who wins ? ray leonard vs. terry norris , at 154 both prime

I applaud you MM. Some of these fans here are so brain dead. Their logic is always the same: "Ray Leonard beat the top 30 fighters of all time" while ignoring their own dogma about styles making fights

I look at it in a more realistic way: If Ray at the age of 27 is having the kind of problems he had with a miniscule, 20-4 fighter like Howard, getting pushed around the ring the way he did, then why should I have confidence against faster, smarter opponents. Opponents have the brains and ability to avoid retaliation? How much better do you have to be to actually beat the man?

Norris answered that question in spades. And you're right, Leonard should have given a better account of himself but the reason he couldnt is not that his legs weren't working or that he left himself in the last Duran fight or the Lalonde fight.

The reason is the speed combined with the multi dimensional talent of Norris.

He had his chances to come out and silence the critics. A 1984 rematch with hearns, a fight with McCallum wouldve answered spome question but I'm not going to automatically give him every fight with every upcoming opponent because of one shaky fight he had in 1981.

 

His legs looked find to me in the third Duran fight.

 

This is what you do every time Norris or Camacho are mentioned in fantasy match-ups, or 'who ranks P4P between (insert names here)'

I assume you think Pac could beat De La Hoya in his prime? Because thats what kinda' state Leonard was in against Norris IMO.

 

ii

 

I happened across the above article earlier, and thought it to be a fair assessment of Norris' career.

Note: I don't think so much was necessary on Mugabi. The only thing Mugabi every really accomplished was his loss to Hagler. I find the rest of his career not so impressive.

 

simon brown i understand and he was a good banger and a good trapper. even tho out of his prime when he koed norris he still wasnt finished with the sport.

but mullings and bouduani got to him when he started to fade. he had no speed, no agility, no reactions. with mullings he just takes punishment for a round and a bit. he holds his guard and shows no footwork at all.

the fight with bouduani is really sad. he was able to bounce around the ring for a bit and do some norris impressions but when you see him stumbling over his feet (not a late reaction stun) and throwing wild overhand rights. he just doesnt have it.


leonard,hagler,barkley got to hearns when he was in decent shape and won titles before and after. also hearns is a different fighter to norris in many ways. hearns's low hands, hieght+reach and lack of clinching made him vulnarable to an inside fighter...IF they got close enough, with tommy's various arsenal.

norris has a high guard, a paced style and fients his way in. wild at times but his guard, jab and footwork got him out of trouble. he was a thinker





to the topic at hand.
leonard should be able to counterpunch norris on the way in. and maybe stumble him with a lead right hand while norris is throwing the 1-2, left upper. but i dont see this dramatic ko some people are cooking up.



some people i think are only saying leonard would of destroyed norris in a round due to the fact rooster is in the fray. stop

 

This is what goes against the claim "a badly faded Leonard". It's all bs we know and I've shot down the argument many times but they like to say it to excuse him for losing. They just don't know what else to say.

I find it too hard to believe considering the odds going in and how untouchable Ray was in that previous fight and that's where the Norris haters have gone wrong.

So in reality, being faded shouldnt apply in this case. Moreover, there was no ring rust nor was weight an issue either.

Leonard had an entire 12 rounds to prove me wrong on this but like I said, he doesnt have the style to beat Terry, the "flawed great".

For example, go to round 10 where Leonard is up to his tricks, playing the thinking man's game, and waiting for Terry to come forward so he can catch him coming in.

We all know Leonard can't initiate an attack so his only alternative is to wait for the other guy to come to him. The only problem is Terry was way too wise for such a stupid tactic for it to work. it may have worked against a guy like Benitez which resulted in long staring matches but against a man with lightning quick reflexes like Terry, not a chance.

So Terry plays his game, only he starts throwing his feints like he's going to move in. It throws leonard off momentarily and Terry immediately after drills him with the right, making leonard pay.

You see, it may have worked on lesser fighters like Benitez but Terry is way too smart and much tougher than Wilfred who sometimes lacks the will to fight.

So then leonard tries another strategy by moving to the ropes but there too the outcome is the same, taking the right hand and getting drilled to the body. This goes on throughout the 11th, taking one right hand after another.

I bring this up to prove that no matter what strategy Ray uses, he met his match. All the Norris haters stay away from the details yet they want me to believe the outcome would go according to their desires.

Anyone that wants to refute what I've said can try, but they better back up what they say.

Whether he is the aggressor or tries to box him in ring center, Terry had all the answers and passed every test with flying colors against a man he supposedly had no chance against.

A five time world champion that had not lost in 11 years and Terry schooled him. It hurts to admit it but Terry is just better than him when it comes down to head to head fights.

Not only that but according to logic, Terry with his "chin that sucked" never once wobbled while Leonard with the supposedly great chin, hit the deck twice and found Terry's shots too much to stomach which only proved that Terry also had the better chin.

 

I doubt you have even watched more than 5 Norris fights. And it's hilarious that you think he's the most overrated fighter of the past 30 years, when in fact he is probably the most underrated of the past 30 years. I think you just said that to try to get under my skin but I won't fall for it because even you know what you said is simply not true, that is if you have actually watched Norris career fight by fight. I think you have watched Sweet_Scientist highlight of the first Norris/Brown fight way too much and that has had a lasting effect on your view of Norris.

I have no problem with anyone who feels a prime Leonard beats Norris, but to think it would be an easy fight for Leonard or an early T/KO victory for him is just insane in my view. I have a couple of questions for you and they go as follows.....

Who at 154 has a better resume of wins than Norris?......I don't think any fighter at 154 does.

Which other 154 pounder is as or more talented than Norris?.....I don't think any are in my view, with the exception of Leonard perhaps.

Name me a better offensive fighter at 154 than Norris?.......Quite simple there aint none.

 

Hearns had more talent than Leonard, what about him? Hearns was a better offensive fighter than Norris, no? Hearns had a pretty good resume at 154. Wilfred Benitez and Roberto Duran are better than anybody Norris ever faced. And Leonard is not in a class above them. Really Hearns was better at 154 than all of them.

 

I think Terry is clearly more talented than Hearns and was a better offensive fighter also, Hearns had no inside game and Terry did and Terry had great ability to fight at short and long range. Leonards wins over Duran and Benitez took place at 147. And Hearns by looking at his record did'nt have much fights at the junior middleweight range so you can't rank him above any of the fighters you mentioned at 154.

 

Norris is overall, the most balanced of all 154 pounders. I would say Ray Leonard is up there (no ****) but does he have the record to match?

There's nothing there to speak of except Kalule and Howard. In the Howard fight, you could see the talent on display even when Ray went flatfooted but I was also able to see his vulnerabilty. And that vulnerability is going to be a big factor in how he does against the elite like Norris and Jackson.

Again, he was just 27. Against such an opponent I don't see Norris would have this kind of problem. That's how I know Terry would have mopped the floor with Ray.

hearns on the other hand for the short time he was at the top of the division, was the premier fighter of the sport itself until he met Hagler. Remember he was 1984's fighter of the year. Offensively he was awesome and could vaporize most fighters instantly (yes, leonard too)

But was he as well balanced overall at Norris? In my book, no.

 

bump

A few besides Rooster picked Norris.

 

Yup, Rooster has a posse back then.