BoxRec

Ambling Alp wrote:Umm, no you haven't answered my questions and you know it.

yes I have. The fact that you can't read is your problem.

Boy you are a nice person. Insulting people on the internet is so impressive. Yes, I can read.

You haven't answered my questions. Here they are again. I even numbered them this time for you. Now you can reply to each numbered question individually.
Here are the questions on this thread that I have asked:

1. You said there couldn't be a more humilating whipping (than Norris beating Leonard) 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?

2. 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 more embarrassing than a 34 year old Leonard losing a decison?

3. 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?

4. 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?

5. Once again, how do you rank a guy (Norris) that never won a fight at welterweight one of the top welterweights of All-Time?

6. Is Joe Louis one of the best lightheavyweights?

7. 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?


I look forward to your direct and to the point response to each individual question. No babble. Just a response to question #1, then #2 and so on.

Ambling Alp wrote:Boy you are a nice person. Insulting people on the internet is so impressive. Yes, I can read.

You haven't answered my questions. Here they are again. I even numbered them this time for you. Now you can reply to each numbered question individually.
Here are the questions on this thread that I have asked:

1. You said there couldn't be a more humilating whipping (than Norris beating Leonard) 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?

2. 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 more embarrassing than a 34 year old Leonard losing a decison?

3. 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?

4. 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?

5. Once again, how do you rank a guy (Norris) that never won a fight at welterweight one of the top welterweights of All-Time?

6. Is Joe Louis one of the best lightheavyweights?

7. 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?


I look forward to your direct and to the point response to each individual question. No babble. Just a response to question #1, then #2 and so on.

Alright wise guy. Since you're so hung up on the issue of age let me ask you this question: Why was leonard losing to Norris at age 34 when Bernard Hopkins was winning one title fight after another at age 36 and winning the biggest fight of his career?

And also, why was it that Dick Tiger was winning his second world title at age 37? Shouldn't leonard have at least won a decision over a 3-1 underdog at age 34?

Why was it that Archie Moore had some of his best title defenses at age 43 while leonard was sturggling with a 3-1 underdog?

how is it that these three were still winning world titles at such an advanced age while leonard was forced into retirement at age 34 from a 3-1 underdog? Did I mention Terry Norris was a 3-1 underdog??????


Yes, sometimes the underdog does win a close one-though hardly in the manner leonard suffered humilation. Holmes-Spinks, Hagler-Leonard, and I'm sure a few others though it's rare. you mentioned these cases are dime a dozen but checking the record, I know this has seldom been the case.

Why don't you name a few for me?

Funny why you didn't include Marvin Hagler as favored over Leonard in the example you used. Instead you used Larry Holmes v. Spinks though I am confident that Micheal had more against him than Ray Leonard, having to come up a full 25 pounds.

Now that I'm at it I should ask you why didn't you use Hagler-leonard as your example? He was a 3-1 favorite which is the reason why Leonard's "win" was so special.


And finally, to answer your first question:
any sane and logical person would never dream of asking why Norris would fail to knock out the favorite as though he had something to be ashmed of. Funny how you keep turning this sort backwards. And i mentioned it previously which is why I don't understand why you once more brought it up.

The fact is, all the shame belongs to leonard for daring to bite off more than he could chew and the fact that he could do nothing with Norris speaks volumes of his limitations and frailties.

This is a resounding truth to all except those who dare not admit it openly. like yourself. The problem is that you're thinking with your heart Alp and not your head and that's what seperates myself from you. You're simply deluded.

You say leonard was past his prime. I say to you: he was winning wasn't he? Leonard still resembled the same fighter in his previous match running with his thumb up his ass like some rabbit- for an entire 12 rounds. If he can run for 12 rounds, how can he be past his prime? I don't understand why you can't see this for yourself.

Last of all, the issue of one sided fights. yes I do seem to recall Dempsey-Willard but you have to go back before the start of the 1920's.

Elton John wrote:And that concludes our lesson for the day.

Reggie, the first sentence of your sermon above was enough to convince me that you know as much about boxing as crankberry.

I didn't bother reading the rest.

Elton John wrote:And that concludes our lesson for the day.

Hey Elton I always wanted to ask...

Is Saturday night REALLY alright for fightin'?

BoxBuzz wrote:

Elton John wrote:And that concludes our lesson for the day.

Hey Elton I always wanted to ask...

Is Saturday night REALLY alright for fightin'?

Don't bother. He's a sellout:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOA6USLxSsw

Broncano wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:

Elton John wrote:And that concludes our lesson for the day.

Hey Elton I always wanted to ask...

Is Saturday night REALLY alright for fightin'?

Don't bother. He's a sellout:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOA6USLxSsw

When you add that lively bit of musicianship to the mix, we now have one of the most entertaining threads ever produced at BOTP. I'm still digesting the idea of SRL defeating SRR. I'm not rejecting it out of hand mind you. I'm just sort of allowing the idea to get stabllized in my grey matter. It has a bit of "gravity defying" aspects to it for my money.

However now that it has been said, it must be pondered, deliberated and processed just as discussions of space aliens, leprachauns and Elvis's continued existence require our review and assessment for possible credibility. I'm going to continue to monitor this thread and learn what I can as this discussion moves forward, that I might pick something up of value along the way.

Ambling Alp wrote:I look forward to your direct and to the point response to each individual question. No babble. Just a response to question #1, then #2 and so on.

What would life be without babbling?

What would life be without babble? Better.

You said to answer your first question- but then you never actually answered it- You can't name a fight in the history that was more one sided than Norris-Leonard? (I asked that since you earlier claimed there wasn't a more one-sided fight than this fight.)

You skipped question #2 entirely.
You skipped question #3 entirely.
You touched on question # 4, but didn't actually answer it.

I didn't mention Hagler-Leonard becasue it wasn't a fight with a fighter past his prime fighting a figher in his prime.

You want a few other examples of a favorite that was a past his prime fighter losing to a prime fighter? Sullivan-Corbett, Johnson-Willard, Dempsey-Tunney, Holyfield-Ruiz.
My point is that what the odds were is irrelevant.

You skipped question#5 entirely.
You skipped question #6 entirely.

You sort of answered #7. Apparently you actually do believe that Leonard was in his prime. After all, a few other fighters won big fights after that age. If Tiger or Hopkins would have lost to a good fighter at that age after a long layoff no one would hold it aginst him. Most people know that a fighter nearing the age of 35 who hasn't fought in 14 months isn't on equal footing as a 23 year old who fights regularly. Age and inactivity is not a good combination.

Apparently you can't tell the difference on film between the 34 old year old Leonard and the Leonard who fought Duran,Benitez, Hearns etc. Wow, you are an expert.

Interesting that you keep saying that Hagler was washed up when Leonard beat him. He was more than 2 years younger than Leonard was when he lost to Leonard. Hagler also had the advantage of fighting someone who had never fought at his weight before, and hadn't fought in 3 years. Loenard didn't have these advantage against Norris.

Interesting that you keep ducking my point that Norris himself washed up at the age of 31.

I made it easy for you. I numbered the questions.
7 questions. 5 completely ignored. 2 touched on but not really answered.


Your obsession with Terry Norris is actually amusing. Lets just ignore the fact that he lost 9 fights, to 8 different opponents and was knocked out by 4 different opponents. He beat a washed up Ray Leonard. (who you have little regard for anyway). You have such high regard for him that you rate him as one of the great welterweights of all time even though he wasn't a welterweight.

The BS comments of Leonard are a different story.
Apparently you would rather babble on incoherently with stupid comments about Leonard and insult anyone who disagrees with you than actually asnwer questions that point out the obvious holes in your arguements. When your ridiculaus claims are challenged you duck the obvious counterpoints because you don't a leg to stand on.

Go ahead, keep babbling. Dedicate your life to making stupid comments about Leonard because you don't like them. It's so impressive.

I know the difference between a 24 year old leonard and a 34 year old leonard-nothing! took that whipping when he had the edge in youth over Duran and again when he had the edge of experience over Norris (a 3-1 underdog) and failed both times.

And this time, it wasn't even close.

Whatever you be telling me, whether it be hagler was not past his prime at the point he had his final bout and holding a wbc belt,, or that Leonard was past his prime when he wasn't, I know this is all contrary to the truth.

Why do you do it? because you're whistling in the dark and we both know it. Keep it up and i'll be glad to continue embarrassing you.

And besides, Leonard did not actually beat hagler. History is full of bad decisions. We all know that. The decision was split and really up in the air. You could flip a coin and it wouldn't matter and that to me is why i don't count it as a real win. I count it as i would Whitaker-Ramirez 1.

I was much more impressed with the win Norris had over leonard, tying him in knots, knocking him to the floor, knocking his tooth out, humiliating him in front of everyone who saw it, and making his fans wish they'd never heard the name sugar Ray leonard or Terry Norris. so painful was the loss they look for any silver lining they can think of like "well why couldn't Norris knock out leonard?"

And the best thing of all is that he actually broke his spirit and sent him into retirement!! :P Thank God for Norris who finally put an end to this joke of a fighter who specialized in fake retirements!

If anyone gets bragging rights over winning a big fight it should be Terry Norris, not Ray Leonard. Norris did everything right in that fight while leonard was a big zero who went home crying.

Talking all big after the Hagler fight and acting like King Kong but look at the difference in a fight that's too hot for him-all because he made a mistake in picking the wrong opponent.

He just collapsed early like a cheap deck of cards. Legends don't do that. What they do is get their asses off the floor like Archie Moore v. Durelle. Like Saad Muhammud v. Lopez, v. Johnson. You just don't find those kind of heroics in a sugar ray leonard fight.

let me tell you something; Ray Leonard thought he was going to take over early and intimidate his young foe. That may have worked against an old man like Hagler who was ready to retire anyway. But it would never work with a young fighter like Norris on the way up.

Nothing could stop him short of Julian Jackson-least of all, someone like Leonard! You could tell by the third round he didn't want it anymore and really should have had his purse witheld for a lack of competitiveness.

I mean if Leonard could hand a legend like Duran a one sided boxing match, why can't he beat a 3-1 underdog??????

I have seen bugger all of Griffith fights. Where can I get some online guys ?
I shall do the youTube thing.

Ambling Alp wrote:

a few other fighters won big fights after that age. If Tiger or Hopkins would have lost to a good fighter at that age after a long layoff no one would hold it aginst him.

But they didn't lose until they met someone very good. This was the problem Leonard faced in Norris and Tiger losing to Foster and Hopkins losing to Roy before winning his title. Of course we all know his chances were much better in a division without Roy Jones in it.

Ambling alp wrote:Interesting that you keep saying that Hagler was washed up when Leonard beat him. He was more than 2 years younger than Leonard was when he lost to Leonard. Hagler also had the advantage of fighting someone who had never fought at his weight before, and hadn't fought in 3 years. Leonard didn't have these advantage against Norris.

I must admit Leonard was the much fresher of the two. Within a handful of fights, he too looked like an old man. Of course, that's because he was fighting Terry Norris, who was ten times the fighter Leonard could ever hope to be. The ease with which he defeated a man having advantages in experience, quality of opposition, and had been fighting at this weight since 1979 (although somewhat sporadically) was amazing.

ambling alp wrote:Interesting that you keep ducking my point that Norris himself washed up at the age of 31.

So? How could Leonard be a washed up fighter at 34 while Hopkins and Moore and Tiger was just blooming as fighters. One thing that went over your head is that activity, not age, led to Norris' downfall. There is little activity in leonard's career. He picked his fights very carefully with the help of some expert management so there is very little wear on him as you have with most fighters the same age.

ambling alp wrote: He beat a washed up Ray Leonard. (who you have little regard for anyway). You have such high regard for him that you rate him as one of the great welterweights of all time even though he wasn't a welterweight.

No that is not what I said. Leonard has some credentials. he has a couple big wins to his credit-Benitez, Hearns, and Duran even though he just scraped by Hearns and was thoroughly outboxed in the first fight, having to rely on a knockout, not skill, to get him throught that ordeal. But it was a lesson that was bound to be repeated by Norris. Leonard had really never faced a man with speed before.

Norris however didn't have this problem at all. Terry shot down champion Mugabi in one then made a mandatory against jaquot who bested Don Curry in battle. Norris easily beat Leonard in their showdown then went on to whip another great, Don Curry in a spirited battle. Much more so than the meager resistance Leonard put up.

But Norris wasn't content to sit on his laurels as Leonard had done in the 80's. He went after bigger game in meldrick Tayor, the man with the fastest hands in the sport-and defeated him thoroughly.

So this proves Terry would have no problems with leonard at any stage of career. What's more, Leonard can never boast that he beat Terry nor gave anyone the impression that he ever could. There's just no proof.

And that answers all your questions.

Elton John wrote:I know the difference between a 24 year old leonard and a 34 year old leonard-nothing!

Then you know nothing about boxing whatsoever. To compare Duran and Norris is absurd.

Wow. I was amazed at some of your last comments:

"Nothing could stop him short of Julian Jackson"- You are wrong. Norris was stopped by Simon Brown, the legendary Keith Mullings, and the great Laurent Boudouani.

"What they do is get their asses off the floor like Archie Moore v. Durelle. Like Saad Muhammud v. Lopez, v. Johnson. You just don't find those kind of heroics in a sugar ray leonard fight."
First of all, Saad Muhammad didn't get knocked down by Lopez. Secondly, Leonard did get knocked down in a couple of fights and came back to win. Once again, you simply don't have your facts straight.

"I know the difference between a 24 year old leonard and a 34 year old leonard-nothing! took that whipping when he had the edge in youth over Duran"
Duran was all of 29 when he fought Leonard the frist two times. Somehow you think Leonard had a big age advantage when he fought Duran who was all of 29 when Duran and Leonard fought the first two times. However, somehow Norris didn't have a advantage when he fought Leonard when Leonard was 34. That makes absolutely no sense.

"Of course, that's because he was fighting Terry Norris, who was ten times the fighter Leonard could ever hope to be."
Absolutely priceless.

No, you still haven't answered many of my questions.

You haven't answered question #1 (regarding if you could come up with a more one-sided fight in the history of boxing that was more one sided than Norris-Leonard. Earlier you claimed there wasn't.)

You haven't answered question #2 (you don't think some of Norris ko losses to ordinary fighters was more embarrassing than Leonard's loss.)

You did answer #3. Why Norris retired at the age of 31 but Leonard was in his prime at the age of 34. Supposedly Norris had to much wear and tear. He 56 fights, was only 31, and supposedly was so fast that you wouldn't think he took much punishment. You would think he would have something left. I don't think your response was strong but at lest you made some sort of response.

You didn't answer question #4. (regarding if you thought holmes was in prime against Spinks. I asked this since Holmes was the favorite and you seem to have an obsession with what the odds were before a fight. Supposedly since Leonard was the favorite, he must of have been in his prime, which of course is ridiculaus.)

You didn't answer #5, which is my favorite. Why do you rate a fighter (Norris) who wasn't a welterweight as one of the best welterweights of all time?

You didn't answer #6. (Is Joe Louis one of the top lightheavyweights? I ask that because it has as much logic as ranking Norris as one of the top welterweights.)

You did answer #7. Can you tell the difference of Leonard when he was younger, fighting Duran,Hearns,Benitez etc and when he fought Norris. You answered that there is no difference between Leonard at the age of 24 and the age of 34?

Anyone can babble on inchorently why they think one fighter was great and another wasn't.
It is much more impressive if you can actually respond (in a clear way) to points that another person makes well. It's also more impressive if you don't keep making the same points over and over that another person has reputed and act as though they hadn't.

It's also very impressive if you can have some objectivity about a fighter that you don't like. For example, I don't like Roberto Duran or Mike Tyson. I will criticize them. However, I recognize that they were great fighters. I try to judge their careers fairly, (ie-claiming they were in their prime in fights that they obviously weren't, or saying that an inferior fighter was 10X better than them. etc.)

And of course it would nice if you don't insult people that you don't agree with.
Myself,Ezzard,The Great John L, Demspeyfire,Boxscribe,Seamus, Boxbuzz,I Feel Fine,Goodnight Irene, Silkov and many others disagree with each other sometimes. Obviously no two people agree about everything. Sometime I agree with someone on one curent thread and disagree with them on another on the same day. We usually don't feel the need to insult each other.

We don't completely ignore the other person's points. Often you can counter their points. At times, you should concede that the other person made a good point. What you shouldn't do is ignore it when someone picks at holes in your case.
For example if one person said Jack Dempsey never beat a good opponent, and another responds that Dempsey beat Fulton,Miske, Brennan, the first person should either concede that Dempsey did beat good fighters, or say why Fulton,Miske, and Brennan weren't good. They shouldn't just keep saying that Dempsey never beat a good opponent without addressing the 2nd person's point.
It just makes your case look weaker and hurts your own credibility when you don't address the other person's points.

There are others who ignore the other guy's points, are completely unobjective toward a fighter they don't like, or insult the other guy. Congratulations. You are in all three groups.

It's more fun to have a healthy, spirited debate than to just babble on without making a clear and fair point , ignore the other persons points, and insult people.

dr_devious wrote:

Elton John wrote:I know the difference between a 24 year old leonard and a 34 year old leonard-nothing!

Then you know nothing about boxing whatsoever. To compare Duran and Norris is absurd.

yeah, you wish! And when did I compare Norris to Duran? What i did was say they both whipped the man without comparing one to the other. One was a lightweight, the other a jr. welter

The other difference was speed. Norris had the speed that baffled and bedazzled leonard, and left him a broken man.

Terry Norris is very underrated fighter. he made the record for title defenses in his own division. he beat everyone put in front of him including those he wasn't expected to beat. You know they brought Terry in to lose against Mugabi.

Hell, even Leonard wanted to fight him! And after chewing on leonard, people still thought Curry was going to take him but Terry was too good too fast too busy and those are the kinds of fighters that will always beat a Sugar Ray Leonard, or a Donald Curry.

Would he beat a 154 version of Duran? Well if Benitez beat Duran I find it hard to believe that Terry wouldn't. Duran would have to be very motivated to pull it out. Then again, Roberto was much to flat footed to have a realistic chance.

You said there was no difference in Leonard losing to Duran and Norris, which is crap. Duran was one of the greatest P4P fighters of all-time, Norris a world class fighter with quite a short prime. Yes, Norris would have a big natural size advantage over Duran but the peak Norris would get kayoed by the Duran that beat Leonard in 1980.
Leonard only got beat by Norris because he was well over the hill, he lost to Duran in his prime because Duran is one of the greatest fighters of all time. So is Leonard, hence he won the re-match. Get over it Elton

dr_devious wrote:You said there was no difference in Leonard losing to Duran and Norris, which is crap. Duran was one of the greatest P4P fighters of all-time, Norris a world class fighter with quite a short prime. Yes, Norris would have a big natural size advantage over Duran but the peak Norris would get kayoed by the Duran that beat Leonard in 1980.
Leonard only got beat by Norris because he was well over the hill, he lost to Duran in his prime because Duran is one of the greatest fighters of all time. So is Leonard, hence he won the re-match. Get over it Elton

Get over what, Leonard losing to Norris? You sound like your friend Alp blaming a lopsided loss on a lack of prime. If that is true then you wouldn't mind telling me why Leonard was favored 3-1 over Norris.

He had his chance to show the upstart how it's done. He couldn't. As for Duran and Norris, it could be a tossup to be truthful. But no way is Roberto stopping Norris. His ratio was meager to be truthful, maybe 50% as a welter. He didn't knock out Palomino, how's he knocking out Norris who was ten times the fighter Carlos was? He didn't knock out Leonard either. Didn't knock out Kirkland Laing, Gonzalez, Minchillo.

You just have to know the facts, and you my boy don't know the facts.

So the knockout isn't happening becasue Duran is too small and doesn't carry his weight as effectively as say a Thomas hitman Hearns. Duran simply outhustled Ray and I knew the same fate awaited Leonard when he signed to meet with Norris.

The difference in the two losses suffered by Leonard. In the first one from Duran there were no knockdowns whereas Norris scored two. In the Duran fight, Leonard stood his gorund more than what i would have thought. the flurries came but just not enough of them and roughly half scored. i would have thought Leonard could keep up with a 29 year old lightweight. A shame.

Now in the Norris fight, Ray tried to box with Terry and find openings early one. However, Norris tested him and hurt him with a body shot that drove the legend into the ropes. So leonard's strategy changed and he went on the offense the very next round. Leonard looked good as the agressor. That is, until the competitor in Norris came through and he countered leonard expertly with a beauty of a left hook sending ray on his bottom.

That was the beginning of his demoralizing ordeal. Terry being the thoroughbred he is followed up putting the hurt on Ray with a beauty of an uppercut that had the Sugarman doing his best imitation of E.T. Leonard knew he could no longer win. And the rest of the fight was a mere formality. The cream rose to the top, the loser to the mourner's bench. And that folks, was the way it went down in history. No controversy, just a clean wipeout.

And i don't think even the most optimistic leonard fan can ever say truthfully the Norris fight was close. Although there was that writer from sports illustrated (William Nack) who tried giving that impression, scoring it 116-112.