Why is that? I KNOW how to read. You I'm not so sure aboutbengulnaci1 wrote:
Stupidity is your obvious forte, as proven within this thread.
Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
-
Elton John
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 499
- Joined: 08 Apr 2007, 22:53
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
-
Elton John
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 499
- Joined: 08 Apr 2007, 22:53
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
I get it now. You know how to read. It's comprehension you have a problem with
-
Elton John
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 499
- Joined: 08 Apr 2007, 22:53
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
And speaking of saps.....bengulnaci1 wrote:
Stupidity is your obvious forte, as proven within this thread.
Your arguments are so ridiculus and have so many flaws it's a wonder you post here at all? Do you actually have any understanding about Boxing whatsoever? Any?
Your continued rants, and to be frank, pathetic attempts to insist your right merely open you up to significant ridicule.
Accept you have an opinion that differs to others and leave it at that. However no, you use such terms as 'believe me!' and 'know full well', my friend, you know jack.
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
As I said, you know absolutely jack, so your opinion doesnt count imo.
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
Your problem comes when you attempt to engage your brain and then start typing. It all falls apart, at that point.Elton John wrote:Why is that? I KNOW how to read. You I'm not so sure aboutbengulnaci1 wrote:
Stupidity is your obvious forte, as proven within this thread.
PS Your still getting WASTED in this thread FYI 8)
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
Personal insults signifies your frustration and a lack of arguement, you do realise this? It's that brain-thing I was refering too 8)Elton John wrote:And speaking of saps.....bengulnaci1 wrote:
Stupidity is your obvious forte, as proven within this thread.
Your arguments are so ridiculus and have so many flaws it's a wonder you post here at all? Do you actually have any understanding about Boxing whatsoever? Any?
Your continued rants, and to be frank, pathetic attempts to insist your right merely open you up to significant ridicule.
Accept you have an opinion that differs to others and leave it at that. However no, you use such terms as 'believe me!' and 'know full well', my friend, you know jack.
-
Elton John
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 499
- Joined: 08 Apr 2007, 22:53
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
No, in a complete show of superiority, it merely illustrates my utter disregard for inferior opposition as this has been no contest at all.bengulnaci1 wrote:Personal insults signifies your frustration and a lack of arguement, you do realise this? It's that brain-thing I was refering too 8)Elton John wrote:And speaking of saps.....bengulnaci1 wrote:
Stupidity is your obvious forte, as proven within this thread.
Your arguments are so ridiculus and have so many flaws it's a wonder you post here at all? Do you actually have any understanding about Boxing whatsoever? Any?
Your continued rants, and to be frank, pathetic attempts to insist your right merely open you up to significant ridicule.
Accept you have an opinion that differs to others and leave it at that. However no, you use such terms as 'believe me!' and 'know full well', my friend, you know jack.
Does the lion do battle with sheep?
Or does the eagle battle the sparrow? No, it simply swallows its prey which is what I've done to you
good day
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
Finally!!, some sense.Elton John wrote: this has been no contest at all.
And I'll make the point again, Hearns over 26 rounds DID NOT knock out, nor came close to knocking out SRL, now thats reality, simply put for you so even you understand
Or will you continue to EMO-RAGE, 'Im right, I have to be right, because I said I am' ?
Your argument will never get over that small FACT, the fact that after 4 pages you continue and are mocked at every turn, yes, that shows superiority 8)
You sir, are a legend - in you own lunchtime
Enjoy
Last edited by NazNaci1 on 16 Jul 2009, 17:02, edited 3 times in total.
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 15688
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
So the video did not convince you then. It shows CLEARLY that Hearns got a bandage on his hand. Did you see the bandage?BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:- What is it about posters on this forum consistently blowing their facts? What part of "dislocated hand" do you not understand in the video?elmersalsa wrote: Tommy broke his right hand vs Benitez...Here is the video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJEFba7a ... re=related
Since it's impossible to dislocate all the dozen plus joints in the human hand, probably his pinky got dislocated in a misstrike in the 7th when he claims he hurt it. Leonard noted that he never detected the hand being hurt the way Hearns was fighting. Indeed, Tommy can be shown throwing dozens of rights which mostly miss. Best punch of the fight was the right landing flush on Benitez a second before the bell rang.
As I noted, the hand was never a factor since it almost never landed in this fight. Also noted that Tommy had a 50% KO rate at 150 and above by the end of 84. How that translates into him being guaranteed to KO Ray in '84 is a mystery that can be located somewhere in the company of all the facts discarded by truth challenged posters.
-
BroughtonRulesRefuge
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 2770
- Joined: 16 Dec 2008, 06:55
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
- Again, what part of dislocated do you not understand? The hand was not broken as you claimed. Did you not see your video before you posted it?elmersalsa wrote: So the video did not convince you then. It shows CLEARLY that Hearns got a bandage on his hand. Did you see the bandage?
-
Elton John
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 499
- Joined: 08 Apr 2007, 22:53
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
Looks like I'm finally getting thru to you.bengulnaci1 wrote:
Finally!!, some sense.
I'm glad you're finally beginning to see the light. There's hope for dimwits everywhere
-
Collins2000
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 4175
- Joined: 06 May 2002, 06:13
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
Elton John wrote:Looks like I'm finally getting thru to you.bengulnaci1 wrote:
Finally!!, some sense.
I'm glad you're finally beginning to see the light. There's hope for dimwits everywhere
Remind me again. Why did you claim Terry Norris was the best fighter ever?
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
if anyone ever needed proof that this man is either a fool or a troll on the wind-up, here it is.Elton John wrote:
True greatness would have been achieved had he soundly defeated Terry Norris but sadly he fell short.
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
I am tending to go with the former, based on his posts in this threadCounter-puncher wrote:if anyone ever needed proof that this man is either a fool or a troll on the wind-up, here it is.Elton John wrote:
True greatness would have been achieved had he soundly defeated Terry Norris but sadly he fell short.
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
be careful. spouting nonsense with apparent total conviction is a classic troll tactic. he wants to get a reaction. deny him the oxygen of your outrage. pat him on the head and send him running to his Terry Norris DVD's.
-
Elton John
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 499
- Joined: 08 Apr 2007, 22:53
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
You must have misread that statement. I know that posters here still have problems with their reading skills.Collins2000 wrote:
Remind me again. Why did you claim Terry Norris was the best fighter ever?
What I said is that Terry easily beat the fighter of the 80s which is very true. It was the speed. He couldnt handle the speed
-
Elton John
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 499
- Joined: 08 Apr 2007, 22:53
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
And your statement would be a logical one if not for one thing: Ray Leonard was an overwhelming favorite.Counter-puncher wrote:if anyone ever needed proof that this man is either a fool or a troll on the wind-up, here it is.Elton John wrote:
True greatness would have been achieved had he soundly defeated Terry Norris but sadly he fell short.
I on the other hand knew better. I knew that Ray was ripe for an devestating defeat and that Terry with his speed and his reflexes would harpoon Ray. Ditto for Micheal Nunn. The young upstarts would always have his number
The skills that he demostrated over the years were enough for the limited oppostion he had chosen and would keep him unbeaten for years. At the same time I knew that choosing a dangerous opponent like Norris was a grave error and that his 11 year unbeaten streak would come to an end
A win would have greatly added to his legend, his reputation greatly improved in that Ray was capable of handling an assortment of talented fighters in addition to relics and tomato cans. But in beating Terry Norris, would have slienced all those who called his win over Hagler a fluke.
What actually transpired only added fuel fire his critics had been charging for years. So what did it prove?
Was he overrated? Certainly.
How about his chin? Was it the great chin that it had been touted as? That myth also had been dispelled.
Did he stand up under Norris' sharp punching? No.
Was he at any time able to demonstrate he could deal with a moving target? Roberto Duran, a plodder-yes. Terry Norris, a mover-no. And even when he got within an arms distance, Terry simply tied him up, stifling his ineffective offensive charges and halting his momentum.
There was literally nothing Ray Leonard could do.
Was he able to beat Norris? No.
Did he at least give the young man a decent workout? No, because he couldnt figure his style, couldn't cope with it.
Is Ray Leonard worthy of belonging in the same ring with Terry Norris? No. It's a matter of styles; can't hit what you can't touch
Winners get bragging rights. Losers take a back seat and hide their heads. Sadly, his career ended on a very sad note. I for one dont see how his fans sleep at night
-
Counter-puncher
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 39141
- Joined: 20 May 2008, 11:41
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
Winners get bragging rights. Losers take a back seat and hide their heads
good, well done. Leonard beat Hearns in 1981 so I assume hearns thereafter simply hid his head?
lol. you're too funny guy but keep it up
good, well done. Leonard beat Hearns in 1981 so I assume hearns thereafter simply hid his head?
lol. you're too funny guy but keep it up
-
Elton John
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 499
- Joined: 08 Apr 2007, 22:53
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
Another person that has problems with his readingCounter-puncher wrote:Winners get bragging rights. Losers take a back seat and hide their heads
good, well done. Leonard beat Hearns in 1981 so I assume hearns thereafter simply hid his head?
lol. you're too funny guy but keep it up
Try reading it again, only slower.
-
elmersalsa
- Heavyweight

- Posts: 15688
- Joined: 02 Feb 2003, 03:50
Re: Hearns vs Leonard II: For Hearns WBC Super welter title in
Yes, I saw the video...He had a cast after the fight when he was talking to the great Sugar Ray Leonard and the HBO announcer. Look at the cast/bandage.BroughtonRulesRefuge wrote:- Again, what part of dislocated do you not understand? The hand was not broken as you claimed. Did you not see your video before you posted it?elmersalsa wrote: So the video did not convince you then. It shows CLEARLY that Hearns got a bandage on his hand. Did you see the bandage?