Sugar Ray Leonard v Terry Norris prime for prime

srl fans are upset b/c srl doesnt have the win over Terry that he needs

 

Curry was shot when he fought Norris, and was past his prime since Honeygahn, Leonard had barley fought in five yeasrs and Taylor received a career shortening sickening beating from Chavez he was not robbed ******* in was in hospital for a week after the Chavez fight :hi:

 

Oh considering Norris got hammered by Simon Brown who was rising in weight to face him and never did anything at Jr. Middle prior, I think Marvin would clean his clock even in 1987. I appreciate your efforts at trying to talk boxing with the rest of us, but you're out of your league here.

 

Agreed Norris glass chin wouldn't last any longer than 8 rds against any version of Hagler.

 

Leonard's win over Benitez alone shlts all over anything Norris ever did.

 

I dont consider him past his prime since 1986. it was only one loss

I chalk it up to meeting better fighters for his losses

the quality of his comp pre Honeyghan/McCallum was sub par

Maybe Starling impressed you as an opponent but he did not impress me

Colin Jones was just a bleeder and all those other guys how knows who they were

as for leonard, the exact opposite of what you say is actually true as he had been fighting regularly since the Hagler bout including Hagler himself. by 1988 the ring rust had come off

Not to mention, he was at a more familiar 154 which he had met several times since 1979

the claim about Taylor is another lie because as with Curry, one loss does not destroy a career unless your man is made of paper mache

then he shouldnt be fighting

another lie is that Taylor was somehow not robbed w 2 seconds left

I can tell you he may have wound up in the hospital but he WON THAT FIGHT

Now let's recap:

Norris went 3-0 vs speedster in his career whereas rey went 1-2, and the one that he did win, he fell behind and needed a KO to win

that wouldnt have happened with Terry

 

but then Norris demolished his rep with this points win

Norris 120

srl 106

and then sank further with a KO loss to Camacho who IMO, fought the kind of fight needed to beat leonard - with relentless pressure

and Norris fought him the same way; never let him rest, dont give him a chance to think

and whenever leonard did have a chance to gather himself and look for openings, while he's looking, Terry is unloading, disrupting his rhythm, and forced to change from offense to defense

and that's another thing you dont understand because you dont understand boxing the way I do

which is why you have been forced to make claims in the past without the ability to back them up

and while it's true that Leonard was now past his prime at 40, so too was hector so it evens out

to which we can say that Hector in his prime beats Leonard in his prime due to his superior left handed in & out style which all the greats have, not to mention his significantly greater handspeed, defense, & chin

Leonard has never beaten another speedster

Benitez? He's a good fighter. Good, not great. a little tricky, weak on offense, low on speed and certainly overrated

I guess in your case tho, you've no choice but to stretch out one win for all its worth

 

Rooster...how flawed your statements are...He was told his detached retina if reinsured would leave him permanently blind, based on the technology then. He had Sugar ray Seales to look at and see how a detached retina works if re-injured. Also, look at Aaron Pryor now.

Funny how you hmm yourself with a different name, on here is the only one dumb enough to think 1990 Ray (5 fights in 9 years) was a peak version of Ray...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

then he shouldnt have returned to the ring

but once he had in 1984, then he was no longer with an excuse

and the fact is, he was cleared to fight as far back as 1982 I thought you knew

but enough of this pretense; let's stop trying to hide the truth - Leonard feared to fight prime Hagler in the same way he feared to fight Nunn in 89 and was exposed by Norris & Camacho

funny how you harm yourself thinking you can convince people like me that lennard would somehow beat Norris when you cant even tell me how lennard from tko 11 Bonds is going to do it

Norris UD 12 leonard is a constant or in other words, ain't nothing changed but the dates on the calendar

 

Fact. Hagler had not lost a fight in 10 year
Fact Hagler had ok'd 12-of 13 opponents including every opponent in last 6 years
Fact Hagler was only 32 years old
Fact Hagler was undisputed champion
Fact -all this stupid bs about Hagler not being peak, but damm wasn't it Leonard inactive for 5 years with only one fight. Did we forget that, who did this 5 year period hurt more? Wasn't Leonard that moved up in weight, 2 classes to Hagler weight class that he cleaned out for a entire decade..




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

why did it take him 11 just for Bonds? that was a **** fight much like uno mas. it's no surprise he lost to Terry

 

Stupid question. But I guess it's par for the course when it's you


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

fact: leonard went 11 yrs w/o a loss going into the norris fight

fact: he had been fighting regularly

fact: he wasnt carrying the extra weight above 154

fact: Norris won by a 120-106 margin

fact: Hagler had already been seen outboxed by the weaver triplets, his sparring partners, the month before. He was shot to **** so it doesnt count

 

look everyone, he couldnt answer the question, and instead punked out again like he always does

you cant answer it so you excuse yourself from answering by calling it a stupid question :yep

otherwise, you'd have given an explanation for his obvious ineptitude :smoke