sugar ray leonard vs andy price

Sorry, I missed the question.

I dont know if you been reading my other comments but let me sum them up for you. In boxing you can set the tone after a couple of rounds if you are quicker on the draw. I was comparing the two of them to some characters in a movie I saw once, a shoot 'em up.

It's all about who gets there first and that's how it is with Norris. he is quick on the draw and because he gets there first he can set the tone which is what happened in their fight.

It's leonard's way of fighting and analzying his strengths and weaknesses throughout his career that I concluded he was headed for a devestating defeat once he signed the contract.

I chose Norris based on what i saw happen in the first Hearns fight where Ray had major problems ad******g to Tommy's movement. And Tommy did not have Terry's movement.

I also dont believe the story of leonard being far gone the way his supporters say because if he was that good against Hagler with no fights in 3 years, then he must be even better with the added rounds from the other three fights-over 30 rounds worth. the weight also helped him being at 154 and also the fact that Ray challenged Norris, not vice versa

leonard is quick once he gets a guy in range, then begins bombarding him. he even got Terry in the first round as Terry pressed him against the ropes round one.

But notice once he changed in tactics, he didnt do so well? Same thing in the Hearns fight where Ray battered Tommy inside but on the move Ray goes from sweet to sour in a hurry.

 

I've never been 100% sure whether RR believes all that or he's just been on the wind up all this time....

Thinking Norris would beat Leonard in his prime is a valid opinion but to use the fight they had as any type of 'evidence' beggars belief IMHO.

 

What "11 year win streak"?? His winning streak had been ended a full two years earlier, when he was given a draw against Hearns, after which he'd only fought once since then and then been inactive for a year.

 

I fully agree with you. Picking Norris who i'm a big fan of is a valid opinion. Using the Fight where Leonard is not at his peak is ridiculous specially for Leonard where speed is a big part of his game.
I think Leonard wins because he matches Norris for speed and he's got power plus everything else he brings to the table.

 

I see that many of the posters who are wasting their time trying to refute redrooster's falacious claims are posters who have only been on this forum maybe a year or so. The rest of us have moved on and for the most part, ignore him.

Its daft of anyone to think that Leonard's meeting with Norris in 1991 is any indication whatsoever that the same outcome would have happened years earlier. In the early 1980's, Leonard survived the very best artillary of Roberto Duran and Thomas Hearns without much trouble and still came up victorious. From 1988 onward, he was decked by the averge Don Lalonde and nailed twice by a declining Hearns. Ray's legs were gone... His speed,timing and reflexes were diminished... He was finished, and that's all there is to it...

 

My thoughts ?

Great speed, accuracy, power & killer instinct, Leonard was both beautiful & brutal in the ring in his prime.

A top 10 all time fighter & best fighter of the 80s.

 

Not even up for debate (unless your initials are RR )

 

2 words - Thomas Hearns.

Ps. Very good avater :good

 

So was Hagler when he lost to the smaller inactive for 3 yrs Leonard... whats your point ?

 

man I think you've actually shut that guy up :good

 

Rooster is hard work at the best of times.

 

:roflSo Norris was a better offensive fighter than Hearns, Duran, Hagler?

Yep, the Big 4 couldn't touch this guy:

[yt]kjnQhJSfODk[/yt]

 

Thats a prime Norris as well