Marlon Starling vs Terry Norris

[Cobra33]

Instead of moving up to middle to challenge Nunn what if Starling moved up to Jr.middle and challenged Terry Norris.We know Starling's got the defence but does he have an offense capable of taking down Norris?

[Raggamuffin]

I would have been a wiser choice but i still think Norris would have won.
He was more powerfull then "Magic Man" and a good and slick boxer if he wanted to be.
It would take a deciscion though

[la-califa]

Norris would stick & move, boxing his way to a decision victory. Starling would stay behind that peek a boo defense trying to figure out how to catch up to Norris. & the rounds would slip by.

[redrooster]

Norris easy decision.

[unitas]

norris by decision. you basically had to ko terry to win. but i doubt starling carried the punch to do it.

[bxrfan]

Terrible Terry boxes circles around Starling for a UD, with some good exchanges in between.

[Mantequilla]

Starling knocks him cold with a counter left hook at some point.

[JohnThomas1]

Starling knocks him cold with a counter left hook at some point.

Yeah, i am torn between Norris being too fast and winning on points or Starling catching Norris's ordinary chin at some point and stopping him. Brown was no huge puncher and well past it but still had his day in the sun.

[redrooster]

Starling is a joke who lost to Bumphus. He doesn't belong in the same vicinity with the great Terry Norris, conqueror of his two time conqueror Don Curry and Ray Leonard. Can you imagine what Ray Leonard would do to Marlon Starling? :!:

[dpw417]

Norris by decision.

[Sister Sledge]

Starling's style would give Terry problems. I could see it as a close decision for Terry or a draw.

[JohnThomas1]

Starling is a joke who lost to Bumphus. He doesn't belong in the same vicinity with the great Terry Norris, conqueror of his two time conqueror Don Curry and Ray Leonard. Can you imagine what Ray Leonard would do to Marlon Starling? :!:

Starling beat a better Simon Brown than the one that poleaxed Norris! Therefore Starling MUST beat Norris!

:lol:

[redrooster]

Starling beat a better Simon Brown than the one that poleaxed Norris! Therefore Starling MUST beat Norris!

:lol:

With what offense? Your man lost to Johnny Bumphus :lol: :lol: :lol:

[mr. magoo]

With what offense? Your man lost to Johnny Bumphus :lol: :lol: :lol:

Is this a boxrec assesment or did you actually follow Starling's career? For those of us who watched him quite closely, he was an outstanding welterweight who is rather underrated in my opinion. He had a very effective peek o boo defense with crafty boxing ability and a fair amount of durability to boot. He defeated many good fighters such as Brown, Breland and Honeyghan. I saw those fights, and can say for sure that he was a great fighter. As for him facing Norris, I don't think that its out of the question to say that he could have beaten him IF they fought at welterweight. Sure, Norris beat some bigger names, but none in their primes, and he lost to far worse fighters than Starling.

[Sister Sledge]

With what offense? Your man lost to Johnny Bumphus :lol: :lol: :lol:

Starling gave away a lot of fights because he clowned around quite a bit. But the Bumphus fight was stopped prematurely on an accidental cut before it was finished. Starling never got the benefit of the doubt with referees because of his style, but the decision could have gone to him instead of Bumphus. He was a great fighter.

[Sister Sledge]

At 147, Starling could conceivably have knocked out Terry.

[redrooster]

Starling gave away a lot of fights because he clowned around quite a bit. But the Bumphus fight was stopped prematurely on an accidental cut before it was finished. Starling never got the benefit of the doubt with referees because of his style, but the decision could have gone to him instead of Bumphus. He was a great fighter.

You think he was a great fighter?!? :yikes :oops: :lol:

[Cobra33]

Actually the Bumphus bout had live scoreing in between rounds so the corners knew what the score was.Duva actually didn't try to fix the cut on Bumphus because Bumphus had a slight lead.Starling would have ended up stopping Bumphus latter in that bout if it had continued.
And Red rooster answer me this:Is Starling a better boxer then Derrick Kelly?BECAUSE KELLY BEAT THE HELL OUT OF NORRIS.EVEN SHOOK HIM A COUPLE OF TIMES.

[redrooster]

Actually the Bumphus bout had live scoreing in between rounds so the corners knew what the score was.Duva actually didn't try to fix the cut on Bumphus because Bumphus had a slight lead.Starling would have ended up stopping Bumphus latter in that bout if it had continued.
And Red rooster answer me this:Is Starling a better boxer then Derrick Kelly?BECAUSE KELLY BEAT THE HELL OUT OF NORRIS.EVEN SHOOK HIM A COUPLE OF TIMES.


Derrick Kelly - Norris. Has anyone seen this because I dont know the details of the loss. If it was early in his career I can excuse the loss. Many of the greats like Norris have been thru this; Monzon, Galindez, Dempsey, Greb, Tony Sibson, Benny Leonard. The list is endless.

I seriously doubt that Terry was prime time when he took that early loss and in fact you can hear this mentioned by boxing scholar Jim Lampley before the start of the Taylor fight. Otherwise, how could Norris have defeated Taylor unless he had dramatically improved over the years? How could Norris have toppled legends Ray Leonard, Mugabi, and Curry with ridiculous ease? Improvement, that's how.

Now let's look at the case of Marlon Starling in prime time, also loser to Pedro Villela. How in the world can anyone say Starling is great? I mean the guy was a habitual loser! Just the fact that he was behind on points to Bumphus tells you how pathetic and anemic he was on offense. This is the man they say would beat a destroyer like Cuevas? Cuevas would ANNIHILATE this bum!!!

And to say he could somehow knockout Norris when his two time conqueror, Don Curry is just plain fantasy.

[Sister Sledge]

You think he was a great fighter?!? :yikes :oops: :lol:

I never said he was a great fighter. He could have been great, but he let some fights slip away that he should have won.

[Sister Sledge]

Derrick Kelly - Norris. Has anyone seen this because I dont know the details of the loss. If it was early in his career I can excuse the loss. Many of the greats like Norris have been thru this; Monzon, Galindez, Dempsey, Greb, Tony Sibson, Benny Leonard. The list is endless.

I seriously doubt that Terry was prime time when he took that early loss and in fact you can hear this mentioned by boxing scholar Jim Lampley before the start of the Taylor fight. Otherwise, how could Norris have defeated Taylor unless he had dramatically improved over the years? How could Norris have toppled legends Ray Leonard, Mugabi, and Curry with ridiculous ease? Improvement, that's how.

Now let's look at the case of Marlon Starling in prime time, also loser to Pedro Villela. How in the world can anyone say Starling is great? I mean the guy was a habitual loser! Just the fact that he was behind on points to Bumphus tells you how pathetic and anemic he was on offense. This is the man they say would beat a destroyer like Cuevas? Cuevas would ANNIHILATE this bum!!!

And to say he could somehow knockout Norris when his two time conqueror, Don Curry is just plain fantasy.

Styles make fights, and I think Starling's style would have been difficult for Terry to solve.

[redrooster]

I never said he was a great fighter. He could have been great, but he let some fights slip away that he should have won.

So based on that, you think he's somehow going to beat on Cuevas?

[Sister Sledge]

So based on that, you think he's somehow going to beat on Cuevas?

Cuevas wasn't a great fighter. The only thing he had was great power. Starling could have nullified Pipino's power and made him pay in return.

[Sister Sledge]

Cuevas wasn't a great fighter. The only thing he had was great power. Starling could have nullified Pipino's power and made him pay in return.

Cuevas also did not have a granite chin.

[Sister Sledge]

Cuevas also did not have a granite chin.

The main thing is that Starling was just the better fighter overall. He would have made Cuevas look silly.

[Sister Sledge]

Derrick Kelly - Norris. Has anyone seen this because I dont know the details of the loss. If it was early in his career I can excuse the loss. Many of the greats like Norris have been thru this; Monzon, Galindez, Dempsey, Greb, Tony Sibson, Benny Leonard. The list is endless.

I seriously doubt that Terry was prime time when he took that early loss and in fact you can hear this mentioned by boxing scholar Jim Lampley before the start of the Taylor fight. Otherwise, how could Norris have defeated Taylor unless he had dramatically improved over the years? How could Norris have toppled legends Ray Leonard, Mugabi, and Curry with ridiculous ease? Improvement, that's how.

Now let's look at the case of Marlon Starling in prime time, also loser to Pedro Villela. How in the world can anyone say Starling is great? I mean the guy was a habitual loser! Just the fact that he was behind on points to Bumphus tells you how pathetic and anemic he was on offense. This is the man they say would beat a destroyer like Cuevas? Cuevas would ANNIHILATE this bum!!!

And to say he could somehow knockout Norris when his two time conqueror, Don Curry is just plain fantasy.

Norris got kayoed by a faded Simon Brown, a man that Starling beat in his prime.

[redrooster]

Norris got kayoed by a faded Simon Brown, a man that Starling beat in his prime.

You said it-styles make fights. Brown was an all offense fighter. Starling was an all defense fighter. If they had rankings for offense for fighters as they do in football, Starling would have one of the worst numbers.

So, how is Starling going to manage this win with an anemic offense? He cant counter Norris because Terry is the guy with the speed. Starling didnt have much in the way of mobility. What does that tell you? I'm sorry to tell you this mate, but Moochie doesnt stand in this contest.

let's talk about great fighters and what makes them great. What do you think makes starling great? Is it the way he holds his gloves up high and lets the other guy pound them? Is it the way he sometimes stomps his foot on the canvas? What else was there? Honestly, I find nothing inspirational about him.

When CBS built up his fight with Curry in 82, I struggled just to get thru the finish of the fight. All that buildup for nothing. I could understand the weak performance from Curry-he was fighting with the flu but what's Starling's excuse? he still lost! :lol: I concluded this guy Starling is nothing but a bust. No offense, but he sucks!

How many defenses did he make on his title? Cuevas made ten over a time span of four years. Starling? Just a couple because he was destined to be a cheese champ. Could Starling have ever been champion in an era where there was just one champion? Not in Leonard's era, nor Napoles', Cokes', etc,,,

Cuevas on the other hand dominated. When has Starling ever dominated? he didnt even dominate Bumphus. So it's not enough to say "He had the style to beat this guy or that guy" when you got no offense going even if he is technically okay (more or less)

Sure, lots of guys including his challengers were better all around fighters than Cuevas but after getting their heads and ribs beat on for a few rounds, skill and ability didn't get the job done and bring them the title. Power and ferocity did.

Harold Weston: Loser after 9 rounds and came away with broken ribs.

Billy Backus, former world champion: Defeated in 1 round and came out with broken ribs and eye socket.

Pete Ranzany: thorougly trashed after two one sided rounds

Angel Espada: 2 rounds, 11 rounds, 9 rounds-numerous contusions, bruises and lumps around the eye, broken ribs, you name it.

Cuevas was a destroyer. Starling is a lifeless defensive fighter, a cutie with an anemic offense and nothing more.

[Sister Sledge]

You said it-styles make fights. Brown was an all offense fighter. Starling was an all defense fighter. If they had rankings for offense for fighters as they do in football, Starling would have one of the worst numbers.

So, how is Starling going to manage this win with an anemic offense? He cant counter Norris because Terry is the guy with the speed. Starling didnt have much in the way of mobility. What does that tell you? I'm sorry to tell you this mate, but Moochie doesnt stand in this contest.

let's talk about great fighters and what makes them great. What do you think makes starling great? Is it the way he holds his gloves up high and lets the other guy pound them? Is it the way he sometimes stomps his foot on the canvas? What else was there? Honestly, I find nothing inspirational about him.

When CBS built up his fight with Curry in 82, I struggled just to get thru the finish of the fight. All that buildup for nothing. I could understand the weak performance from Curry-he was fighting with the flu but what's Starling's excuse? he still lost! :lol: I concluded this guy Starling is nothing but a bust. No offense, but he sucks!

How many defenses did he make on his title? Cuevas made ten over a time span of four years. Starling? Just a couple because he was destined to be a cheese champ. Could Starling have ever been champion in an era where there was just one champion? Not in Leonard's era, nor Napoles', Cokes', etc,,,

Cuevas on the other hand dominated. When has Starling ever dominated? he didnt even dominate Bumphus. So it's not enough to say "He had the style to beat this guy or that guy" when you got no offense going even if he is technically okay (more or less)

Sure, lots of guys including his challengers were better all around fighters than Cuevas but after getting their heads and ribs beat on for a few rounds, skill and ability didn't get the job done and bring them the title. Power and ferocity did.

Harold Weston: Loser after 9 rounds and came away with broken ribs.

Billy Backus, former world champion: Defeated in 1 round and came out with broken ribs and eye socket.

Pete Ranzany: thorougly trashed after two one sided rounds

Angel Espada: 2 rounds, 11 rounds, 9 rounds-numerous contusions, bruises and lumps around the eye, broken ribs, you name it.

Cuevas was a destroyer. Starling is a lifeless defensive fighter, a cutie with an anemic offense and nothing more.

Boy! You really don't like Starling, do you? I thought beat Curry in the first fight, but the judges gave Donald the fight.

[Cobra33]

Ray Leonard-past his prime
Don Curry-past his prime
John Mugabi-past his prime



I believe Norris also almost lost to Jorge Vaca.As for the Kelly bout Kelly was known as a light puncher but yet shook Norris.

As for this bout I think Norris would win based on his movement and combination punching.I think his movement would really trouble Starling and Starling really didn't have true knockout power.He was a very strong boxer on the inside but his power was below average.

[redrooster]

Boy! You really don't like Starling, do you? I thought beat Curry in the first fight, but the judges gave Donald the fight.

He didnt come close to winning that fight. because of his incompetence and ineptitude he couldnt handle a boy fighting with the flu. "Judges gave Curry the fight" Give me a break.

[redrooster]

Ray Leonard-past his prime
Don Curry-past his prime
John Mugabi-past his prime



I believe Norris also almost lost to Jorge Vaca.As for the Kelly bout Kelly was known as a light puncher but yet shook Norris.

As for this bout I think Norris would win based on his movement and combination punching.I think his movement would really trouble Starling and Starling really didn't have true knockout power.He was a very strong boxer on the inside but his power was below average.

Ray Leonard-5 time world champion and strongly favored to win

John Mugabi-then the current champion favored to win as well

In both cases the fearless and unlimited talent of Norris upset the odds and the experts with effortless, flawless wins over these two greats. Starling should be greatful he didnt have to face him.

[brownpimp88]

Yeah ray leonard was so old that only what 2 and a half years before that fight he stopped danny lalonde, went 12 rounds with thomas hearns and yes it was a close fight, not as one sided as every hearns nuthugger tries to imply. Then after he shutout a duran that just beat iran barkley. Wow he was so washed up, lol.

[JohnThomas1]

Yeah ray leonard was so old that only what 2 and a half years before that fight he stopped danny lalonde, went 12 rounds with thomas hearns and yes it was a close fight, not as one sided as every hearns nuthugger tries to imply. Then after he shutout a duran that just beat iran barkley. Wow he was so washed up, lol.

Leonards last topline performance was Hagler. He looked shyte against a Hearns who was declined as well, Lalonde was at a catchweight, not that talented, and gave him hell, and Duran would have got shutout by a Nunn, Leonard or any other top mover. The Benitez that beat him at 154 would have shut him out too the night Leonard did.

2 1/2 years is a long time, especially when you are already past it, especially at the age Leonard was.

[redrooster]

Leonards last topline performance was Hagler. He looked shyte against a Hearns who was declined as well, Lalonde was at a catchweight, not that talented, and gave him hell, and Duran would have got shutout by a Nunn, Leonard or any other top mover. The Benitez that beat him at 154 would have shut him out too the night Leonard did.

2 1/2 years is a long time, especially when you are already past it, especially at the age Leonard was.



You know Leonard could have beaten any jr middleweight in history the night he lost to Norris except for Hearns, McCallum, Norris, Ayala. Wilfred benitez? He's a pacifist and would have been toast. Leonard was barely off a year and between defenses. He was in the best shape of his life but isnt the caliber of a Terry Norris which I lready knew. Stop making up problems that dont exist.

[brownpimp88]

You know Leonard could have beaten any jr middleweight in history the night he lost to Norris except for Hearns, McCallum, Norris, Ayala. Wilfred benitez? He's a pacifist and would have been toast. Leonard was barely off a year and between defenses. He was in the best shape of his life but isnt the caliber of a Terry Norris which I lready knew. Stop making up problems that dont exist.
its what he does, lol. Just make excuses for leonard, sugar ray got his ass handed to him, norris is just a better athlete than leonard can ever dream of.

[JohnThomas1]

its what he does, lol. Just make excuses for leonard, sugar ray got his ass handed to him, norris is just a better athlete than leonard can ever dream of.

Yes, who could be a credible as you :lol:

Here you are in the general forum 5 minutes ago knocking Spinks for not rematching Eddie and Qawi

BROWNPIMP - Another thing bob foster gave rematches to guys like fourie and henry hank. Michael spinks never gave rematches to qawi and eddie mustafa even when they clearly demanded it.

The facts

Spinks gave Eddie a rematch, Eddie couldn't make the weight and refused to even try after what happened weight wise in their initial encounter.

Spinks and Qawi were to rematch in September 84, but about 2 weeks before the bout Qawi got injured and pulled out. There was also talk of Qawi suffering from depression from recent personal events.

:lol:


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[redrooster]

its what he does, lol. Just make excuses for leonard, sugar ray got his ass handed to him, norris is just a better athlete than leonard can ever dream of.

it must really hurt to lose in this manner when a man coming off a 3 year layoff, never having fought at middleweight upsets the 3-1 odds only to lose the way he did to another 3-1 underdog when Leonard had all the advantages.

If they can brag about the win over Hagler how much more do we have a right to claim the superiority of Norris?

[Vantage_West]

terry norris by a big, wide as a trick decision

terry is too active against a peek a boo style. this is why i would vouch for terry to beat winky easily. and give mcallum problems.

[sweet_scientist]

its what he does, lol. Just make excuses for leonard, sugar ray got his ass handed to him, norris is just a better athlete than leonard can ever dream of.

Exactly, and Keith Mullings just has better boxing skill than Terry Norris can ever dream of. We can face the facts JT, why can't you?

[JohnThomas1]

Exactly, and Keith Mullings just has better boxing skill than Terry Norris can ever dream of. We can face the facts JT, why can't you?

You've got me there SS, dang. Mullins, Rosenblatt and Boudouani did indeed expose Norris to be rather overrated, and durability challnged as well. I guess it's also time to face the fact Tarver and Johnson too were just better fighters than Roy Jones Jr ever was too. Prime Jones knocked comatose by the lethal fists of immortals Tarver and the Road Warrior.

[sweet_scientist]

You've got me there SS, dang. Mullins, Rosenblatt and Boudouani did indeed expose Norris to be rather overrated, and durability challnged as well. I guess it's also time to face the fact Tarver and Johnson too were just better fighters than Roy Jones Jr ever was too. Prime Jones knocked comatose by the lethal fists of immortals Tarver and the Road Warrior.
Good to see that you've come to your senses. And Terry and Roy woud have been heavy favourites against most of those fighters when they lost, which of course is definitive proof of Roy and Terry being prime :good

[JohnThomas1]

Good to see that you've come to your senses. And Terry and Roy woud have been heavy favourites against most of those fighters when they lost, which of course is definitive proof of Roy and Terry being prime :good

Terry would have beaten any JMiddle ever excepting Julian Jackon, Mullins, Rosenblatt and Boudouani the night he lost to the latter 3! Oh and first fight Simon Brown! That's as long as he kept his weird fetish for hitting fighters while they were down in check.

[sweet_scientist]

Terry would have beaten any JMiddle ever excepting Julian Jackon, Mullins, Rosenblatt and Boudouani the night he lost to the latter 3! Oh and first fight Simon Brown! That's as long as he kept his weird fetish for hitting fighters while they were down in check.

:yep

Quite simply he was unbeatable - except when he lost!

[JohnThomas1]

:yep

Quite simply he was unbeatable - except when he lost!

We're definitely on the same line :yep

Quite simply everytime he ever lost he was absolutely, totally, unequivocally peak!

[redrooster]

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Birth of an idiot: John Thomas

[redrooster]

^ It wasnt until he reached 40 that we could see the family resemblance

[JohnThomas1]

Birth of an idiot: John Thomas

Remember i used that one on you? Ahhhhh they were the days.

[redrooster]

Remember i used that one on you? Ahhhhh they were the days.

Those were the days? If this is true you should have no problem finding it and displaying it. Dates never lie unlike you.

John I own you. We're talking 100%, Terry Norris-Ray Leonard owned. :lol:

[mr. magoo]

it must really hurt to lose in this manner when a man coming off a 3 year layoff, never having fought at middleweight upsets the 3-1 odds only to lose the way he did to another 3-1 underdog when Leonard had all the advantages.

If they can brag about the win over Hagler how much more do we have a right to claim the superiority of Norris?

There is only one small difference.

Leonard didn't fight Norris until 4 years after the Hagler fight, and in the meantime, only fought 3 times in that period. If age and inactivity are totally irrelevant then I can't wait to see Norris's next comeback. Hell, he was only around 31 when he lost to Rosenblatt and 2 other mediocrities.

[redrooster]

There is only one small difference.

Leonard didn't fight Norris until 4 years after the Hagler fight, and in the meantime, only fought 3 times in that period. If age and inactivity are totally irrelevant then I can't wait to see Norris's next comeback. Hell, he was only around 31 when he lost to Rosenblatt and 2 other mediocrities.

So what? He didnt have the 3 years inactivity like he had going into the Hagler fight so that should have made him that much better.

He also didnt have the disadvantage of never having fought at a weight two divisions too high as he had going into the Hagler fight.

He won his last fight by a landslide.

His legs and combinations were working as well as I'd seen for some time.

He was active roughly once a year and had previously fought twice in 89 and counting the Hagler fight, makes four times since the Hagler fight. That makes 45 rounds, more than enough to shake off the rust and we must never forget who had the better competition-Ray Leonard by a mile which all lead to Leonard being installed a 3-1 favorite and rightfully so.

Let's stop denying the greatness that was Norris. You're fabricating this problem of ring rust, a tactic borne of desperation.

We know in our hearts Norris won fair and square because he was the much better fighter and that leonard didnt really deserve to be in the same ring with him. That was proven that night in the ring where fights are always won.

It looked really bad for Norris going into the fight because Leonard had wins over the cream of the crop and had the crowd on his side 100% as always.

Can you tell me why Leonard was installed a 3-1 favorite, Magoo?

It seems pretty silly to say that Norris should have been held as the favorite when Leonard had everything in his favor or to say that Leonard SUDDENLY went into decline just because Norris wasn't expected to win.

This wasn't just a narrow, questionable win mind you. Norris didnt have to rely on the judges for a gift decision or a gift stoppage or have to come from behind. This was total domination!

The kind not seen since Buster Douglas destroyed Mike Tyson in Tokyo. Norris became the teacher and leonard became the student in the most unexpected role reversal. Leonard tried and tried but the young boxing wizard was too much for him.

leonard had never seen the like-couldnt cope with him on the outside and he couldnt cope with him on the inside. That's why he was forced to endure a painful and embarassing beating for 12 rounds.

When you win fights as easy as Terry won his, you get ALL the bragging rights.

Norris gave Leonard a complete boxing lesson with his superior skills. He intimidated him, hurt him, floored him, knocked his tooth out, and sent him into retirement, this time for 6 years. He was leonard's worst nightmare and when it came to showtime, he didnt know what the fuck he was doing. He was so used to fighting club fighters and washed up relics.

In a way it's his own fault. Taking fights with club fighters and worn out pugs made him delusional enough to think that it could prepare him enough to deal with the speed and tenacity of young upcoming lions like Terry Norris.

Fighting the Kevin Howards and Don Lalonds, don't prepare you for this kind of fighter and they never will. In the years he was wasting time on those relics and tomato cans he could have been testing his skills with Curry, Honeyghan, a young Hagler, Nunn, Kalambay, Julian Jackson, McCallum.

Marlon Starling? That would be a waste of time - a one sided beating of some helpless, moron. Leonard KO 14 Starling.

[Sister Sledge]

So what? He didnt have the 3 years inactivity like he had going into the Hagler fight so that should have made him that much better.

He also didnt have the disadvantage of never having fought at a weight two divisions too high as he had going into the Hagler fight.

He won his last fight by a landslide.

His legs and combinations were working as well as I'd seen for some time.

He was active roughly once a year and had previously fought twice in 89 and counting the Hagler fight, makes four times since the Hagler fight. That makes 45 rounds, more than enough to shake off the rust and we must never forget who had the better competition-Ray Leonard by a mile which all lead to Leonard being installed a 3-1 favorite and rightfully so.

Let's stop denying the greatness that was Norris. You're fabricating this problem of ring rust, a tactic borne of desperation.

We know in our hearts Norris won fair and square because he was the much better fighter and that leonard didnt really deserve to be in the same ring with him. That was proven that night in the ring where fights are always won.

It looked really bad for Norris going into the fight because Leonard had wins over the cream of the crop and had the crowd on his side 100% as always.

Can you tell me why Leonard was installed a 3-1 favorite, Magoo?

It seems pretty silly to say that Norris should have been held as the favorite when Leonard had everything in his favor or to say that Leonard SUDDENLY went into decline just because Norris wasn't expected to win.

This wasn't just a narrow, questionable win mind you. Norris didnt have to rely on the judges for a gift decision or a gift stoppage or have to come from behind. This was total domination!

The kind not seen since Buster Douglas destroyed Mike Tyson in Tokyo. Norris became the teacher and leonard became the student in the most unexpected role reversal. Leonard tried and tried but the young boxing wizard was too much for him.

leonard had never seen the like-couldnt cope with him on the outside and he couldnt cope with him on the inside. That's why he was forced to endure a painful and embarassing beating for 12 rounds.

When you win fights as easy as Terry won his, you get ALL the bragging rights.

Norris gave Leonard a complete boxing lesson with his superior skills. He intimidated him, hurt him, floored him, knocked his tooth out, and sent him into retirement, this time for 6 years. He was leonard's worst nightmare and when it came to showtime, he didnt know what the fuck he was doing. He was so used to fighting club fighters and washed up relics.

In a way it's his own fault. Taking fights with club fighters and worn out pugs made him delusional enough to think that it could prepare him enough to deal with the speed and tenacity of young upcoming lions like Terry Norris.

Fighting the Kevin Howards and Don Lalonds, don't prepare you for this kind of fighter and they never will. In the years he was wasting time on those relics and tomato cans he could have been testing his skills with Curry, Honeyghan, a young Hagler, Nunn, Kalambay, Julian Jackson, McCallum.

Marlon Starling? That would be a waste of time - a one sided beating of some helpless, moron. Leonard KO 14 Starling.

I like the fact that you like Norris so much. He was a great fighter, and I admit a better fighter than Starling, but he was not a better fighter than a prime Leonard. Sugar Ray had a lot of wars in his short time. By the time he fought Norris, Ray was past his prime while Norris was at his peak. Norris was ferocious in his prime.
On the down side, his chin let him down too many times, and his dq's against Luis Maysonet tainted his legacy and took a good year out of his career. He's a top 5 SW ATG.

[redrooster]

I like the fact that you like Norris so much. He was a great fighter, and I admit a better fighter than Starling, but he was not a better fighter than a prime Leonard. Sugar Ray had a lot of wars in his short time. By the time he fought Norris, Ray was past his prime while Norris was at his peak. Norris was ferocious in his prime.
On the down side, his chin let him down too many times, and his dq's against Luis Maysonet tainted his legacy and took a good year out of his career. He's a top 5 SW ATG.

A lot of wars? Greb and Benny Leonard had a lot of notable fights. Ray leonard had Duran, Hearns, washed up Hagler but i wouldnt call that alot of wars.


And please stop with the "Leonard was past his prime" bit. Bernard Hopkins was 36,37 when he was starting to hit his stride.

show me EVIDENCE Leonard was past his prime. From what I saw off his last fight, just the opposite was true. I can believe it when it came to the Camacho fight. That was incredibly stupid coming out at age 40 but there was no such problem for the Norris fight and he was active in the ring.

I dare you to find fault with his performance in Uno mas, a performance that had all the experts raving about - William Nack, Steve Farhood, and countless others which led to making Leonard a 3-1 favorite over Norris even though Terry was the defending champion. Leonard made the challenge to this young lion and paid for it when the lion named Norris fatally bit him in the head.

Even in his prime Leonard wouldnt be a match for Norris because I watched him in the Kalule fight and he looks like just an average fighter against a painfully slow European fighter with no punch. And it took him nine rounds just to take him out!!

No way would he even catch Terry Norris. Terry would have slapped him around at will just as he did when they fought. Terry's feet were not stuck in cement like Kalule's.

And then there was the kevin Howard fight where it took him another nine rounds to polish off a hopelessly smaller and outclassed opponent. Then he retired based on the fact that the Howard fight was so tough for him.

You going to tell me leonard was past his prime at 27 years old? He should have polished off Howard in three despite the two year layoff. And besides that I saw Duran, a lightweight moving up two divisions hand leonard a convincing loss. A lightweight moving up two divisions to whip a prime welterweight-that's leonard in his prime.

So I knew already that Ray Leonard is beatable in his prime. Another problem is the way he was completely baffled and kept off balance by hearns using a simple jab and move strategy for most of the fight. Think what Norris would have done to him. He would have ended Leonard's career that night and sent him out of the sport with more than enough money to pay for janitorial school.

Don't get me wrong. Sugar was good, we all know that. he would have fucked up that moron Starling and possibly Curry in a tough match and we know he can box. But he can't box the way Norris did. Norris was perfection in the ring.

The only problem with Terry was that he wasn't as carefully managed with his career and he occasionally lost his head and got himself disqualified. It happens. It happened with Roy Jones too in his fight with Griffin. I always said Norris was trigger fisted like Jones. People like this are so fast they sometimes have problems holding back with their fists.

But I find this appealing in a fighter where their offense is so overwhelming that the other guy has problems getting in their own shots and has to wait for him (Norris) to slow down just to hope for an even round. This is exactly what happend to Leonard-he just couldnt get through the blizzard of lightning fast one-twos. Terry was brilliant dominating the legend the way he did as he was brilliant in dominating Mugabi.

since no one really counts disqualifications, people shouldnt hold some of those losses against him.