Sugar Ray Leonard v Terry Norris prime for prime

As far as crocks of sh!t go, yours is a good one, I'll give you that.

The problem of course is just like all the other fanboys you are telling those of us who don't buy into this mythical hero you have created, that instead of it being an unknown Danish Pastry in the other corner in June 81, if it was a prime Terry Norris, the result would have been the same.

Bollox, stop dreaming.

Similarly if it was a prime Norris in the other corner as opposed to Finch and Howard you are telling us we have got to be as stupid as you and believe Leonard can't lose.

Bollox again.

Even more ludicrous is people like you telling us that because Leonard achieved what he did at 147 we simply have to be as moronic as his fanboys and believe he beats any, and every 154 World Champion not named Kalule.

That is the definition of fanboy stupidity.

 

Grow up you FOOL.

Farhood is a historian, NOT an expert. He is a New York Jewish guy who collates history, and writes about what other people DO, or DID.

Expert my ass. He is simply better known than some of the " experts / historians " :roll: on ESB.

 

Are you honestly that thick?:rofl:rofl:rofl

Someone starts a thread entitled Leonard V Norris prime for prime, and the village idiot comes along and says " what has Leonard's record at 154 got to do with anything?"

You couldn't fukking make it up.:roll::roll:

 

Facts like Leonard beating Kalambay?:roll:

Facts like Norris losing to Montana?atsch

I really think you should take up knitting cos ydksab.

Sometimes a small brain with a massive ego just ain't enough kiddo.

 

i cant believe anyone would say something like " If Red and Foxy were true fans of the sport, they would be able to see Leonard was the 2nd best welter in history" out in the open

How can I or anyone else give him that when he's only got 4 defenses?

that'sway too much credit and besides, there's Napoles & Cuevas, both of whom accomplished much more than Leonard and so rightfully, they rank ahead of him

as does Donald Curry & Simon Brown

and then of course, we have many other fine welters of whom Flash probably knows nothing of

and so in reality, Flash would have srl rank 2nd, not due to accomplishment but rather b/c of personal favortism

and that's not right :nono

I think what's hurting rey is lack of fights and the way he backed out of all those fights

even noted columnist Roy Firestone alluded to this in a 1989 interview with rey

I think early to mid 80s shootouts with Pryor & red hot Curry and/or Nunn would have shut the mouths of all the doubters

but of course, he never had them so the criticisms only grew louder especially since he was still active (in light of the fact he used an excuse that he was physically impaired to sit out 3 yrs )

and then there was the match with Norris which confirmed the suspicions about sugar's quality as a fighter

norris really made him look terrible (no pun intended)

Sugar hd never faced anyone with this level of speed, and it showed

Rey had the experience but Terry had the speed

a win over Terry is all that separated rey from gr8-ness

 

what does Farhood's religious faith have to do with anything? :think

 

Farhood was a journalist with minimal insight and not very bright

and frankly, he bored me with his articles

i dont think fighters much cared for him either. It is my opinion that in the sports world, he was viewed as a nuisance, or what you might call, an unwanted guest

 

that shows that mr. magoo is a deliberate liar

and the reason he is is to deceive and embellish

he embellishes those he likes, as you've just pointed out, and smears those he dislikes

sort of like a politician when he's campaigning, and short on accomplishments

and that's what happened in rey's case b/c he got no farther than 36-3-1 as a fighter

Us? we don't have to resort to the tactics of hard up srl fans

 

Foxy hates religion, he believes people of faith are sub human,,,

he cant really elaborate too much in the forum or he gets himself banned :rasta

however, that doesn't matter to him because he is aware he can still say lots of disrespectful stuff in this forum that he would never dare say to someone's face in person :deal

Foxy is a internet weasel :good

 

LMAO. Oh the irony....

 

Oh yes.. Blame my dishonesty for the fact that the great Terry Norris TWICE lost to an obscurity named SANTANA who's name sounds like MONTANA as if that's a detail of importance that anyone should trouble themselves to remember.. You guys really got me there !!!!

 

Gee, not like anyone WE know.

 

"whose name sounds like Montana"

meaning you never saw the bout

deceitful one, none of terry's losses bother you a bit but rather please you

but why dont I see the same ridicule when applied to the lennard bout?

is it becuz,,, Terry fought such an outstanding fight and made rey lennard look like a fool?

I bet you were hoping Terry would just stay dead after the jackson bout

but instead rose from the ashes and staged the greatest comeback in modern sports history

and the tough thing for you fans is it cant be disputed

Terry Norris EXPOSED rey lennard

and the critics will rightfully crow forever

and people like YOU have to live with it

come to think of it, I seem to recall you making other outlandish claims of lennard

arent you the same guy who said rey had one of the greatest runs in boxing history, a mere FOUR bouts?

let's just say you didnt have much to say afterwards when I compared that "run" to some other athletes (chick volleyball)

when somebody says great runs in boxing, I think Willie Pep or Robinson, Monzon, Tunney, Louis, Marciano, or even Napoles

but four fights and two of them are Larry Bonds & Ayub Kalule?

OMG, that's really pathetic

 

Does Terry Norris now represent " any and every " 154 champion ? I don't think so.. And I don't think anyone's claiming that Leonard would beat " any and every " 154 champion.. The primary argument here is that it's positively re*****d to base the claim that Norris would ALWAYS beat Leonard on their actual meeting in 1991.. Could he have beaten a "prime" Leonard for stylistic reasons? I don't personally think he would but it's certainly a much more reasonable argument than one that's premise is built on what happened a decade after his prime... It's like saying that Berbick would always beat ali or that Martin would always beat Liston or that kovalev would always beat Hopkins for the same daft reason..

 

norris would always beat lennard

you just have to live with it

due to the fact that terry was given no chance (everyone thought that rey would DESTROY Terry)

and due to the one sidedness of the bout, we have to say that Terry will always beat rey

what's NOT fair to do is draw comparisons between Ali-Berbick and Norris-srl

I dont understand WHY you draw such comparisons when 1) Ali was 39, and had been active for 20 years, been reduced to a punching bag since 1976, 4 years earlier

could you please justify this?

especially since rey was 5 yrs younger, had far less bouts & wear, and had easily demonstrated that he was up to boxing, moving, throwing combos as he'd always done with little effort (uno mas)

THE TAPES DO NOT LIE (unlike some people I know)

this means that only Terry's SPEED,was the only factor and that this so called decline you keep imagining, is wishful thinking

If you really believed in what you say, you would tell the rest of us how a man who takes 11 rds to dispose of a stiff (according to Dundee) somehow whips Norris

you got no chance boy. you the same guys who said lennard had one of the greatest runs in boxing, and he only got 4 fights