to properly assess the man we have to focus in on that window of time after sufficient development and before all the wars caught with him. Ray Leonard never had any wars to speak of. I will grant you that the Norris fight had transformed Leonard into a shell the same way. However, what you seem to keep forgetting is that Camacho was even more the shell than Leonard and really should not have been licensed to fight after 1992, so it evens out.
So Leonard was fresh at 34 & 40 after fights with the likes of Hagler, Hearns & Duran, but Cuevas at 23 became shot after his "wars" with Espada, Ranzany & Backus. Flawless logic. Camacho shouldn't have been licensed to fight after 1992? How many times has he been knocked out since then? His record post '92 is 39-4 and he's still going.
:yep I'm not going down this road, i seem to recall i and many others have been here before,we could be here all day!
well, just look at him in uno mas. I couldnt find one thing to fault. Steve Farhood said he fought the perfect fight and Tim Ryan congradulated him saying "what an absolute masterful performance" But then, Sugar Ray had never faced anyone with TN's speed before. Ray's pre-Norris competition was not the best and it took a Terry Norris to bring him down to reality. And while Ray took his lumps from TN, Camacho took far worse punishment from JCC and with double the fights Ray had. I actually had hector losing to 45 year old Duran which means that Camacho-leonard was an even fight on paper and the press even had Ray as a big favorite. Even tho Ray was much bigger physically, Hector showed more than ray inside where it counts. His mental toughness and superior ring experience allowed him the chance to demonstrate that he was the better man. All this from a blown up featherweight :yep
I could find everything to fault. He was able to outpoint a fighter even older than he was with an extremely negative effort, doesn't erase the fact that he hadn't exactly looked stellar against Hearns and Lalonde in previous fights. The man was old and a part-time fighter by then, only a very bitter and biased man would bring up those losses while saying that Cuevas, Norris & Camacho were "shot" at a much younger age. Thomas "Hitman" Hearns, who by the way would've cleaned Norris's clock like Julian Jackson did. Of course Hagler, Hearns, Duran & Benitez weren't good competition. atsch Relics like Leonard and Curry, blown up junior welters like Taylor and a highly overrated puncher like Mugabi on the other hand were great opposition. Ray also took his lumps from the likes of Duran, Hagler, fights he had fought 17 years previous to facing Camacho. Suffered a detached retina against Hearns which nearly ended his career. Camacho showed his "mental toughness" by running away from every opponent post-Rosario. Leonard took it to a brutal puncher like Hearns. Leonard looked like an old man against Camacho, and he was an old man, any solid professional should have put him out of his misery, much like when Norris got beat by the likes of Mullings and Rosenblatt when he was 30 years old, not 40, and was actually an active fighter coming off a streak of wins, not like Leonard who hadn't fought in 7 years.
Yeah, that first fight with Duran was a snoozefest. :roll: You mean the way Leonard shouldn't have been licensed to fight after suffering a detached retina almost a decade earlier?
that's not a war, that's a grabbing contest retina, what damaged retina? Why no thumbless gloves after 1987? that's a fair question
I couldnt and neither could Tim Ryan or Steve Farhood. In fact, he won ever round. Shot fighters dont win shut outs and they dont have their legs. December 1989 Ray Leonard had PLENTY of that left! Negative effort? Yes, but this is what we saw in 1980 New Orleans. It's a fact
please. Tommy didnt have any idea how to even clinch and NO he didnt not have Norris' speed or versatility otherwise we have seen a shut out. Norris had the kind of speed that he could deliver his crippling left hook before you can even think of avoiding it and with Leonard's style he simply stays in front studing for openings too long. That's the way he always fights. Check for yourself Now, did Tommy have a left hook or left upercut like Norris? Did he know how to bide his time until he saw the right opening like Norris? Did he have the proper balance like Norris or was he stumbling around on stick thin legs? Did he carry his guard high like Norris or were his hands dangling by his sides? Tommy dont even know how to fight in a crouch the way Terry do. Terry got a totally different style that ray would NEVER be able to figure out. Ray would nave be able to figure out TN's style There are many factors involved that you cannot see that enabled Norris to run away with this fight, and one of them is that Ray simply did not have enough experience against all around fighters like Norris or Camacho. I believe a 1989 matchup against southpaw supreme Micheal Nunn would have been a great test for him.
I cant fault Terry for what he did to Mugabi. he was great that night, his lethal left hook an awesome weapon to behold. Once I saw him land it flush on Mugabi's jaw I knewthe fight was over. John showed amazing heart trying to survie as long as he did. I dont know of anyone else who could have held out as long as he did but his legs were comepletely gone The Curry fight was very impressive. He knew it was do or die time and he delivered but Norris was simply too fast and too resilient. The bombs he had to absorb from Curry made me wince at times but like the great champion he is, came back just on sheer will power alone. The mark of a true champion Meldrick? Well he was simply the fastest man on the planet but unlike Ray Leonard, Norris could deal with speed. Again, what incredible power and killer instinct shown on the part of Norris.
please, hagler was a relic .. yesterday's hot fighter for sure. With hands that slow it was a wonder he didnt have birds nesting on his gloves No fighter with a detatched retina would have opted to do away with thumbless gloves after the hagler fight and you know that I'm right. The thumbless gloves in the hagler fight were just to keep up the image. Post hagler, where did they go?
You say Tim Ryan and Steve Farhood as if these two were some kind of leading experts in the sport. This is what most people were thinking after the fight: http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAIBAJ&pg=2889,5018134&dq=duran+leonard&hl=en This is what Leonard said after the Norris fight: "I knew I didn't have it when I entered the ring." "It worked against all the older fellows I fought lately," said Leonard, grinning. Terry didn't know how to clinch either when he was knocked down by a jab and knocked out for the count by Simon Brown. Hearns had a great left hook to the body, which was rendered mostly ineffective against Leonard. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZdLJAYzV9M[/ame] He sure knew how to bide his time, that's why he was called the "Hitman" and the "Cobra". He didn't have to use a high guard or a crouch because he was 6'1. Norris is far easier to get to as he completely forgets about defense when he goes on the offense. Which is why he got hurt by journeymen like Troy Waters. And Mugabi wasn't any good at all post-Hagler, and he was always overrated. Great stuff from you again, Norris's fight against Curry is "impressive" yet Hagler is a shot old man. The double standards here are astonishing, or perhaps you simply have lower standards for Norris than Leonard. Curry had been KO'd by McCallum, Nunn and lost to the very average Rene Jacquot. Norris, as usual, picked an old fighter to look good against. Norris having to "rally" against a shot fighter just shows you that he wasn't a true champion at all. However what I saw wasn't a rally but a beating handed out to an old fighter. A win over Hagler would have been absolutely huge for Norris and you know it. Meldrick was the fastest 140 lber on the planet, but against Norris he was a blown up fighter with no power whatsoever. Norris looks good against fighters with no power or who are on their last legs. I don't see how this is supposed to impress. Hagler was still hot as he was the undisputed middleweight champion of the world, who had knocked out the "great" Mugabi in his previous fight, when Mugabi was actually good and undefeated, unlike against Norris when Mugabi was used up and a Duane Thomas left over. The logic of redrooster Pipino Cuevas at 23 = shot Hector Camacho at 29 = shot Terry Norris at 30 = shot Hagler at 32 = shot Ray Leonard at 34 & 40 = prime Of course the all knowledgeable redrooster thinks it was an act and a conspiracy. Where's the proof, aside from your thumbless gloves theory. Perhaps the gloves didn't work as well as he had originally thought and went back to using the gloves he was more used to. I wouldn't know, but this is certainly no proof of him not having an eye injury. Other fighters with detached retinas didn't fight with thumbless gloves, for example Lamon Brewster. Earnie Shavers is mentioned in the article below. Leonard must have paid off the doctors: http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...J&pg=1550,7043520&dq=ray+leonard+retina&hl=en
Well actually, they are at the forefront. Tim Ryan covering just about every major fight of the decade and Farhood, reknowned boxing writer and editor of the prestigious KO magazine. Very hard to discredit their testimonies and both had nothing but praise for the footwork, the agility, the 6 - 8 punch flurries. I thought RL looked great. A little too much leg for my taste though