that would be giving leonard the benefit of the doubt for a poor performance. I want to know where is the evidence for making such a statement. If he's not a ball of fire on offense, if he's not a Julian Jackson type puncher, then I'm asking you HOW if Leonard has made ZERO defenses and Norris has made ten How is it that Norris has no possible way of beating him? All the guys leonard beat and stopped? like Who? Duran was clowned into submission Leonard was given a gift stoppage over Benitez w 6 seconds remaining Heans a late 14 rds stoppage but you said "all the guys" maybe you're referring to Lalonde? we all know he held two titles and was a legend as well while Norris, even tho elected to hall of fame, isnt in Lalondes's class
U must b speaking about 154 lb only. Im talking p4p both at there best. Norris got stopped by both Brown an Jackson. His best wins r against a past it Curry who was smaller Past it Taylor who was smaller Mugabi who was past it Of course Leonard who was past it. His best wins against still good fighters r Brown and Little who i dont remember much of. And at the end he lost to the likes of Rosenblatt. I agree the Benitez stoppage was bs but he would have won anyway. Yes he stopped Hearns more from exhaustion than anything else but he also hurt him numerouse times in both fights and Hearns an Norris had similar chins. Leonard showed very good power in stopping Price .Green and Kalule. He also outboxed Shields and Sr not to mention Hagler too. If were talking P4P its Leonard who is better. If were talking at 154 only then yes i believe Norris was better and obviously more proven at that weight by far. Honestly though dont know which ur referring to Red.
I've watched the 1st fight about 3-4 times now and twice with it in slow-motion. Most of Pacquiao's shots either didn't land cleanly or missed completely. Bradley did a beautiful job of frustrating Pacquiao, making him miss, then countering with quick, accurate pot-shots. For the vast majority of the fight, the first 2 minutes of the round consisted of Pacquiao doing basically nothing while Bradley was coming forward, landing his jab, and completely out-working Pacquiao. Pacquiao then tried to steal the round with mostly ineffective flurries. Max Kellerman even pointed this out once or twice during the fight. I know what I'm talking about because I saw it happen with my own eyes. It was a rough, ugly fight with both guys struggling to land clean punches. Neither guy was ever dominant. If anything about this fight was "disgusting", it was probably the commentary. I don't think I've ever seen any group of commentators collectively ride any fighter's jock as hard as Lampley, Kellerman, and Lederman did to Pacquiao that night. They were delibrately calling missed shots by Pacquiao as "landed", completely ignoring actually landed shots by Bradley, and only showing Pacquiao's highlights in the post-round replays. PS: Yes, I know I'm going to be called a "troll", "******", and "idiot" for this. I really couldn't care less at this point.
My view of the fight (and the ridiculous commentary) really isn't all that different than yours. But as relatively ineffective as Pacquiao was, Bradley accomplished virtually nothing at all in many of the rounds during the first 2/3 of the fight. Most of the jabs Bradley landed were pretty worthless protective arm punches and barely worth scoring. I thought that Pacquaio got enough punches through to take most of those rounds pretty clearly. I was rooting for Bradley and I prefer his style but he simply didn't let his hands go enough and landed very, very few sharp, meaningful punches for most of the fight. I just don't see how you can watch those rounds and decide that Bradley got the best of Pacquiao in them.
Corrie Sanders would steamroll Joe Frazier. The stylistic/size advantage is tilted ridiculously in his favor.
An opinion I hold that is unpopular? That it was fair to score the 2nd round of Holyfield/Moorer I as a 10-10 round. It gets really bad press as Evander knocked Moorer down and I have read people not only questioning the judge who made it even round but also berating the judges for not scoring it 10-8. But many felt Moorer won the round but for that KD. So up to the KD, Moorer was in place for a 10-9 round. If Moorer knocks Holyfield down, he wins the round 10-8. so, the KD is worth a point. Evander is losing the round 9-10, scores a KD which is presumably still worth a point therefore round scored even, 10-10. far from being controversial, it is absolutely correct imo.
Be careful, that's Floyd's boy, he'll tie you up and sing that love yourself song with Floyd being his bodyguard.
At worst, the Jacobs-Quillin stoppage was a somewhat early stoppage. I agree with Harvey Dock's decision here. You could see it written all over Quillin's face. He was done. Anything dealt out by Jacobs at that point would've just been unnecessary punishment imo. The Chavez-Taylor stoppage wasn't the horrible stoppage that everyone makes it out to be. It was definitely a bit pre-mature, but it wasn't a screw-job. Taylor was very clearly hurt. Richard Steele asked him if he was okay and didn't get an answer back. So, of course, he stops the fight. Definitely pre-mature, but not outrageous. The Molina Jr.-Lundy stoppage was another early-but-not-outrageous decision. Lundy was clearly hurt and was just laying on the ropes taking punches. He wasn't throwing back, wasn't holding on, and wasn't doing a very good job of covering up. Not really a stoppage worth complaining about.
Maybe Steele didn't get an answer back because Taylor had a badly cut and bleeding mouth and had by that late stage of the fight, swallowed more blood than Dracula? Did Steele the most overrated and irritating ref ever, consider that Taylor was having trouble talking because of that?