Was Leonard vs Norris just a bad style match up for Leonard?

Leonard's decline was noted as early as Hearns II. It was noted by multiple people that Leonard wasn't the same post Hagler.

Norris was a terrible matchup in hindsight for an aged slowed Leonard. Peak Leonard would find him an awkward matchup too due to his combination of speed and power but he'd handle him.

Nominating an age and trying to implement it across the board doesn't work on any level.

 

It was actually more than a year and a half prior.

A bigger drama is that Leonard boiled down to 154 for Norris. He hadn't made 154 in more than 6 years. How much do you think that affected a 34yo fighter?

It's a different world in sport nowadays regarding age. They are performing at super high levels at ages when people used to be retired or shells of themselves. Look at Federer/Nadal/Joker, that is completely insane. Boxers have it even better as they aren't having near as many fights hence reducing wear and tear and that's before we even factor in modern/medical science and nutrition.

Boxers in that era that rely heavily on speed and reflex aren't going to fare well at 34yo against a speedster 11 years their junior. In hindsight Leonard's best chance was catching Norris and his weak chin but he couldn't get that done. I'm pretty confident a prime SRL is a better fighter than Troy Waters and co.

Norris got stopped by Keith Mullings 14-4-1 and Laurent Boudouani and outpointed by Dana Rosenblatt at 30 and 31yo. Do you think those three would have been putting him to the sword at his best bearing in mind he was still 3 and 4 years younger than Leonard when he lost to these guys??

Norris was actually retired at 31 and never fought again so that gives a pretty good indication of what SRL was up against.

 

Benitez declined when he was 26.

Bowe declined when he was 28.

Tyson peaked in his early 20s and was half the fighter he was in his mid 30s.

Theres plenty of examples of boxers declining at an early age every boxer is different in regards to their longevity.

Leonard was 35 years old was coming off a long lay off and was fighting at a weightclass he hadn't fought at since 1984.

Would Norris always be a tough challenge for Leonard ? I think so yes. But would the fight look alot different had it been an early 80s version of Leonard in against Norris ? Absolutely.

 

Was Terry Norris faster than Sugar Ray Leonard? …I don’t think so

 

Leonard was shot. End of story. And like so many others, not just in boxing but other sports, he resisted the fact that he was shot and paid for it, and not only that getting beat all to hell by Norris still didn’t convince him and it took getting bloodied and knocked on his ass and winding up with a KO loss on his record against Camacho to finally make him see he needed to go to the house.

 

FWIW, prior to their fight, Norris himself said that Leonard had declined. Norris noted in particular the recent KDs suffered by Ray - Norris stating that Ray was caught and put down by shots that would never have got near him in his prime.

Totally agree that prime vs prime, Norris could provide for some tough periods during the fight but ultimately, Ray would be a clear winner and I think he’d get the later round KO/Stoppage also.

 

Leonard was shot...End of story X2.

I will never forget this fight, my buddy's dad wandering around the house in tears, muttering, "they beat him bad...they beat him bad."

 

Leonard also did cocaine aswell I mean is it so hard to believe why a 35 year old inactive Leonard wasn't at his best ? He'd be campaigning at Middleweight/Super Middleweight between 87-89 and then was inactive until 91 and then boiled down to a weight he hadn't fought at for 7 years.

All of the above should be fairly simple to understand why Leonard was in decline and obviously an early 80s version of Leonard would be a totally different prospect for Norris.

 

You can't draw any specific line in the sand and say that "well, 34 should be okay but 36 is pushing it." It's too individual a thing. 34 for Leonard given his inactivity and previous reliance on a style so dependent on quickness and explosiveness is a real quagmire. 34 for an active fighter whose style is different and given that he might be on a different career arc means something else entirely. It depends on too many individual things to be boiled down to so tidy a mathematical equation.

This fight wasn't about styles. It was about a fast, strong, confident natural 154-pounder on the upswing against an aged, inactive part-timer unsure of who he was anymore.

 

In regards to your thread as I've said it's fair to say Norris would always be a challenging opponent for Leonard.

But I don't think its fair to say Leonard was anywhere close to resembling his peak in their 1991 encounter. Whatever the reason was for Leonard the age, the inactivity dropping down in weight, etc. Leonard clearly looked like a shell of himself vs Norris. And I don't think their 1991 encounter has much barring in regards to how a early 80s version of Leonard would fare against Norris.

Prime for prime it would be a very good fight and I would favour Leonard but Norris would always be a challenging opponent for Leonard which is fair to say as I said.

 

By mid 30s athletes used to be basically shot. Now days I am pretty sure they are injecting stem cells from umbilical cords or something else into their worn out joints and things.

I watched that fight when it happened Leonard was pretty shot.