

No, we really don’t. It has been explained why before - too many times to count.

Of course, this statement explains why Leonard defeated every man he ever faced, leading up to his first retirement. Stoppage wins, in each of the fights you have cited as problematic for Leonard, if I recall.

Ah - so you mean a scientific constant then - I rest my case.



So that’s your idea of a systematic breakdown? Please.

It's clear to me that you have no real sensible objectivity, in respect to this topic, and there's no point flogging a dead horse.
I’ve now said all I can (or care to) on this subject.
Be happy in that place, where delusional standpoints seem natural.