Terry Norris/Floyd Mayweather

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Mentioning the likes of Corrales and Hatton is ridiculous, or a 35 year old semi retired Oscar de la Hoya. I simply cannot believe anyone buys into Mayweather's claims of greatness. Norris stepped into the ring with top class, dangerous men, Mayweather has steered around anyone that fits that description.

Trying to deny Norris's serious power advantage over Mayweather, or that it would be of any benefit to Norris, is pretty silly. Mayweather is outgunned in every department here.

This entire post is ridiculous, who denied Norris' power edge? Have you ever considered reading posts before you respond to them?

Norris, as much as I loved him, picked on shot smaller fighters to get big names on his resume. Let's not pretend he was immune to cashing checks over tough fights.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Norris was pretty well known for being a beast in the gym, he benched over 300 lbs.....i don't think Floyd is anywhere near as strong as that in all honesty.

Bench pressing isn't everything there is to strength, certainly not in regards to Boxing. I bet I can bench more than Vitali or Wlad and I couldn't come close to muscling them around in the ring. A lot of weight lifting is technique. If Norris was squating or dead lifting a huge number it would be more of an indicator.

Yes i understand that, I'm a personal trainer by trade so fully understand that a bench press is only one pointer and not the be all and end all of gauging strength.

But.....the bench press stats aren't the only indication that Norris was physically stronger than Floyd. That he was basically a career jnr-middle is another, and that we saw in many of his fights him being able to physically push people back to make room for his combinations is another. Clearly the evidence is there to see just how strong a fighter Norris was.

Norris was well know for being physically strong, its not something that Floyd is renowned for. Now while i don't doubt that Floyd is stronger than many would think, i don't think he's anywhere near as strong as Terry Norris was during his prime years. There is certainly NO indication that Floyd would have been the stronger man.

Floyd isn't renowned for his strength, probably because he is a defensive fighter without a ton of power and fight fans equate knock outs to strength. I've had many arguments where I am completely shit on for saying Holyfield was stronger than Tyson. Mayweather is much stronger than he is given credit for and misconceptions run wild among Boxing fans. How many people do you think stormed to the front page for evidence that Norris was much bigger than Mayweather so they could come back here and call me a moron? Like I said before, to LoadedGloves outrage, all of those other fighters I listed were supposed to be stronger than Mayweather. Shane can bench press an eighteen wheeler, but he wasn't stronger than Floyd in tight.

I never said Mayweather was stronger, I said I didn't know that Norris was. And again, if Terry is stronger, it isn't a landslide and I don't see how he intends to use it to some overwhelming advantage. Floyd is a better in-fighter than Norris, no doubt about that. Terry wins the fight with activity from mid-range to outside. His bench press prowess is highly irrelevant.

[Ezzard]

I do think Floyd is a physically strong man. The clutch and lock up close are big defensive strategies for him…but then he can sway away at other times and fire from behind a tight guard.

I’m not sure if there is that much of a size difference. I’m also not sure who wins. If Terry misses too much too early and takes too many accurate counters he may be the one to close up.

It would be a proper fight though. Not a hand-picked sideshow.

[IKSRTFO]

Bench pressing isn't everything there is to strength, certainly not in regards to Boxing. I bet I can bench more than Vitali or Wlad and I couldn't come close to muscling them around in the ring. A lot of weight lifting is technique. If Norris was squating or dead lifting a huge number it would be more of an indicator.

Yes i understand that, I'm a personal trainer by trade so fully understand that a bench press is only one pointer and not the be all and end all of gauging strength.

But.....the bench press stats aren't the only indication that Norris was physically stronger than Floyd. That he was basically a career jnr-middle is another, and that we saw in many of his fights him being able to physically push people back to make room for his combinations is another. Clearly the evidence is there to see just how strong a fighter Norris was.

Norris was well know for being physically strong, its not something that Floyd is renowned for. Now while i don't doubt that Floyd is stronger than many would think, i don't think he's anywhere near as strong as Terry Norris was during his prime years. There is certainly NO indication that Floyd would have been the stronger man.

Floyd isn't renowned for his strength, probably because he is a defensive fighter without a ton of power and fight fans equate knock outs to strength. I've had many arguments where I am completely shit on for saying Holyfield was stronger than Tyson. Mayweather is much stronger than he is given credit for and misconceptions run wild among Boxing fans. How many people do you think stormed to the front page for evidence that Norris was much bigger than Mayweather so they could come back here and call me a moron? Like I said before, to LoadedGloves outrage, all of those other fighters I listed were supposed to be stronger than Mayweather. Shane can bench press an eighteen wheeler, but he wasn't stronger than Floyd in tight.
I never said Mayweather was stronger, I said I didn't know that Norris was. And again, if Terry is stronger, it isn't a landslide and I don't see how he intends to use it to some overwhelming advantage. Floyd is a better in-fighter than Norris, no doubt about that. Terry wins the fight with activity from mid-range to outside. His bench press prowess is highly irrelevant.

1. All those other fighters ain't Terry Norris nor could they do what he do. Corrales power was only at 130-135 and he was very weak against the likes of Clottey, a real WW. Hatton and Castillo coudn't even compete above 140. Shane is the best comparison you can make but:

2. Terry's prime was at 154. Floyd fought Shane past prime and Shane obviously isn't the offensive dynamo he once was.

3. About Terry's strength. Like you, I think his weightlifting abilty is also irrelevant, but what he did in the ring in terms of punching power is very valid and real. You can't deny that and he was much stronger than the likes of Mosley and DLH who both started around 135.

4. Floyd does actually have (as with majority of his opponents) an arm length and reach advantage over Norris so he can get to Norris if he like. Its not like Hearns who is the worst style matchup for Floyd. It's only a question of risk that Floyd may be unwilling to take.

5. Norris is a legit 154lber even if he's small for it. By that, I mean he is a world champion who fought legit light middleweight chanllengers in the division. Just like Hagler is a small middle but was used to fighting middlweights. Floyd may have beaten Oscar at lightmiddle but he hasn't fought anyone at 154 while Norris beaten challege after challenge at the weight. No one on Floyd's resume has those intangibles except Oscar and by the time Floyd fought him, Oscar couldn't move like he used to. Shane wasn't what he used to be even at 154. Floyd has NEVER fought a bigger guy who could box and move around him at the time he fought them. The guys who were bigger stood right in front of him. Norris will not stand and wait and be intimidated.

[lurkyshaka]

Bench pressing isn't everything there is to strength, certainly not in regards to Boxing. I bet I can bench more than Vitali or Wlad and I couldn't come close to muscling them around in the ring. A lot of weight lifting is technique. If Norris was squating or dead lifting a huge number it would be more of an indicator.

Yes i understand that, I'm a personal trainer by trade so fully understand that a bench press is only one pointer and not the be all and end all of gauging strength.

But.....the bench press stats aren't the only indication that Norris was physically stronger than Floyd. That he was basically a career jnr-middle is another, and that we saw in many of his fights him being able to physically push people back to make room for his combinations is another. Clearly the evidence is there to see just how strong a fighter Norris was.

Norris was well know for being physically strong, its not something that Floyd is renowned for. Now while i don't doubt that Floyd is stronger than many would think, i don't think he's anywhere near as strong as Terry Norris was during his prime years. There is certainly NO indication that Floyd would have been the stronger man.

Floyd isn't renowned for his strength, probably because he is a defensive fighter without a ton of power and fight fans equate knock outs to strength. I've had many arguments where I am completely shit on for saying Holyfield was stronger than Tyson. Mayweather is much stronger than he is given credit for and misconceptions run wild among Boxing fans. How many people do you think stormed to the front page for evidence that Norris was much bigger than Mayweather so they could come back here and call me a moron? Like I said before, to LoadedGloves outrage, all of those other fighters I listed were supposed to be stronger than Mayweather. Shane can bench press an eighteen wheeler, but he wasn't stronger than Floyd in tight.

I never said Mayweather was stronger, I said I didn't know that Norris was. And again, if Terry is stronger, it isn't a landslide and I don't see how he intends to use it to some overwhelming advantage. Floyd is a better in-fighter than Norris, no doubt about that. Terry wins the fight with activity from mid-range to outside. His bench press prowess is highly irrelevant.

In all fairness anyone with a brain knows a high Ko % doesn't necessarily mean a fighter is physically strong. And likewise a low KO % doesn't necessarily mean a fighter isn't physically strong.

As i've already said while a big bench press on its own doesn't prove that Norris was stronger than Floyd, but when added to the other factors at play its fair to suppose he was indeed stronger than Floyd at 154. I base my thinking on several factors, not just Norris's bench press.

Dunno why you're getting so antsy about this minor side issue.

[palooka]

Norris was a very good baseball player before concentrating on boxing. It wasn't just that he pumped iron; he was a hitter; scouted by the big leagues for his average. Terry v Floyd would've been an excellent bout to watch.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Yes i understand that, I'm a personal trainer by trade so fully understand that a bench press is only one pointer and not the be all and end all of gauging strength.

But.....the bench press stats aren't the only indication that Norris was physically stronger than Floyd. That he was basically a career jnr-middle is another, and that we saw in many of his fights him being able to physically push people back to make room for his combinations is another. Clearly the evidence is there to see just how strong a fighter Norris was.

Norris was well know for being physically strong, its not something that Floyd is renowned for. Now while i don't doubt that Floyd is stronger than many would think, i don't think he's anywhere near as strong as Terry Norris was during his prime years. There is certainly NO indication that Floyd would have been the stronger man.

Floyd isn't renowned for his strength, probably because he is a defensive fighter without a ton of power and fight fans equate knock outs to strength. I've had many arguments where I am completely shit on for saying Holyfield was stronger than Tyson. Mayweather is much stronger than he is given credit for and misconceptions run wild among Boxing fans. How many people do you think stormed to the front page for evidence that Norris was much bigger than Mayweather so they could come back here and call me a moron? Like I said before, to LoadedGloves outrage, all of those other fighters I listed were supposed to be stronger than Mayweather. Shane can bench press an eighteen wheeler, but he wasn't stronger than Floyd in tight.
I never said Mayweather was stronger, I said I didn't know that Norris was. And again, if Terry is stronger, it isn't a landslide and I don't see how he intends to use it to some overwhelming advantage. Floyd is a better in-fighter than Norris, no doubt about that. Terry wins the fight with activity from mid-range to outside. His bench press prowess is highly irrelevant.

1. All those other fighters ain't Terry Norris nor could they do what he do. Corrales power was only at 130-135 and he was very weak against the likes of Clottey, a real WW. Hatton and Castillo coudn't even compete above 140. Shane is the best comparison you can make but:

2. Terry's prime was at 154. Floyd fought Shane past prime and Shane obviously isn't the offensive dynamo he once was.

3. About Terry's strength. Like you, I think his weightlifting abilty is also irrelevant, but what he did in the ring in terms of punching power is very valid and real. You can't deny that and he was much stronger than the likes of Mosley and DLH who both started around 135.

4. Floyd does actually have (as with majority of his opponents) an arm length and reach advantage over Norris so he can get to Norris if he like. Its not like Hearns who is the worst style matchup for Floyd. It's only a question of risk that Floyd may be unwilling to take.

5. Norris is a legit 154lber even if he's small for it. By that, I mean he is a world champion who fought legit light middleweight chanllengers in the division. Just like Hagler is a small middle but was used to fighting middlweights. Floyd may have beaten Oscar at lightmiddle but he hasn't fought anyone at 154 while Norris beaten challege after challenge at the weight. No one on Floyd's resume has those intangibles except Oscar and by the time Floyd fought him, Oscar couldn't move like he used to. Shane wasn't what he used to be even at 154. Floyd has NEVER fought a bigger guy who could box and move around him at the time he fought them. The guys who were bigger stood right in front of him. Norris will not stand and wait and be intimidated.

1. I brought them up as other examples of fighters that were supposed to be stronger than Floyd and were not when they fought.

2. I was talking about physical strength, not talent or weight class.

3. He punches much harder than Floyd, again you're making a point against something that wasn't said.

4. I know

5. I picked Norris to win the fight, who are you trying to convince?

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Yes i understand that, I'm a personal trainer by trade so fully understand that a bench press is only one pointer and not the be all and end all of gauging strength.

But.....the bench press stats aren't the only indication that Norris was physically stronger than Floyd. That he was basically a career jnr-middle is another, and that we saw in many of his fights him being able to physically push people back to make room for his combinations is another. Clearly the evidence is there to see just how strong a fighter Norris was.

Norris was well know for being physically strong, its not something that Floyd is renowned for. Now while i don't doubt that Floyd is stronger than many would think, i don't think he's anywhere near as strong as Terry Norris was during his prime years. There is certainly NO indication that Floyd would have been the stronger man.

Floyd isn't renowned for his strength, probably because he is a defensive fighter without a ton of power and fight fans equate knock outs to strength. I've had many arguments where I am completely shit on for saying Holyfield was stronger than Tyson. Mayweather is much stronger than he is given credit for and misconceptions run wild among Boxing fans. How many people do you think stormed to the front page for evidence that Norris was much bigger than Mayweather so they could come back here and call me a moron? Like I said before, to LoadedGloves outrage, all of those other fighters I listed were supposed to be stronger than Mayweather. Shane can bench press an eighteen wheeler, but he wasn't stronger than Floyd in tight.

I never said Mayweather was stronger, I said I didn't know that Norris was. And again, if Terry is stronger, it isn't a landslide and I don't see how he intends to use it to some overwhelming advantage. Floyd is a better in-fighter than Norris, no doubt about that. Terry wins the fight with activity from mid-range to outside. His bench press prowess is highly irrelevant.

In all fairness anyone with a brain knows a high Ko % doesn't necessarily mean a fighter is physically strong. And likewise a low KO % doesn't necessarily mean a fighter isn't physically strong.

As i've already said while a big bench press on its own doesn't prove that Norris was stronger than Floyd, but when added to the other factors at play its fair to suppose he was indeed stronger than Floyd at 154. I base my thinking on several factors, not just Norris's bench press.

Dunno why you're getting so antsy about this minor side issue.

I'm not antsy about anything. Why in the world would you think you're making me nervous?

[lurkyshaka]

Floyd isn't renowned for his strength, probably because he is a defensive fighter without a ton of power and fight fans equate knock outs to strength. I've had many arguments where I am completely shit on for saying Holyfield was stronger than Tyson. Mayweather is much stronger than he is given credit for and misconceptions run wild among Boxing fans. How many people do you think stormed to the front page for evidence that Norris was much bigger than Mayweather so they could come back here and call me a moron? Like I said before, to LoadedGloves outrage, all of those other fighters I listed were supposed to be stronger than Mayweather. Shane can bench press an eighteen wheeler, but he wasn't stronger than Floyd in tight.

I never said Mayweather was stronger, I said I didn't know that Norris was. And again, if Terry is stronger, it isn't a landslide and I don't see how he intends to use it to some overwhelming advantage. Floyd is a better in-fighter than Norris, no doubt about that. Terry wins the fight with activity from mid-range to outside. His bench press prowess is highly irrelevant.

In all fairness anyone with a brain knows a high Ko % doesn't necessarily mean a fighter is physically strong. And likewise a low KO % doesn't necessarily mean a fighter isn't physically strong.

As i've already said while a big bench press on its own doesn't prove that Norris was stronger than Floyd, but when added to the other factors at play its fair to suppose he was indeed stronger than Floyd at 154. I base my thinking on several factors, not just Norris's bench press.

Dunno why you're getting so antsy about this minor side issue.

I'm not antsy about anything. Why in the world would you think you're making me nervous?

Not nervous, i meant impatient.

You spoke about people rushing to call you a moron when i don't think anyone had the intent, it seemed to be a fairly balanced and constructive thread.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

In all fairness anyone with a brain knows a high Ko % doesn't necessarily mean a fighter is physically strong. And likewise a low KO % doesn't necessarily mean a fighter isn't physically strong.

As i've already said while a big bench press on its own doesn't prove that Norris was stronger than Floyd, but when added to the other factors at play its fair to suppose he was indeed stronger than Floyd at 154. I base my thinking on several factors, not just Norris's bench press.

Dunno why you're getting so antsy about this minor side issue.

I'm not antsy about anything. Why in the world would you think you're making me nervous?

Not nervous, i meant impatient.

You spoke about people rushing to call you a moron when i don't think anyone had the intent, it seemed to be a fairly balanced and constructive thread.

You missed the point. It was about misconceptions. Are you telling me that my assertion that Norris didn't have a size advantage didn't drive people to check their statistics on the front page? I'm sure you did it yourself. You can't measure strength in the ring until you see it. Everyone in here is just making an assumption that I'm not willing to make.

[lurkyshaka]

In all fairness anyone with a brain knows a high Ko % doesn't necessarily mean a fighter is physically strong. And likewise a low KO % doesn't necessarily mean a fighter isn't physically strong.

As i've already said while a big bench press on its own doesn't prove that Norris was stronger than Floyd, but when added to the other factors at play its fair to suppose he was indeed stronger than Floyd at 154. I base my thinking on several factors, not just Norris's bench press.

Dunno why you're getting so antsy about this minor side issue.

I'm not antsy about anything. Why in the world would you think you're making me nervous?

Not nervous, i meant impatient.

You spoke about people rushing to call you a moron when i don't think anyone had the intent, it seemed to be a fairly balanced and constructive thread.

You missed the point. It was about misconceptions. Are you telling me that my assertion that Norris didn't have a size advantage didn't drive people to check their statistics on the front page? I'm sure you did it yourself. You can't measure strength in the ring until you see it. Everyone in here is just making an assumption that I'm not willing to make.[/quote]

I can't speak for everyone else. But i myself didn't need to check the stats out, as i knew both Terry and Floyd's stats already. And from a variety of factors i came to the view that Terry would have been the stronger man physically. I didn't base my thinking on any one thing, but a combination of several factors.

Norris was taller but also more compact than Floyd.

He was a career super-welter as opposed to Floyd who obviously came up through the weights.

Terry was well known for strength in the gym, and while that isn't conclusive on its own its another indication.

And lastly from watching most of Terry's career it was clear to witness what a strong fighter he was at 154. He'd often physically shove and push his opposition around to make room to knock lumps out of them with combinations. I never saw Terry Norris physically mauled or outstrengthed, but i watched him manhandle plenty of his opposition.

Now not all seemingly obvious assumptions are true, and its fair enough to question things. Certainly not everything is as it may at first appear. But i think in this particular case its fair to conclude that Terry Norris was physically stronger than Floyd Mayweather after looking at all the evidence available.

[loaded_gloves]

I think people think Norris is stronger because he violently demolished a string of high class men, bouncing them off the floor, most if not all of whom were bigger than Floyd, whilst Floyd himself cannot break down or hurt much smaller men around the 40 year old mark. It makes perfect sense when you think about it.

The horrific things Terry Norris would have done to Ricky Hatton, a 35 yr old Oscar de la Hoya, Marquez, 40 year old Mosley, Ortiz..... it's sickening to even think about. He would have hurt those men.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I think people think Norris is stronger because he violently demolished a string of high class men, bouncing them off the floor, most if not all of whom were bigger than Floyd, whilst Floyd himself cannot break down or hurt much smaller men around the 40 year old mark. It makes perfect sense when you think about it.

The horrific things Terry Norris would have done to Ricky Hatton, a 35 yr old Oscar de la Hoya, Marquez, 40 year old Mosley, Ortiz..... it's sickening to even think about. He would have hurt those men.

Punching power and physical strength are two different things.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

In all fairness anyone with a brain knows a high Ko % doesn't necessarily mean a fighter is physically strong. And likewise a low KO % doesn't necessarily mean a fighter isn't physically strong.

As i've already said while a big bench press on its own doesn't prove that Norris was stronger than Floyd, but when added to the other factors at play its fair to suppose he was indeed stronger than Floyd at 154. I base my thinking on several factors, not just Norris's bench press.

Dunno why you're getting so antsy about this minor side issue.

I'm not antsy about anything. Why in the world would you think you're making me nervous?

Not nervous, i meant impatient.

You spoke about people rushing to call you a moron when i don't think anyone had the intent, it seemed to be a fairly balanced and constructive thread.

You missed the point. It was about misconceptions. Are you telling me that my assertion that Norris didn't have a size advantage didn't drive people to check their statistics on the front page? I'm sure you did it yourself. You can't measure strength in the ring until you see it. Everyone in here is just making an assumption that I'm not willing to make.[/quote]

I can't speak for everyone else. But i myself didn't need to check the stats out, as i knew both Terry and Floyd's stats already. And from a variety of factors i came to the view that Terry would have been the stronger man physically. I didn't base my thinking on any one thing, but a combination of several factors.

Norris was taller but also more compact than Floyd.

He was a career super-welter as opposed to Floyd who obviously came up through the weights.

Terry was well known for strength in the gym, and while that isn't conclusive on its own its another indication.

And lastly from watching most of Terry's career it was clear to witness what a strong fighter he was at 154. He'd often physically shove and push his opposition around to make room to knock lumps out of them with combinations. I never saw Terry Norris physically mauled or outstrengthed, but i watched him manhandle plenty of his opposition.

Now not all seemingly obvious assumptions are true, and its fair enough to question things. Certainly not everything is as it may at first appear. But i think in this particular case its fair to conclude that Terry Norris was physically stronger than Floyd Mayweather after looking at all the evidence available.[/quote]


You can conclude anything you like, I wouldn't know that Norris was stronger than Floyd until I saw it. If he set out to prove he was, Mayweather's chances would dramatically improve.

[IKSRTFO]

I think people think Norris is stronger because he violently demolished a string of high class men, bouncing them off the floor, most if not all of whom were bigger than Floyd, whilst Floyd himself cannot break down or hurt much smaller men around the 40 year old mark. It makes perfect sense when you think about it.

The horrific things Terry Norris would have done to Ricky Hatton, a 35 yr old Oscar de la Hoya, Marquez, 40 year old Mosley, Ortiz..... it's sickening to even think about. He would have hurt those men.

Punching power and physical strength are two different things.

"violently demolished" does not mean Norris wrestled with them and used his physical strength. "Violently demolished" means he beat them up with his punching power.

Norris would violently demolish most if not all of the guys that Mayweather just "beat"

[SaadOffTheDeck]

I think people think Norris is stronger because he violently demolished a string of high class men, bouncing them off the floor, most if not all of whom were bigger than Floyd, whilst Floyd himself cannot break down or hurt much smaller men around the 40 year old mark. It makes perfect sense when you think about it.

The horrific things Terry Norris would have done to Ricky Hatton, a 35 yr old Oscar de la Hoya, Marquez, 40 year old Mosley, Ortiz..... it's sickening to even think about. He would have hurt those men.

Punching power and physical strength are two different things.

"violently demolished" does not mean Norris wrestled with them and used his physical strength. "Violently demolished" means he beat them up with his punching power.

Norris would violently demolish most if not all of the guys that Mayweather just "beat"

You're violently stupid.

[loaded_gloves]

Oh god we've descended into name calling.

Saad, can you name me some deadly punchers who at the same seemed physically weak and frail?

[Ezzard]

Oh god we've descended into name calling.

Saad, can you name me some deadly punchers who at the same seemed physically weak and frail?

It’s all opinion, Loaded. But there are lots of very strong men who weren’t the hardest punchers. Steve Collins immediately comes to mind.

As for big bangers who weren’t obviously strong (weak and frail is a bit of a stretch as these are pro athletes after all)… What about say Satterfield? Julian Jackson? Hearns at 160?

[loaded_gloves]

But Hearns was a welterweight! He was very powerful down there. I cannot believe anyone would consider Julian Jackson lacking in physical strength. The guy was a brute.

I totally agree there's lot of very strong men who lack the execution to be big punchers, but I can't think of the reverse. Surely a prerequisite to being a big hitter would be possessing physical strength.

[Diamond WEAPON]

But Hearns was a welterweight! He was very powerful down there. I cannot believe anyone would consider Julian Jackson lacking in physical strength. The guy was a brute.

I totally agree there's lot of very strong men who lack the execution to be big punchers, but I can't think of the reverse. Surely a prerequisite to being a big hitter would be possessing physical strength.

Zab Judah is a big hitter who gets outmuscled quite regularly, but regardless of that the ooint isn't that there are "weak" big punchers, it's about relativity, sometimes guys that have a lot of pop on their shots really aren't that strong when it comes to dealing with an opponent's body weight in comparison to lighter punchers.

Hearns was most definitely a bigger puncher than Hagler but everyone and their mother knows Hagler is one of the physically strongest Middleweights of all time, he was a short stack of forged steel.

[Ezzard]

But Hearns was a welterweight! He was very powerful down there. I cannot believe anyone would consider Julian Jackson lacking in physical strength. The guy was a brute.

I totally agree there's lot of very strong men who lack the execution to be big punchers, but I can't think of the reverse. Surely a prerequisite to being a big hitter would be possessing physical strength.

I’m not sure I agree. Strength and punch power may have some relation but it’s not a done deal.

[IKSRTFO]

Oh god we've descended into name calling.

Saad, can you name me some deadly punchers who at the same seemed physically weak and frail?

It’s all opinion, Loaded. But there are lots of very strong men who weren’t the hardest punchers. Steve Collins immediately comes to mind.

As for big bangers who weren’t obviously strong (weak and frail is a bit of a stretch as these are pro athletes after all)… What about say Satterfield? Julian Jackson? Hearns at 160?

Problem with that comparision was that Norris COULD bang. He was't weak in terms of strength and he wasn't weak in terms of punching power neither. That is the point. It doesn't matter that physical strength and punching power are not the same in Norris case because he WAS BOTH.

[palooka]

Oh god we've descended into name calling.

Saad, can you name me some deadly punchers who at the same seemed physically weak and frail?

Carlos Zarate, Jaime Garza, Peter Culshaw (at a lower level), Alexis Arguello, Danny Lopez?

Many of yhe posters on this thread know more about boxing than me but anyone who thinks that Terry Norris couldn't punch extremely hard and wasn't very, very strong just have not seen him box. He was downright explosive and had a real mean streak. He was in the top 5 pound for pound at his peak and that takes some doing.

[IKSRTFO]

Oh god we've descended into name calling.

Saad, can you name me some deadly punchers who at the same seemed physically weak and frail?

I personally don't think Corrales was that physically strong. He proabaly couldn't bench press 180 yet he could crack at his weight. I also don't think Margarito was that physically strong because Mosley and Cotto, two smaller fighters had no problem pushing him around.

[palooka]

There would be 5 or 10 ranked welters physically stronger than Randall Bailey but non to match his punch power.