Emile Griffith or Ray Leonard: Who was the best welter?

KO Artist · Post by **KO Artist** » 06 Dec 2007, 19:35

Diamond WEAPON wrote:Aight, I finally copped the Feb. issue of The Ring, here's their list of the top 20 Greatest Welterweights of all time:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Kid Gavilan
4. Charlie Burley
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Carmen Basilio
7. Jose Napoles
8. Tommy Ryan
9. Joe Walcott
10. Emile Griffith
11. Tommy Hearns
12. Mickey Walker
13. Jack Britton
14. Ted "Kid" Lewis
15. Barney Ross
16. Jimmy McLarnin
17. Luis Rodriguez
18. Billy Graham
19. Pernell Whitaker
20. Roberto Duran

Future Candidates mentioned (in order of importance given in article):
Shane Mosley (Already In Contention)
Oscar De La Hoya (Already In Contention)
Felix Trinidad
Ike Quartey
Kassim Ouma
Floyd Mayweather
Miguel Cotto
Ricky Hatton
Paul Williams
Kermit Cintron
Andre Berto

No CUEVAS????

Diamond WEAPON · Post by **Diamond WEAPON** » 06 Dec 2007, 20:48

KO Artist wrote:
Diamond WEAPON wrote:Aight, I finally copped the Feb. issue of The Ring, here's their list of the top 20 Greatest Welterweights of all time:

1. Sugar Ray Robinson
2. Henry Armstrong
3. Kid Gavilan
4. Charlie Burley
5. Sugar Ray Leonard
6. Carmen Basilio
7. Jose Napoles
8. Tommy Ryan
9. Joe Walcott
10. Emile Griffith
11. Tommy Hearns
12. Mickey Walker
13. Jack Britton
14. Ted "Kid" Lewis
15. Barney Ross
16. Jimmy McLarnin
17. Luis Rodriguez
18. Billy Graham
19. Pernell Whitaker
20. Roberto Duran

Future Candidates mentioned (in order of importance given in article):
Shane Mosley (Already In Contention)
Oscar De La Hoya (Already In Contention)
Felix Trinidad
Ike Quartey
Kassim Ouma
Floyd Mayweather
Miguel Cotto
Ricky Hatton
Paul Williams
Kermit Cintron
Andre Berto
No CUEVAS????

Well considering Duran was at 20, nope...

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 07 Dec 2007, 02:44

Why is Whitaker listed?

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 07 Dec 2007, 03:13

The Ring is losing it...How can Roberto Duran is ranked at #20 in the welterweight rankings? He only had 8 fights there and lost only once, but still did not do enough to be considered a welterweight great. I put Oscar DeLaHoya or Felix "Tito" Trinidad on top of Duran at this weight class any time.

What is wrong with The Ring Magazine???

Diamond WEAPON · Post by **Diamond WEAPON** » 07 Dec 2007, 05:10

elmersalsa wrote:The Ring is losing it...How can Roberto Duran is ranked at #20 in the welterweight rankings? He only had 8 fights there and lost only once, but still did not do enough to be considered a welterweight great. I put Oscar DeLaHoya or Felix "Tito" Trinidad on top of Duran at this weight class any time.

What is wrong with The Ring Magazine???

De La Hoya and Trinidad weren't eligible, retired fighters only...

Duran was on the list because of how strong he performed at 147, including his beating of Leonard in their first fight. The Ring even acknowledged that although a Prime-Welterweight Duran could probably beat most of the others on the list that he's relegated to 20th based on having only 8 fights there and quitting against Leonard in the second fight.

Whitaker is on the list because he beat a number of good fighters at Welterweight and remained on top even post-prime and giving young hotshot De La Hoya a lot of problems even in defeat

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 07 Dec 2007, 10:10

Elton John wrote:^Really? He didn't seem to have any problem with your #1 choice.

Well, he never fought my #1 choice, Robinson. Norris never won a fight at welterweight. Obviously you want to continue pretending that Leonard was in his prime when he fought Norris. However, the fight was at Jr. Middleweight, not welterweight. Therefore it has no relevance when ranking welterweights.

dempseyfire · Post by **dempseyfire** » 07 Dec 2007, 12:12

elmersalsa wrote:The Ring is losing it...How can Roberto Duran is ranked at #20 in the welterweight rankings? He only had 8 fights there and lost only once, but still did not do enough to be considered a welterweight great. I put Oscar DeLaHoya or Felix "Tito" Trinidad on top of Duran at this weight class any time.

What is wrong with The Ring Magazine???

Trinidad??

So beating Carr and a shot Whitaker, plus getting a gift vs Oscar, is better than beating Ray Leonard and Palomino?? I don't think so.

Ditto with Oscar, although if you correctly count the Trinidad fight as an Oscar win you have an argument to rank him over Duran at Welter.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 07 Dec 2007, 19:17

Ambling Alp wrote:
Elton John wrote:^Really? He didn't seem to have any problem with your #1 choice.
Well, he never fought my #1 choice, Robinson. Norris never won a fight at welterweight. Obviously you want to continue pretending that Leonard was in his prime when he fought Norris. However, the fight was at Jr. Middleweight, not welterweight. Therefore it has no relevance when ranking welterweights.

Who's pretending? I seem to recall Leonard being a sizable favorite to win and was whipped badly enough to retire him. I didn't hear cries of foul until AFTER the fight was over.

Norris is the best welter since the days of Pipino Cuevas and the best super welter since Hitman Hearns. His improvement from fight to fight was astounding. I never saw the same level of improvement coming from leonard.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 08 Dec 2007, 12:54

Norris is the best welterweight since the days of Cuevas? That is an interesting opinion given Norris never won a fight as a welterweight.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 08 Dec 2007, 21:02

Ambling Alp wrote:Norris is the best welterweight since the days of Cuevas? That is an interesting opinion given Norris never won a fight as a welterweight.

You've got some pretty interesting takes yourself like Norris not thinking himself capable of beating a man with all of two fights at 154 when Terry set the record for defenses and gave your man a complete whipping.

A more humiliating defeat there could not be and that six year retirement proves it.

But you think Ray on his best day would somehow stand a better chance and have even told me about a Ray Leonard knockout victory without considering there is not significant win at 154. There's no telling what a man might say when he's got no money on the line and knowing there's no possible chance for a rematch.

Not that Leonard would actually look for a rematch with his tormentor. He wasn't capable of giving rematches to Duran, Hearns, or Hagler. Who knows why. Perhaps fear? But that is a mystery for another time.

Could Ray Leonard ever knockout a man the caliber of Terry Norris? Possibly but I quite doubt it. If ten fights took place between the two he could not knock out the young speedster. In fact, it is leonard who would likely become victim to a knockout after his earlier ordeal. Remember that Leonard was favored over Norris, 4-1 I believe. He should have won.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 11 Dec 2007, 01:45

dempseyfire wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:The Ring is losing it...How can Roberto Duran is ranked at #20 in the welterweight rankings? He only had 8 fights there and lost only once, but still did not do enough to be considered a welterweight great. I put Oscar DeLaHoya or Felix "Tito" Trinidad on top of Duran at this weight class any time.

What is wrong with The Ring Magazine???
Trinidad??

So beating Carr and a shot Whitaker, plus getting a gift vs Oscar, is better than beating Ray Leonard and Palomino?? I don't think so.

Ditto with Oscar, although if you correctly count the Trinidad fight as an Oscar win you have an argument to rank him over Duran at Welter.

Felix "Tito" Trinidad had 15 title defenses of the IBF welter crown and won 16 title fights at 147. Had more longevity at 147lbs than Duran and had a better record than Duran at 147lbs. I do not see Tito as a top 10 all-time welterweight, but I do see him in the 15 to 20 welter list range. Heck, even Pipino Cuevas to me should be ranked above Duran at 147lbs.

Duran? No question #1 at lightweight.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 11 Dec 2007, 02:14

I'll challenge it. Pernell Whitaker would've beaten him at Lightweight, IMO. There is also Benny Leonard who goes under consideration for the number one spot.

Duran was a superb fighter & I certainly am not outraged by anyone having him at #1 in this weightclass, but ultimately he is overrated by the general boxing public. He should not be considered unquestionably #1, because it falsely implies he is head & shoulders above the rest. He isn't.

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 11 Dec 2007, 02:35

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I'll challenge it. Pernell Whitaker would've beaten him at Lightweight, IMO. There is also Benny Leonard who goes under consideration for the number one spot.

Duran was a superb fighter & I certainly am not outraged by anyone having him at #1 in this weightclass, but ultimately he is overrated by the general boxing public. He should not be considered unquestionably #1, because it falsely implies he is head & shoulders above the rest. He isn't.

NOBODY IS HEAD AND SHOULDERS OVER EVERYBODY ELSE, MY FRIEND...Neither Sugar Ray Robinson

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 11 Dec 2007, 06:01

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I'll challenge it. Pernell Whitaker would've beaten him at Lightweight, IMO. There is also Benny Leonard who goes under consideration for the number one spot.

Duran was a superb fighter & I certainly am not outraged by anyone having him at #1 in this weightclass, but ultimately he is overrated by the general boxing public. He should not be considered unquestionably #1, because it falsely implies he is head & shoulders above the rest. He isn't.

This is what i was trying to get at in my Tiers thread. If you want to say Whittaker was the top LW ever then I can disagree but can also see why you'd pcik him. It's a fair argument IMO for him to be #1.

Goodnight, Irene · Post by **Goodnight, Irene** » 11 Dec 2007, 06:53

I think the tier policy is a good one, you are on the right track in that it eliminates a lot of bickering amongst the top fighters in a given weightclass.

dagosd2000 · Post by **dagosd2000** » 12 Dec 2007, 02:35

elmersalsa wrote:The Ring is losing it...How can Roberto Duran is ranked at #20 in the welterweight rankings? He only had 8 fights there and lost only once, but still did not do enough to be considered a welterweight great. I put Oscar DeLaHoya or Felix "Tito" Trinidad on top of Duran at this weight class any time.

What is wrong with The Ring Magazine???

Interesting,that comment about Ring Magazine. When Nat Fleischer was the editor, here are some of his top rankings in each division(1972)
Heavies:Fitzsimmons#3,Corbett#5,Louis#6
Light Heavies:McCoy#1,O'Brien#2,no Archie Moore
Middles:Ryan#2,Robinson#5
Welters:Mysterious Billy Smith#2,Armstrong#8,no Sugar Ray
Feathers:Driscoll#2,Pep#4
Bantams:Dixon#1,Herman#2,Jofre#4

Fleischer didn't think the modern day fighter was of the quality of the turn of the century fighter.

Ezzard · Post by **Ezzard** » 12 Dec 2007, 05:34

dagosd2000 wrote:
elmersalsa wrote:The Ring is losing it...How can Roberto Duran is ranked at #20 in the welterweight rankings? He only had 8 fights there and lost only once, but still did not do enough to be considered a welterweight great. I put Oscar DeLaHoya or Felix "Tito" Trinidad on top of Duran at this weight class any time.

What is wrong with The Ring Magazine???
Interesting,that comment about Ring Magazine. When Nat Fleischer was the editor, here are some of his top rankings in each division(1972)
Heavies:Fitzsimmons#3,Corbett#5,Louis#6
Light Heavies:McCoy#1,O'Brien#2,no Archie Moore
Middles:Ryan#2,Robinson#5
Welters:Mysterious Billy Smith#2,Armstrong#8,no Sugar Ray
Feathers:Driscoll#2,Pep#4
Bantams:Dixon#1,Herman#2,Jofre#4

Fleischer didn't think the modern day fighter was of the quality of the turn of the century fighter.

Everyone favours fighters from the era of their youth (to some extent). Fleischer was flawed as an analyst (but who isn't?) but he devoted his life to boxing. There must be something in what he says, and he saw more of these guys than us.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 14 Dec 2007, 11:55

Elton John wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:Norris is the best welterweight since the days of Cuevas? That is an interesting opinion given Norris never won a fight as a welterweight.
You've got some pretty interesting takes yourself like Norris not thinking himself capable of beating a man with all of two fights at 154 when Terry set the record for defenses and gave your man a complete whipping.

A more humiliating defeat there could not be and that six year retirement proves it.

But you think Ray on his best day would somehow stand a better chance and have even told me about a Ray Leonard knockout victory without considering there is not significant win at 154. There's no telling what a man might say when he's got no money on the line and knowing there's no possible chance for a rematch.

Not that Leonard would actually look for a rematch with his tormentor. He wasn't capable of giving rematches to Duran, Hearns, or Hagler. Who knows why. Perhaps fear? But that is a mystery for another time.

Could Ray Leonard ever knockout a man the caliber of Terry Norris? Possibly but I quite doubt it. If ten fights took place between the two he could not knock out the young speedster. In fact, it is leonard who would likely become victim to a knockout after his earlier ordeal. Remember that Leonard was favored over Norris, 4-1 I believe. He should have won.

-First of all, Leonard had more than 2 fights at Jr Middleweight. He had 6 wins over Jr Middleweights in his career. He also had two wins at middleweight (including Marvin Hagler) and one at super middleweight. Leonard certainly could fight above welterweight and proved it.

-You really think Leonard feared anyone close to his own weight class?
That doesn't make any sense. Leonard beat Duran, Hearns, and Hagler. He isn't going to fear someone he has already beat.

-There couldn't be a more humilating whipping? Norris couldn't even stop a past his best Leonard. You seriously can't think of a fight in the history of boxing that was more one-sided?
The great Terry Norris lost 9 fights in his career. This inludes losses to legends such as Laurent Boudouni,Keith Mullings, Dana Rosenblatt, and Derrick Kelly at the age of 30 and 31.
Boudouni and Mullings even knocked Norris out. You don't think that is is more embarrassing than a 34 year old Leonard losing a decison?

-So yes, a prime Leonard would have beaten Terry Norris.
If you really think Leonard was in his prime at the age of almost 35, (without a fight in 14 months) why didn't Norris fight anyone after the age of 31? Did the thought ever occur to you that Norris was washed up?

-I don't understand your obsession with the odds of the Leonard-Norris fight. Oddsmakers make odds on public perception, not on what is most likely to happen. Leonard was obviously much more known than Norris. It's not strange at all for him to be favored. That Leonard was favored has nothing to do with he was still close to his prime or not.

There have been countless times when an older fighter well past his prime was favored and lost. It's doesn't mean that the older fighter would have lost to this fighter in his prime. For example, Larry Holmes lost to Michael Spinks. Holmes was favored to win. Just because he was favored to win doesn't mean that Holmes was still in his prime when he lost. Do you really believe that a prime Larry Holmes would have lost to Michael Spinks?

-Once again, how do you rank a guy (Norris) that never won a fight at welterweight one of the top welterweights of All-Time? That makes absolutely no sense. Is Joe Louis one of the best lightheavyweights?

-Finally, can you really not see the difference in Leonard in the Norris fight and Leonard's fights in his prime ? You really can't see that Leonard was much faster, harder to hit, and had better reflexes than he did when he fought Terry Norris?

You yourself refer to Norris as the "young speedster". You are showing that you do realize that youth has it's advantages. Norris was 23, Leonard was 34 and hadn't been fighting regularly. That is a huge advantage. Norris wasn't a speedster later in his career. Leonard wasn't either. Leonard was 3 years older when he fought Norris than Norris was when he lost three fights in a row to not-so-great opponents. Time catches up to everyone.

I doubt that you will do this (since you haven't in the past) but it would be nice if you would have the decency to actually answer my questions instead of ignoring most of them.

dr_devious · Post by **dr_devious** » 14 Dec 2007, 16:11

Ambling Alp wrote:
Elton John wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:
The great Terry Norris lost 9 fights in his career. This inludes losses to legends such as Laurent Boudouni,Keith Mullings, Dana Rosenblatt, and Derrick Kelly at the age of 30 and 31.
Boudouni and Mullings even knocked Norris out. You don't think that is is more embarrassing than a 34 year old Leonard losing a decison?.

Alp, whilst I agree with your assertion about Leonard being well past his prime when he lost to Norris, and that the peak Leonard would beat Norris, surely the same argument applies to Norris losing to guys like Rosenblatt

BO Selecta · Post by **BO Selecta** » 14 Dec 2007, 16:39

Sugar Ray would have run rings around Griffith.

Griffith was a superb weltwerweight, but SRL's speed would have been too much.

As Duran proved, if you could draw SRL into a slugfest, you have a chance, but Griffith is not in the same league as Duran p4p, even though he is actually a greater welterweight by virtue of the fact that his is naturally bigger.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 15 Dec 2007, 01:49

Ambling Alp wrote: -First of all, Leonard had more than 2 fights at Jr Middleweight. He had 6 wins over Jr Middleweights in his career. He also had two wins at middleweight (including Marvin Hagler) and one at super middleweight. Leonard certainly could fight above welterweight and proved it.

-You really think Leonard feared anyone close to his own weight class?
That doesn't make any sense. Leonard beat Duran, Hearns, and Hagler. He isn't going to fear someone he has already beat.

-There couldn't be a more humilating whipping? Norris couldn't even stop a past his best Leonard. You seriously can't think of a fight in the history of boxing that was more one-sided?
The great Terry Norris lost 9 fights in his career. This inludes losses to legends such as Laurent Boudouni,Keith Mullings, Dana Rosenblatt, and Derrick Kelly at the age of 30 and 31.
Boudouni and Mullings even knocked Norris out. You don't think that is is more embarrassing than a 34 year old Leonard losing a decison?

-So yes, a prime Leonard would have beaten Terry Norris.
If you really think Leonard was in his prime at the age of almost 35, (without a fight in 14 months) why didn't Norris fight anyone after the age of 31? Did the thought ever occur to you that Norris was washed up?

-I don't understand your obsession with the odds of the Leonard-Norris fight. Oddsmakers make odds on public perception, not on what is most likely to happen. Leonard was obviously much more known than Norris. It's not strange at all for him to be favored. That Leonard was favored has nothing to do with he was still close to his prime or not.

There have been countless times when an older fighter well past his prime was favored and lost. It's doesn't mean that the older fighter would have lost to this fighter in his prime. For example, Larry Holmes lost to Michael Spinks. Holmes was favored to win. Just because he was favored to win doesn't mean that Holmes was still in his prime when he lost. Do you really believe that a prime Larry Holmes would have lost to Michael Spinks?

-Once again, how do you rank a guy (Norris) that never won a fight at welterweight one of the top welterweights of All-Time? That makes absolutely no sense. Is Joe Louis one of the best lightheavyweights?

-Finally, can you really not see the difference in Leonard in the Norris fight and Leonard's fights in his prime ? You really can't see that Leonard was much faster, harder to hit, and had better reflexes than he did when he fought Terry Norris?

You yourself refer to Norris as the "young speedster". You are showing that you do realize that youth has it's advantages. Norris was 23, Leonard was 34 and hadn't been fighting regularly. That is a huge advantage. Norris wasn't a speedster later in his career. Leonard wasn't either. Leonard was 3 years older when he fought Norris than Norris was when he lost three fights in a row to not-so-great opponents. Time catches up to everyone.

All I know is that Terry kicked his ass so Terry gets bragging rights for all time. Leonard can never say he even got a close decision.

I saw that bitch on youtube bragging "What i did to Hagler has never been done in the sport of boxing. Here was this huge underdog (me) and no one gave me a chance of winning" Etc. etc.

All he did was get a gift decision over a once great but now shot, ready to head out to pasture champion still holding onto one of the three belts he USED TO HAVE and never took another fight again he was so damned beat up it couldn't be more obvious.

But just the same he loves talking about it probably as much as his 9 second win over Danny Bonaduchebag in an LA studio.

A pity he doesn't have as much to say about another underdog Norris who played ping pong with his head. A younger Ray might do a little better than a 34 year old version but he's not beating Norris no way-no how-not on his best night either.

i watched Ray whip kalule. So what? I watched him beat Geraldo too. So what? he was supposed to win. But he wasn't supposed to get hurt the way he did 3 times in round three. How could I be impressed?

In fact, every single time I watched Ray at 154, I failed to be impressed.

Kevin Howard? Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit. You know what Terry Norris would have done with 27 yr old Leonard? Ain't nothing changed but the dates on the calender.

So I only count 4 fights at 154 and he fucked up in one of them. So what do you mean he couldn't EVEN knock out Leonard? You must have your head on backwards! Leonard couldn't even knock out a 3-1 underdog the way everyone kept saying he would!!!! Not only that but he didn't belong in the ring with Terry. How about that?

Not too bright are you fella?

Let's face it amigo, his best career performance was with hagler in 87. Too bad it was against a shell. His next best win was his 9 second knockout over that wino bonaducci.

But prime Hagler was the fight he didn't want to take. He wasted five years out of fear and he'll never live it down. Hagler tried his best to lure him in, practically telling him he'd take it easy exhibition style. But not the kind of exhibition Ray puts on, pouring it on full blast against the average man on the street.

Leonard been saying he wanted Hagler since 81 but I could smell the fear on him. It's like the slower Hagler walked away from him, the slower leonard chased him.

Hagler asked him to his face for a fight and Ray turned his head away too ashamed to say no but too afraid to say yes either. Two weeks after brought marvin along to Baltimore. Took him into the ring and started hyping a fight with marv. That was just before he came to his senses and told everyone it wasn't going to happen. Or at least another five years. What a first rate asshole!

Funny how five years difference can change a man's attitude towards how he feels about his detatched retina. Poor leonard was so afraid Hagler was going to retire, he kept trying to talk him out of it telling him "don't listen to your wife bertha about retiring-screw her. I want to fight you"

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 15 Dec 2007, 09:36

Thanks for answering all of my questions. It's also impressive that despite the fact that you don't like Leonard, you can be completely objective about his career.

Elton John · Post by **Elton John** » 15 Dec 2007, 12:05

Ambling Alp wrote:Thanks for answering all of my questions. It's also impressive that despite the fact that you don't like Leonard, you can be completely objective about his career.

I am being objective. But I don't see you doing the same.

Half the time you don't even know what you're talking about. Then someone like me comes along and points it out to you.

like the time you were telling me that Norris himself couldn't possibly think he could beat a "prime" Ray even tho all he did was beat up some one named Kalule who was a half step below another fighter with ten fights (Davey Moore). You must be confusing Norris with Danny Bonaducci.

Then you recently came back for more and told me Norris should hang his head because he didn't stop Ray leonard. Was Norris the 3-1 favorite?

No, Leonard was. Therefore, Leonard is the one who should hang his head in shame for even failing to get some kind of win like he was supposed to. You see? I'm the one who's thinking straight. You're the one who's in need of constant supervision.

Norris may or may not have been able to beat tommy Hearns, 145 pound version but he'd have little problem beating the likes of Benitez or the out of shape Duran who dropped 40 pounds in NO MAS. Duran wasn't even in fighting shape! Read Randy Gordon's article on no mas. Plug in the keywords and you'll pull it up. educate yourself for once.

Norris faced the better fighters because most of leonard's big name opponents were hampered by old age, were weight drained or not properly conditioned. That leaves his last big name opponent Norris and he straight up embarrassed himself.

Norris failed in one big fight but only once because Jackson was too strong and too good a fighter. In 1989 no one could take him until a few years later when he began to slow down and his fights were getting closer. Then the G-man finally beat the crap out of him in the ultimate show of glory.

Your problem is that Norris has more losses than Ray. What you overlook is that he also has more fights and had more often. Ray got to carefully pick who he wanted at the time he wanted. Most fighter don't.

Even Oscar had more pride than Ray. He'd only take a fight with them if they looked good. Ray would take a fight with them if they looked bad.

He took the fights for the most money while at the same time took the least amount of risk. Whereas Terry would fight anyone anywhere so he faded faster. And that answers your question.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 17 Dec 2007, 09:53

Umm, no you haven't answered my questions and you know it.

Ambling Alp · Post by **Ambling Alp** » 17 Dec 2007, 10:02

dr_devious wrote:
Ambling Alp wrote:
Elton John wrote: Alp, whilst I agree with your assertion about Leonard being well past his prime when he lost to Norris, and that the peak Leonard would beat Norris, surely the same argument applies to Norris losing to guys like Rosenblatt

Yes I do agree that Norris was past his best when he lost to Rosenblatt and others at the end of his career.
My point is that Elton John has no problem with the ridiculaus notion that Leonard was in his prime at the age of 34 (when he fought Norris) but ignores the fact that Norris was younger than Leonard when he lost 3 fights in a row.

He hates Leonard so much that he ignores simple facts like this. You can't have it both ways.