ThatOne wrote:"Did you not hear the portion of the fight I mentioned? There's no going around it so you just accept it as proof"
-elton john
Wow- some commentator said Hagler lost because he was done.
Here's a renowned sportwriter who said Leonard was done when he fought Norris:
Some observers said that in Norris, Leonard would be facing a younger version of himself. Fast and quick-fisted, Norris has patterned himself after Leonard, whom he idolizes. He is only an imitation, however. Norris is good—he has won 27 of 30 fights—but Leonard was great. At the same age, Leonard would have knocked Norris out in three rounds. That is no knock at Norris. There was only one Joe Louis, one Sugar Ray Robinson, one Muhammad Ali—and one Sugar Ray Leonard.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htm
And aren't you the one who said we should discount the opinions of experts?
"The fans who know better, the participants like myself, we know better."
Wow-the hyporcisy, the hypocrisy...
Pat Putnam, your dimwitted SI sportswriter when it came to the subject of boxing. All these SI writers know of was 2 names when it came to boxing-Ali & his pocket sized protege, managed by angelo Dundee
let's see..no sources, no names.
I wonder what observers he could be talking about? he didnt have the nerve to say who these observers were OR...he made it up in attempt to play down Leonard's failure to carry out their predictions of a Leonard blowout which turned into an embarrassing failure for Ray and his buddies in the media.
Leonard exposed by Norris would have been more adequate
because I never read those remarks prior to when Putnam wrote it.
Putnam lacks credibility..period. Adding more crap for the gullible to swallow. To SI writers, lying comes as easily as breathing
Putnam failed to say how he arrived at the conclusion how Ray WOULD HAVE take out Norris in 3.
the trick here is for veryone to forget the fact it was Leonard who was hugely favored to win in the first place and that Terry really should have done better which in turn makes it easier to project Leonard the victor at a younger age.
Wishful thinking no doubt in an effort to build up his fighter that much more...and tone down the embarassment of being exposed as an overrated fraud when RL couldnt manage to find someone who refused to lie down for him.
Someone like Norris who wouldnt give him the kind of respect he expected. Someone that could hit back. Someone with some speed instead of the usual slow motion relics, and the ability to command leonard's respect. unlike Kevin Howard, Terry was not at a severe size disadvantage.
But this is what I've come to expect from SI writer. A lack of objectivity when it came to leonard has never been an SI writer's strong point.
You can ask William Nack who also likes to cover up embarrassing flaws of his fighter. Except William is more obvious about it, scoring Norris-Leonard 116-112
and keeping the subject on Leonard's past accomplishments and off away from where he doesnt want it-the beatdown from Norris.
Norris who, conquered a 5 time champion, unbeaten in 11 years, winning every round.
Let's make that "Leonard was good but
NORRIS WAS GREAT"
taking out Norris in 3 when it took him a full 9 rounds to deal with Kalule -slow footed, slow handed, 0 head movement, stiff, no punch-Kalule
You wouldnt happen to have any ideas on this would you other than the usual propaganda "Norris was good but Leonard was great"?
