Who would've troubled Leonard more:

I agree. Not only did Terry whip Ray in the worst way imaginable but also did much more with his title. Sure he lost a few fights but made many more defenses.

How many defenses could ray say he made?

None.

So I'm with you - I don't understand where they come up with Ray turning the tables on Ray as if by some miracle.

To say that Ray would beat him based on how he fared with other fighters is far too simplistic and convenient because it really doesn't tell how Ray would pull it off.

Because he caught up one guy (Hearns) who was boxing his ears off is supposed to mean he would beat another man who employed everything that caused Ray problems?? minus Tommy's inability to hold and minus the stamina problems that was really the reason for him losing.

This adds up to a blowout for Norris no matter how you look at it.

Ray Leonard never had the power of a Simon Brown or a Julian Jackson so the possibility of a knockout victory is out of the question.

let's face it, Leonard didn't accomplish anything more than winning a title at 154. Everyone's done it. Davey Moore did it. Shotgun Alvarado did it. Tadashi Mihara did it. So to say that Ray was unproven is not making a hateful statement but in fact, is only stating the truth.

Had he proven himself and made some defenses, say called out Tony Ayala before leaving the sport, it could finally get some respect, especially if Ray won.

Of course, Ray wouldn't have won because you can't win fights while lying on the canvas taking a ten count. But if he had won, it would be a major accomplishment over a very dangerous slugger.

Following that up with some more wins over McCallum, Moore, Jackson, and defeating Hearns in a rematch would help Ray's image immensely.

But the fact it, he doesn't have any of those wins while Norris is the one with the accomplishments including the lopsided win over leonard so it is Norris who deserves all honor and praise while Leonard must take a back seat to Terry and sit on the mourner's bench.

That's how it's always been in the sport or any other sport like the super bowl. No one looks at the loser in a blowout and says the loser is better than the champion.

Ray has some credentials in other divisions, the most coming at 147. But that was just in the welterweight class which has never really had much importance or notice except for when Ray Robinson came along and breathed life into it with his presence.

Ray's only other preformance at 154 was the Howard fight and that wasn't something anyone ever brags about.

Lethal, have you ever seen any leonard fan brag about Ray's performance vs. Howard?

At just 27 years old too. How's something like that supposed to inspire confidence in the rest of us?

 

I'm confident that around 95% of knowledgeable boxing historians, especially journalists who have followed the fight game over the years would disagree with you. Leonard had been inactive for 2 years prior to fighting Howard, and his perfomance that night showed evidence he was rusty. No question. Hence the reason he said during the post fight press conference "Its not there anymore".

As I said earlier on this thread, if Leonard can beat Benitez and Hearns in his prime, he can topple someone like Norris. While Norris does have terrific movement and variation, he'd never have been able to keep a prime Leonard at distance the way Hearns did for large chunks of their first fight. He's not got the height and reach to do a similar paint job, and while Norris had a good jab, it was not in the same ballpark as Hearns' lightning left hand.

Norris wasn't just KO'd by Jackson and Brown, he was floored by others. Waters floored him, and I'm pretty sure has was on the canvas as many as half a dozen times during his career. Fighters who never quite possessed the same killer instincts as Leonard. Norris liked to go inside, and come right up the middle with uppercuts. And thats the range which would prove fatal, as he'd give Leonard the opportunity to bounce left hooks off his nugget on a regular basis. He'd probably last until the 10th, at a push.

 

Terry Norris would have handed benitez his ass if they were to have ever fought each other, so i dont see how leonard's win over benitez tells me he would handle terry norris. Thomas Hearns completely boxed leonard's ears off before gassing and terry norris is a much better athlete than hearns or leonard ever were. Anyone can pick apart terry's resume but the fact is that he beat a solid list of fighters and deserves to be considered great.

 

Aaron Pryor would have troubled Leonard more...I really don't see Arguello troubling Leonard at 147, but Pryor's pressure, workrate, and ability to take a punch and keep coming would have given Leonard trouble.

 

I agree JT. A Leonard/Pryor match has been talked about for a long time as if it were an incredibly great matchup that somehow managed to slip away....I don't see it that way. A Leonard/Pryor matchup, IMO, would have been a catastrophe for Pryor. Leonard was a welterweight champ to be feared indeed, with speed, power, and the heart of a lion. If Pryor had moved up in weight and faced a Leonard anything like the version that rocked Thomas Hearns to his foundations, it would have been a short night, with Leonard winning inside of five rounds. I could envision Leonard taunting Pryor by laughing after taking his best shot square on the chin, and then moving in to deliver a combination to rock Pryor right after. Basically Pryor would have been at too much of a size disadvantage even if his tenacious style were enough to rattle Leonard, which probably wouldn't have happened anyway.

As for Leonard/Arguello....Leonard probably wins in one round....or something like that.

 

Norris, best light-middleweight in history. Longevity, credible opposition, and came back to regain the title. McCallum and Hearns just behind him.

 

Check it out, a fair and sound judgment.

 

Lookie here, another fair judgment. You must hate Leonard, Robbi.

 

I have always said he was a damn fine welterweight. I don't hate on Leonard. I don't worship him. For Leonard lovers, that's hating.

I didn't pick Norris to beat Leonard. What I disputed were all the claims of all these Leonard worshippers who think Leonard wipes Norris out. There is no basis in fact to make such a ridiculous claim. In fact, given how badly Norris whipped Leonard when they actually met, Leonard would have to be at the very top of his form and catch Norris a bit less than his top form to win the fight.

I am trying to sober the people round here who are drunk of liquid Leonard. Evidently if you drink enough of that kool-aid superman appears.

You should be more careful to read what people write, robbi. You jumped to a judgment based on only a half-assed reading of my arguments.

Talk about sucking as a journalist. Doggies. Journalist deals with facts and try to be objective. You did neither.

Advice: get it in the right gear before you pop the clutch.

 

When I rate one fighter in a particular weight class, he's rated on merit with the head, not being biased with the heart.

Leonard never done enough at 154lbs to be considered anywhere near the top five, never mind the top three.

Your the man who has an agenda against Leonard.

 

I never said you picked Norris to beat Leonard. I simply responded why I'd pick Leonard to win. But saying Leonard would have to be at the top his form, and catch Norris a bit less than his top form to win the fight. Without actually saying it outright, thats like saying Leonard could not beat a prime Norris. Because a prime Norris is on top of his game.

I'm being objective. I'm in the right gear, 4th to be precise.

 

I'm sure that same 95% didn't give Norris a second thought at giving Terry a chance of winning the fight based upon Leonard's experience alone, never mind the mystique factor. They probably thought "terry might give him a small problem the first two rounds but after that he'll break the kid down".

Those journalists don't really have the kind of knowledge that counts-the ability to size up fighters. Most people don't.

Robbi, you can't just say that Terry's ability to deliver the uppercut would be his downfall when in reality he destroyed Leonard with it-it defies logic. Once Terry landed it, he destroyed Ray's confidence. Leonard was a damaged fighter physically. He was a damaged fighter mentally also.

Ask yourself how a tentative counter puncher like ray leonard is going to defend against the uppercut? you've seen how he holds his gloves - the same way he always positioned in fights so no matter what age he was at, he was always going to get caught by it.

Leonard would have been thrown off by Terry's speed and movement. This was no Larry Bonds or Kevin Howard. He wasn't Ayub kalule either who went nine with leonard, somewhat competitively even tho he was toothless.


Ray couldn't deilver his machine gun combinations either because Terry was seldom in front of him long enough-I've always said that: Terry Norris does not stand stationary in front of opponents, especially a young Norris.

Too fast for the likes of Leonard. Another problem is Ray doesn't have the power of a Julian Jackson or Brown to bail him out in case he fell behind on points and another problem... Ray doesn't have it in his character to pursue a mover the way Hagler or Jackson did.

Notice even in his younger days how long it took to make a move against movers? almost like he wanted the other guy to make the first move because he wasn't comfortable initiating the action. Leonard was limited by his style of being strictly counterpuncher. That's why it took him so long to beat Larry Bonds.

Stevie Cruz had the same problem only worse. Steve cruz couldn't press a guy for ****, even if he was badly hurt on the ropes, he'd still want the other guy to come off the ropes and throw a punch at him.

But Leonard is still from the same mold as Cruz-just a counterpuncher while Jackson and Brown are different animals altogether-that is their game. With their style together with their powe they had the right ingredients to whip Terry.

I also don't believe that bs Ray throws around "it wasn't there". How come it was there for Hagler at age 30 but it not there for a lesser fighters at a younger age? He was only 27 which is young. he then comes off an even longer layoff for Hagler and wins (disputedly of course) and no one questions either performance.

According to those who think Ray is naturally better at a younger age, he should have whipped Kevin no problem. Now think what Terry would have done to Ray--he would have won no problem at that time also.

You have to admit, there's no way I can be wrong about this. Ray can't beat Norris no matter his age was because of his disposition, his style is all wrong for Norris.

And let's face it, Norris isn't going to make things comfortable for him. He's going to force him out of his rhythm of laying back and making Ray react to feints, counters when he's not ready to-keeping him off balance. After a few rounds, Ray would be so thrown off, he wouldn't be able to react the way he normally did in slower paced fights.

And even on the inside it wouldn't matter. You say Terry wouldn't be able to hold him off for 12? I dissagree. Even on the rare occasions Ray made it on the inside as he did in their fight, Terry counters sharply enough to back him off. Leonard never took the greatest punch and even if he could take Terry's blows, they were still enough to get ray's respect. That's why it would take Ray so long to launch another assault. Those short counters inside always backed Ray off. Watch the second round when ray was already warmed up, probably his best round. Ray was trying to put the heat on Terry staying close like his corner told him to "put some pressure on this guy-I need more pressure". What actually happened is Terry put enough distance to counter Ray to the head and it wasn't long before he drove ray to the canvas.

So what I say is, "who needs a jab to outbox Ray? Terry was even more versatile than Tommy because it wasn't just a jab he used but hooks, uppercuts, jabs, and Leonard had no answer for any of them despite all his experience and did a very poor job of defending against Terry's full arsenal.

 

As Lethal mentioned, perfectly fair look at Norris. That's why he's in the hall of fame.

 

The right gear when you pop the clutch is 1st. Leonard would have to put on a top notch performance to beat Norris. Norris was damn good and he had just the style to beat Leonard. I wouldn't bet against Norris, that's for sure.

 

I don't share your confidence, but your analysis is quite good. I hope people take time to digest your argument, because you have definitely studied these guys respective strengths and weaknesses.