With so few fights and so many lousy decisions people still think of him as fighter of the decade. :huh
SRL was a great fighter. To this day he is loved by many, and envied by a few bitter individuals (yourself included). SRL's got a legacy...you got ****.:good
Yeah, just like Ali will never live down being beaten by Berbick... That also proves he was not very good, too... Right? :huh
Please, the two bouts are not even comparable. That's just a ploy used to excuse Leonard for his poor showing. Ali had been losing fights for five years-Young, Norton, Shavers, Spinks, Holmes.
And Leonard HADN'T BEEN FIGHTING for 5 years... Oh, except for that one off against Hagler that he won... :yep Maybe not exactly like that, but Leonard was SO FAR from his prime, it is almost very comparable to Ali-Berbick (which is my escape goat to show people up who use things like Tarver is greater than Roy Jones cause he beat him... :roll: )
how do you arrive at leonard being inactive five years? He has no excuse for losing the way he did to Norris. So you say ray was great, he came back with no tuneup out for 3 years and still beat Hagler. Why didn't ray get even better without the ring rust? He had the Hagler fight, nine rounds with Lalonde, 12 with Tommy, 12 more with Duran. Norris was an underdog-no one gave him a chance and Ray was favored to win, he should have won easily but when he doesn't you guys yell foul-"Oh no fair, he was past his prime" If he was past his prime what was he doing running around the ring with Duran? You didn't see Ali running around with Young, or Shavers, or Spinks, or Norton, or Holmes, or Berbick Let alone for the duration of the entire fight! How do you people come up with such simplistic deception?
Okay, so Norris beat a young, prime, active Leonard? That's fair. IMO, most would pick a prime Leonard over Norris. Or at the very least rank him higher on the almight mythical all time p4p list... Or am I wrong there? Cause if Norris stopped a prime, active Leoanrd, surely's he's better and higher p4p. No?