Was Hector Camacho the best pure boxer of the last 40 years?

Brilliant. Well and truely ducked, again. My case that Norris wasn't a better pure boxer than Leonard and not better overall.

Getting me nowhere? My facts are getting you nowhere as proven above.

Norris getting whooped by a journeyman and never the same again.

 

The man was 34 years old, which must be taken into consideration. He wasn't in his prime years. He was coming to end of the road. And when matching him up against a younger and more hungry fighter, Norris, who himself went onto become a great fighter, it was too much to ask for a fighter who hadn't fought at the weight for 7 years.

A very fair and balanced view, simple and effective.


Norris IMO was the greatest 154lb who ever lived. Based on his longevity at the weight, his ability to rebound from defeats, and his skills.

Hearns had a couple of bigger marquee fights against Benitez and Duran, but he only made around 6 defenses.

McCallum and Hearns would have beaten Norris H2H, but in terms of looking at the whole picture, Norris gets my vote as the greatest jr middleweight who ever lived.

 

Usually fighters with great skills and athletisism who also possess a solid chin are better than fighters under the same umbrella who have weak chins, Terry Norris.

A solid chin gives a fighter a better chance to gain a level consistency and not get whopped by a journeyman.

And you said that Norris was a better pure boxer than Leonard. Yes, he showed he was when they fought, but that clearly wasn't a prime Leonard. Rewind back 10 years and you have a fighter who H2H was better than Norris and he beat better fighters. Benitez, Duran, and Hearns.

You really are making a fool of yourself, again.

 

So Norris was a better pure boxer because he beat Leonard when he was past his prime? I'm looking at the broader picture, you're not.

I'm looking at the full package, both their careers. Leonard was a better pure boxer than Norris. Disagree? Hopefully not or you will be making a fool of yourself.

Was Trevor Berbick a better boxer than Ali? Was Keith Mullings a better boxer than Norris? Was Tarver a better boxer than Jones?

 

Hagler got spanked by Leonard. The man was clueless. He came out fighting in the orthdodox stance and gave away the first 4 rounds. He couldn't put punches together. He lacked speed. He was made to miss often. Leonard showed better ring generalship, more variety with his offense, he also made Hagler look like a fool.

Hagler lost to a fighter who had one fight in 5 years and was a massive underdog. The man was said to have been "a lamb to the slaughter" in the press.

Yeah, Hagler was clearly battleworn in hindsight. But before the first bell rang Hagler was rated the best fighter in the word and it was common knowledge at the time he'd deal with Leonard.


Leonard beat Hagler. The man got tired late as Hagler came on strong as expected, but he whopped the man. Split decision or not, the right man had his hand raised.


ANNNNNNNNNNNNNND THE NEEEEEEEEEEEEEWWWWWWWW!

 

Norris wouldn't have seen 6 rounds with Hearns that night. Yes, I know that Leonard was behind, but who won the fight? It wasn't even a decision, a stoppage.

Like you do with Hagler when he lost to Leonard. What happened to Norris at only 30 years old when he was stopped by Mullings, who as I have said about 5 times in previous posts was a journeyman. It's a fact Leonard was past his best. Punch resistance gone, handspeed not what it was either, and he hadn't made the weight for 7 years. Signs of a fighter past it. The man was 34 years old.

PAST HIS PRIME

 

You saying I'm a Leonard fan?

 

Norris was disqualified three times, KO'd four times, and two of those were in his prime.

DAMAGING.

Mullings sure went in for the kill on a brilliant Norris, who was ready for a mega fight with De La Hoya. But journeyman Mullings put an end to Norris' dreams.

30 years old and never same the same again.

FINISHED