the best fighter at jnr middle!

[Vantage_West]

a very underated division. it is a big change as it seperates the big men with the small at this very barrier guys as small as 5'6 have won a belt here or guys 6'1 and up.

anyways your fav light middle please reasons and 2nd choices.

my top 3 are
1.'Terrible' Terry Norris-great handspeed...actually amazing handspeed good power destructive combos that could catch anyone out. good defence and maybe the most aggresive fighter of all times. yet still being composed enough to beat them up in style.
just a very shaky chin that made him fun to watch.

2.Mike 'The body Snatcher' McCallum- hard hitter great set of skills 5'11 and could carry his frame well moved very quickly and had a perfect left hook. he had an iron chin and a tough man image that worked. didnt and still doenst get the credit not underated but uncredited for what he did.was a force even at middlewieght and cruiser.

3.julian jackson- possible the man with the hardest one shot power p4p. his speed and decent skills in the ring helped him set up devastating bombs from either hand from any angle. his title run may not be the greatest but his abilty at light middle was amazing absolutly incredible just to heavy handed for anyone.

i was going to put in thomas hearns becuase i felt he was a great fighter especially at light middle he seemed to not be wieght drained but not naturally built at super middle and light heavy.
ray leonard did have a stint here but not long enough nor against amazing comp.

[JohnThomas1]

Hearns, easily. I also like McCallum and Jackon. McCallum for his class and Jackson for his devastating power. Wow.

[Thread Stealer]

In terms of who's the best (not greatest at the weight, which has to do more with resume)

Tommy and Mike are the top 2.

I guess Julian is #3.

Behind them would be guys like Trinidad, Wright, and Norris.

[Robbi]

Hearns, easily. I also like McCallum and Jackon. McCallum for his class and Jackson for his devastating power. Wow.

Depends if you like quality over quantity. Hearns had very good wins over Benitez and Duran, but only defended his title about 6 times. Norris maybe doesn't have two high calibre opponents on his record like Benitez and Duran, but he did have many more defenses, and he also regained and unified. I'd give Norris the edge over Hearns at 154lbs based on accomplishments. Longevity.

Hearns made his last defense of his WBC title against Medal, June 1986. And he struggled at the weight, as his two fights prior to meeting Medal fight were Schuler and Hagler at middleweight.

[JohnThomas1]

Who's the best, hmmmmmm.

Head to head

1. Hearns
2. Benitez
3. McCallum

[JohnThomas1]

Depends if you like quality over quantity.

Well i was going on this part of the thread

anyways your fav light middle please reasons and 2nd choices.

"fav". It's a confusing thread as to whether he's asking for best or "favs".

Hearns had very good wins over Benitez and Duran, but only defended his title about 6 times. Norris maybe doesn't have two high calibre opponents on his record like Benitez and Duran, but he did have many more defenses, and he also regained and unified. I'd give Norris the edge over Hearns at 154lbs based on accomplishments. Longevity.

Hearns beat two of the greatest 5 fighters ever to grace the division. He was also never defeated there. Norris was decimated by Jackson, starched by an aging Brown and was crap by 30. Norris has the longevity but Hearn's pure quality is a world above IMO. Short stay, but real top shelf stuff.

Hearns made his last defense of his WBC title against Medal, June 1986. And he struggled at the weight, as his two fights prior to meeting Medal fight were Schuler and Hagler at middleweight.

Hearns moved up to 160 via pure choice, not because he struggled to make 154. Not at all. He chose to go up, remember he went all the way to 175 to nab title 4 before title 3 if you get my jist. Of course this didn't mean he struggled to make 160 either.

[Robbi]

Well i was going on this part of the thread



"fav". It's a confusing thread as to whether he's asking for best or "favs".



Hearns beat two of the greatest 5 fighters ever to grace the division. He was also never defeated there. Norris was decimated by Jackson, starched by an aging Brown and was crap by 30. Norris has the longevity but Hearn's pure quality is a world above IMO. Short stay, but real top shelf stuff.



Hearns moved up to 160 via pure choice, not because he struggled to make 154. Not at all. He chose to go up, remember he went all the way to 175 to nab title 4 before title 3 if you get my jist. Of course this didn't mean he struggled to make 160 either.

JT. Hearns has way better longevity throughout his career than Norris, but not at 154lbs. Nobody can hold it against him, as his frame put on more pounds as the years went on. However, he did struggle to make the weight against Medal, but not on his initial move up the middleweight to challenge Hagler, hence the reason you said pure choice. Agreed. I can accept he wasn't struggling with the scales against Hutchings at 154lbs, the fight before the Hagler showdown.

Hearns actually moved up and won the light-heavyweight title before he won the middleweight title. Agreed again on him not struggling to make 160lbs because he won the title against Andries before Roldan. Choice again.

But I can say without hesitation, Hearns was struggling to make 154lbs for Medal. He hadn't defended his title for just under 2 years. I'm not assuming this, because Ive heard quotes from Hearns and Steward about it.

It makes sense as his two fights prior to defending against Medal for the last time were middleweight fights against Hagler and Schuler, combined with the very long time span of being inactive at 154lbs between late 84 through to the middle of 86, his last defense.

[MagnificentMatt]

Winky?

[Sonny Carson]

1. Tommy Hearns
2. Mike McCallum
3. Julian Jackson
4. Terry Norris
5. Winky Wright

[Robbi]

Excluding accomplishments.

1. Hearns
2. McCallum
3. Norris

[brooklyn1550]

Thomas Hearns head to head

[brooklyn1550]

Based on accomplishments
1. McCallum
2. Hearns
3. Norris
4. Jackson
5. Wright

[Arminius]

Hearns
McCallum
Jackson
Benitez

[salsanchezfan]

I don't see how Benitez can be rated in the top four or five here. He simply didn't do enough at 154 to warrant such consideration. Great fighter for sure, but perhaps some are basing their opinion on his career as a whole? That's not what the thread is about. It's about the guy that was the best at 154. He just doesn't rate in a list of the creme' de la creme'.


McCallum
Hearns
Norris
Jackson
Vasquez

[redrooster]

Hearns who used to be first, is now second. Replaced by the new king of the 154 pound division-Terry Norris, the Ezzard Charles of the superwelters.

Then there is the rest of the best--

Second is Hearns followed by McCallum and then Jackson. Rounding out the top five was Tony Ayala jr who easily beat out the passive Wilfred Benitez.

[lenzo]

Hearns #1 for overall best.
Jackson #2 for sheer knockout excitement.
McCallum #3 for boxer smarts.
There were some other greats that past through this weightclass: Robinson, Leonard, McClellan, ODLH, Duran, etc.......

[JohnThomas1]

I don't see how Benitez can be rated in the top four or five here. He simply didn't do enough at 154 to warrant such consideration. Great fighter for sure, but perhaps some are basing their opinion on his career as a whole? That's not what the thread is about. It's about the guy that was the best at 154. He just doesn't rate in a list of the creme' de la creme'.


Head to head Benitez can sure merit consideration in the top 5.

[JohnThomas1]

JT. Hearns has way better longevity throughout his career than Norris, but not at 154lbs. Nobody can hold it against him, as his frame put on more pounds as the years went on. However, he did struggle to make the weight against Medal, but not on his initial move up the middleweight to challenge Hagler, hence the reason you said pure choice. Agreed. I can accept he wasn't struggling with the scales against Hutchings at 154lbs, the fight before the Hagler showdown.


Put it this way, if Hearns decided to stay at 154 and make a career of that division he would never have had trouble making the weight. I think we agree tho.

Hearns actually moved up and won the light-heavyweight title before he won the middleweight title. Agreed again on him not struggling to make 160lbs because he won the title against Andries before Roldan. Choice again.
Yes, exactly as i said.

But I can say without hesitation, Hearns was struggling to make 154lbs for Medal. He hadn't defended his title for just under 2 years. I'm not assuming this, because Ive heard quotes from Hearns and Steward about it.

Of course he did, the guy was trying to be a fully fledged middleweight to cope with guys like Hagler and co.

[Robbi]

Put it this way, if Hearns decided to stay at 154 and make a career of that division he would never have had trouble making the weight. I think we agree tho.


Yes, exactly as i said.



Of course he did, the guy was trying to be a fully fledged middleweight to cope with guys like Hagler and co.

JT. Yeah, if you read the first post I replied to below, all i said was he struggled to make 154lbs for the Medal fight. You disagreed, now your agreeing.

"Hearns made his last defense of his WBC title against Medal, June 1986. And he struggled at the weight, as his two fights prior to meeting Medal fight were Schuler and Hagler at middleweight".

And not too sure Hearns could have made a career at 154lbs, even if he never moved up and fought Hagler and Schuler before dropping back down. He would have had to move up at some point.

[JohnThomas1]

JT. Yeah, if you read the first post I replied to below, all i said was he struggled to make 154lbs for the Medal fight. You disagreed, now your agreeing.


Give me a quick quote of where i disagreed per above so i can address it Robbi.

[Robbi]

Give me a quick quote of where i disagreed per above so i can address it Robbi.


Hearns made his last defense of his WBC title against Medal, June 1986. And he struggled at the weight, as his two fights prior to meeting Medal fight were Schuler and Hagler at middleweight.

Your reply:Hearns moved up to 160 via pure choice, not because he struggled to make 154. Not at all. He chose to go up, remember he went all the way to 175 to nab title 4 before title 3 if you get my jist. Of course this didn't mean he struggled to make 160 either.



The part of your reply which I assume your disagreeing "He moved up to 160 via pure choice, not because he struggled to make 154". Your replying to me saying he struggled to make 154lbs against Medal.

[JohnThomas1]

Hearns made his last defense of his WBC title against Medal, June 1986. And he struggled at the weight, as his two fights prior to meeting Medal fight were Schuler and Hagler at middleweight.

Your reply:Hearns moved up to 160 via pure choice, not because he struggled to make 154. Not at all. He chose to go up, remember he went all the way to 175 to nab title 4 before title 3 if you get my jist. Of course this didn't mean he struggled to make 160 either.



The part of your reply which I assume your disagreeing "He moved up to 160 via pure choice, not because he struggled to make 154". Your replying to me saying he struggled to make 154lbs against Medal.

I can't quite follow your reasoning. Hearns actively went after the fight vs Hagler. This was pure choice. He'd whupped Duran in the one decent money fight available at 154. He then had bigger fish to fry, namely Hagler. He failed. To get Hagler again he had to go thru Schuler at 160, which he did with ease in an elimination bout. He'd now had two bouts at a fully fledged 159 3/4 and 160. Modern trends meant he didn't fight these fights at his normal substancially lighter weight, and nor did he simply add on the weight thru milk, steak and ice cream. He didn't fight at 154 for almost 2 full years. Given the extra muscle bulk he had gained for the assault at 160 as well as the timelines above if was hardly surprising he had trouble getting back to 154. By comparison his dwelving into 175 was far shorter lived at first but even after that he had very few fights again at 160.

[Mantequilla]

154 historically is really not much of a division, especially when the likes of Winky Wright can be placed in peoples top ten.

I wouldn't hold Benitez back at all for not fighting there long.He was a great fighter and would likely beat almost every fighter that ever fought at the weight.

[Robbi]

I can't quite follow your reasoning. Hearns actively went after the fight vs Hagler. This was pure choice. He'd whupped Duran in the one decent money fight available at 154. He then had bigger fish to fry, namely Hagler. He failed. To get Hagler again he had to go thru Schuler at 160, which he did with ease in an elimination bout. He'd now had two bouts at a fully fledged 159 3/4 and 160. Modern trends meant he didn't fight these fights at his normal substancially lighter weight, and nor did he simply add on the weight thru milk, steak and ice cream. He didn't fight at 154 for almost 2 full years. Given the extra muscle bulk he had gained for the assault at 160 as well as the timelines above if was hardly surprising he had trouble getting back to 154. By comparison his dwelving into 175 was far shorter lived at first but even after that he had very few fights again at 160.

JT, you quoted on me soley saying he struggled to make the weight against Medal, then you said he never struggled with 154lbs at all, it was pure choice. I agreed with that in a later post and mostly all of the above, but go back to the first quote. Once you read my post then your quote it kinda sounds like your disagreeing, either than or your you not quoting me accurately.

[Robbi]

To make things simplier, forget everything else apart from the following.

Quote:
Hearns made his last defense of his WBC title against Medal, June 1986. And he struggled at the weight, as his two fights prior to meeting Medal were Schuler and Hagler at middleweight.

Your reply: Hearns moved up to 160 via pure choice, not because he struggled to make 154. Not at all. He chose to go up, remember he went all the way to 175 to nab title 4 before title 3 if you get my jist. Of course this didn't mean he struggled to make 160 either

[JohnThomas1]

JT, you quoted on me soley saying he struggled to make the weight against Medal, then you said he never struggled with 154lbs at all, it was pure choice. I agreed with that in a later post and mostly all of the above, but go back to the first quote. Once you read my post then your quote it kinda sounds like your disagreeing, either than or your you not quoting me accurately.

Well let me say Hearns never struggled to make 154 before "deciding" to campain in earnest at 160. Hows that?

:hey

[Robbi]

Well let me say Hearns never struggled to make 154 before "deciding" to campain in earnest at 160. Hows that?

:hey

Agreed. Before he fought Hagler at middleweight, then later Schuler, he never struggled at 154lbs. But he did struggle after moving back down to 154lbs to face Medal after both those fights?

[Vantage_West]

Hearns who used to be first, is now second. Replaced by the new king of the 154 pound division-Terry Norris, the Ezzard Charles of the superwelters.

Then there is the rest of the best--

Second is Hearns followed by McCallum and then Jackson. Rounding out the top five was Tony Ayala jr who easily beat out the passive Wilfred Benitez.:happy terry norris is my pick for number 1 spot

his level of comp his abilty and style head to head he was dangerous and pound 4 pound he is just as good and in accomplishment terry had a beteer rec than any other jnr mid.


winky wright should get more of a mention a very good boxer alot of speed an amazing jab a rock tight defence and used amazing talent to be the man at the wieght.

head 2 head winky is SUPER hard to beat.

[JohnThomas1]

To make things simplier, forget everything else apart from the following.

Quote:
Hearns made his last defense of his WBC title against Medal, June 1986. And he struggled at the weight, as his two fights prior to meeting Medal were Schuler and Hagler at middleweight.

Your reply: Hearns moved up to 160 via pure choice, not because he struggled to make 154. Not at all. He chose to go up, remember he went all the way to 175 to nab title 4 before title 3 if you get my jist. Of course this didn't mean he struggled to make 160 either

Well simple. Hearns chose to go seriously to 160 before your Medal fight, which is exactly as i implied. BEFORE this he hadn't struggled to make 160 at all. You say it yourself, his two prior fights were at 160. Follow? You are speaking past tense per my statement when talking of the Medal fight, the horse had already bolted (Hearns had already started to campain at 160 in earnest)

Timeline

Hearns beats Benitez at 154
Hearns weighs 157 and beats Sutherland
Hearns beats Minchillo weighing 153
Hearns whups Duran weighing 153 3/4
Hearns beats Hutchings at 154 (Hearns not struggling to make 154 at all at this point)

Hearns fights Hagler at 160
Hearns fight Schuler at 160

Hearns struggles to make 154 vs Medal after "choosing" to campain at 160 seriously in the two years prior.

How we travellin' now mate?

[JohnThomas1]

Agreed. Before he fought Hagler at middleweight, then later Schuler, he never struggled at 154lbs. But he did struggle after moving back down to 154lbs to face Medal after both those fights?

Read my last post. Somehow we ended on totally different wave lengths.

[Robbi]

Well simple. Hearns chose to go seriously to 160 before your Medal fight, which is exactly as i implied. BEFORE this he hadn't struggled to make 160 at all. You say it yourself, his two prior fights were at 160. Follow? You are speaking past tense per my statement when talking of the Medal fight, the horse had already bolted (Hearns had already started to campain at 160 in earnest)

Timeline

Hearns beats Benitez at 154
Hearns weighs 157 and beats Sutherland
Hearns beats Minchillo weighing 153
Hearns whups Duran weighing 153 3/4
Hearns beats Hutchings at 154 (Hearns not struggling to make 154 at all at this point)

Hearns fights Hagler at 160
Hearns fight Schuler at 160

Hearns struggles to make 154 vs Medal after "choosing" to campain at 160 seriously in the two years prior.

How we travellin' now mate?

I can't disagree with your fights above and how Hearns struggled or was comfortable with the weight from fight to fight. In later posts I actually mentioned all this as well. I never mentioned him struggling to make 160lbs at any point, we both previously agreed on that. I basically said the only time he struggled to make 154lbs was his last defense against Medal, which your little chart about backs up.

Your chart and my original quote are the same, but explained differently. Hearns never struggled with 154lbs before he fought Hagler and Schuler, but he did struggle against Medal.

[brooklyn1550]

How bout head to head?

1. McCallum
2. Hearns
3. Wright
4. Jackson
5. Norris

Yep, no mistakes, I'd take a prime McCallum over Hearns at LMW, many reasons. I would be confident, also I don't see him losing to any of the others. McCallum is one of very few I would pick over Hearns from 147-154 of all time. What say you?

Head to head, I would have either Hearns or McCallum number 1. Probably Hearns, but like you said, McCallum is one of the few guys I would give a very good chance to beat Hearns. From 3 to 5, I agree with that list.

[redrooster]

:happy terry norris is my pick for number 1 spot

his level of comp his abilty and style head to head he was dangerous and pound 4 pound he is just as good and in accomplishment terry had a beteer rec than any other jnr mid.


winky wright should get more of a mention a very good boxer alot of speed an amazing jab a rock tight defence and used amazing talent to be the man at the wieght.

head 2 head winky is SUPER hard to beat.

Norris and Jones are two of my favorite fighters. I always had faith that Norris would win every big fight he was involved.

Terry Norris was the king of big time fighting who came through in the spotlight every time. look how fast he took care of Taylor.

there can be no doubt norris was the champion of champions and i also don't doubt he would beat prime Ray. Leonard was a multfaceted fighter with all the tools you could ever want with the perfect balance of speed and power but even so, Norris had the style to beat him every time.

[Robbi]

Norris and Jones are two of my favorite fighters. I always had faith that Norris would win every big fight he was involved.

Terry Norris was the king of big time fighting who came through in the spotlight every time. look how fast he took care of Taylor.

there can be no doubt norris was the champion of champions and i also don't doubt he would beat prime Ray. Leonard was a multfaceted fighter with all the tools you could ever want with the perfect balance of speed and power but even so, Norris had the style to beat him every time.

Roy Jones Jr?

[redrooster]

but i don't consider the jackson fight to be big fight which is what i mentioned-that was just a weekend title fight on abc. jackson was a little known champion at the time and almost no one knew who Norris was. It was my first look at terry norris.

if you were around to look back at the fight, that's how you would view it.

by comparison, Mugabi-norris was more pressure packed because Norris couldn't afford to lose again. and he came through with flying colors just as he came through in the leonard fight where he was a huge underdog.

you must remember how Norris shook up the world that night. it was played down in the media because the magnitude of defeat was too much to for the fans to swallow, let alone admit such defeat to people like me who had told them all along what would happen if Ray ever met someone with the Norris profile.

Norris also easily defeated Taylor and Brown in the rematch. he didn't take Simon seriously the first time so he lost.

[redrooster]

Roy Jones Jr?

I like speedsters in general

[redrooster]

He beat an old, easily past his prime Leonard, got starched in two by Jackson, and showed his shaky chin off on more than one occasion, sometimes to nobodies. He also beat a natural 140 pounder in Taylor, whoopedy doo!

A prime Leonard would've KO'd him flat no question.

I don't consider Ray past it because of his dominant showing over Duran. He was moving beautifully that night and Ray was brilliant as usual. Give Ray Leonard his due!!

[JohnThomas1]

but i don't consider the jackson fight to be big fight which is what i mentioned-that was just a weekend title fight on abc. jackson was a little known champion at the time and almost no one knew who Norris was. It was my first look at terry norris.

if you were around to look back at the fight, that's how you would view it.


So a guy fighting for his first world title didn't see it as a big fight? Against a guy who could literally behead you.

Whatever you are smoking, i'll have a pound of it. That's some good shit.

[redrooster]

So a guy fighting for his first world title didn't see it as a big fight? Against a guy who could literally behead you.

Whatever you are smoking, i'll have a pound of it. That's some good shit.

Nice try but you lose you dim witted mule

it was a weekend fight on abc-wws so it didn't matter because no one knew either man was.

In the past, you've left the impression that a fight isn't important unless it gets an infusion of hype and, everyone is aware that everyone else witnessed it. It has to be an event or a happening as Ray Leonard put it, in order for it to really matter.

Do you consider Hagler-Antuofuermo a big fight? Probably not.

Jackson-Norris got no hype, no build up so what reputation did Norris have at the time and what did he have to lose?

Everyone knew who Leonard was and still nobody knew who Norris was. But did he come thru?


Did Leonard come thru? You said that Ray Leonard with his versatility would always find a way to prevail. But Norris is the one who came thru in his first big test.

[Holmes' Jab]

Tommy Hearns, Julian Jackson and Wilfred Benitez.

[PowerPuncher]

Leonard should be up there despite only fighting at the weight once. Hes beaten some peoples no1 154lber of all timer and a total of 3 154lb champions. Hes also beat many peoples no1 at 160lbs

[JohnThomas1]

Nice try but you lose you dim witted mule

it was a weekend fight on abc-wws so it didn't matter because no one knew either man was.

In the past, you've left the impression that a fight isn't important unless it gets an infusion of hype and, everyone is aware that everyone else witnessed it. It has to be an event or a happening as Ray Leonard put it, in order for it to really matter.

Do you consider Hagler-Antuofuermo a big fight? Probably not.

Jackson-Norris got no hype, no build up so what reputation did Norris have at the time and what did he have to lose?

Everyone knew who Leonard was and still nobody knew who Norris was. But did he come thru?


Did Leonard come thru? You said that Ray Leonard with his versatility would always find a way to prevail. But Norris is the one who came thru in his first big test.

I've seldom seen such a crock of shyte. Even from you. The Jackson fight wasn't big enough to light Terry's fire

:rofl

[Robbi]

:bush

You guys behave now

[redrooster]

I've seldom seen such a crock of shyte. Even from you. The Jackson fight wasn't big enough to light Terry's fire

:rofl

it's not a crock of ____ like you said because you couldn't give a straight answer.

I asked you who came thru that night. it was supposed to be leonard but everyone including leonard underestimated how fired up Terry would come in.

now, did leonard come thru like you keep saying? You use the word "always" but that is false because leonard failed miserably and Norris did extremely well when he wasn't expected to go more than 3 or 4 rounds. And it wasn't even close like Hagler-Leonard.

face the facts-every leonard fan is embarrassed over that performance while every fan of Norris gets bragging rights to say that leonard was a winner in his own right but not the winner that terry was.

[brownpimp88]

Terry Norris fuckin tooled Leonard, i love watching that fight.

[C. M. Clay II]

The concencus #1 is Hearns, and I think I'll go along with that.

[brownpimp88]

The concencus #1 is Hearns, and I think I'll go along with that.
Mccallum and Norris accomplished more at that weight class IMO.

[C. M. Clay II]

Mccallum and Norris accomplished more at that weight class IMO.

Well, head-to-head Hearns smashes them.:good

[Luigi1985]

Well, head-to-head Hearns smashes them.:good


He surely don´t "smashes" McCallum at 154 lbs, nobody "smashes" Mike there...

[brownpimp88]

He surely don´t "smashes" McCallum at 154 lbs, nobody "smashes" Mike there...
I would pick mike to knock hearns out.

[redrooster]

Right on Pimp!!

a great exhibition between two all time greats. though leonard faced several name opponents, he still had a lot to learn because of the way he was overmatched against Terry and Terry with far less experience than leonard was able to have his way and set the pace which leonard couldn't keep up with.

it was such a masterful exhibition in hit and don't get hit. Hitting Terry was harder than hitting a cloud. Leonard said that benitez gave him problems scoring.

imagine what he was thinking the way he missed Terry's head for all 12 rounds. I'm not trying to rub it in-we all know terry was vastly superior, but leonard couldn't have landed more than 15 punches in that fight.

I think every student of boxing can learn alot from this fight, not just leonard.

[Jack]

Nice try but you lose you dim witted mule

it was a weekend fight on abc-wws so it didn't matter because no one knew either man was.

In the past, you've left the impression that a fight isn't important unless it gets an infusion of hype and, everyone is aware that everyone else witnessed it. It has to be an event or a happening as Ray Leonard put it, in order for it to really matter.

Do you consider Hagler-Antuofuermo a big fight? Probably not.

Jackson-Norris got no hype, no build up so what reputation did Norris have at the time and what did he have to lose?

Everyone knew who Leonard was and still nobody knew who Norris was. But did he come thru?
In what way does it matter that the fans couldn't care? Do you think Norris was sat in a corner 5 minutes before the ring walk sobbing because nobody cared? Did he think "Well, nobodies watching, so fuck it, I won't try to win"?

You talk shit.

Regardless of how many people wanted to see the fight, it was the toughest challenge of his career, and hs first World title shot.

It's kinda wierd getting into this argument, because unlike almost every single one on the rest of this whole site, I can only see one side of the argument. Norris wanted to win. It may not have been a huge fight to the fans or media, but that is no reason for Norris not wanting to win.

[Luigi1985]

I would pick mike to knock hearns out.

Good pick. I meant only that "smashes" is a total wrong word for beating McCallum at 154 lbs. Mike is one of the best and most underrated fighters at LMW, and Hearns on the other side in matchups heavily overrated...

[redrooster]

In what way does it matter that the fans couldn't care? Do you think Norris was sat in a corner 5 minutes before the ring walk sobbing because nobody cared? Did he think "Well, nobodies watching, so fuck it, I won't try to win"?

You talk shit.

Regardless of how many people wanted to see the fight, it was the toughest challenge of his career, and hs first World title shot.

It's kinda wierd getting into this argument, because unlike almost every single one on the rest of this whole site, I can only see one side of the argument. Norris wanted to win. It may not have been a huge fight to the fans or media, but that is no reason for Norris not wanting to win.

I didn't say terry didn't want to win. of course he did. i just said it wasn't a big time fight loeaded with two superstars. And John who is wrong like 97% of the time, was trying to tell me that it was.

I specifically told him that Terry won every big fight that he was in and as usual, he thought it was wise to contradict me. stupidity never goes out of style with him.

[brownpimp88]

I didn't say terry didn't want to win. of course he did. i just said it wasn't a big time fight loeaded with two superstars. And John who is wrong like 97% of the time, was trying to tell me that it was.

I specifically told him that Terry won every big fight that he was in and as usual, he thought it was wise to contradict me. stupidity never goes out of style with him.
Terry Norris beat more than 15 belt holders in his career man, a true atg. He was one of the best boxers of the 90s. He is a much better athlete than leonard, he hits just as hard and he's faster. Leonard would never solve him and i just love watching that great boxing exhibition, it's a pleasure to see leonard totally outclassed.:good

[redrooster]

I love watching Ali vs Berbick and Homes, as well as Whitaker vs Tito, Chavez vs Tszyu, Robinson vs Archer, Duran vs Joppy, etc. What telling performances those were.


comparing Ali with leonard is convenient if you're a leonard fan because it allows for the excuse that he just got old without having to actually explain the contrast in the back to back performances. but there is no in between fight that shows slipping between the Duran fight and the Norris fight.

Duran never even touched him for 12 rounds.

What evidence do you even have that leonard was even slipping going into the Norris fight? ---You have none.

Ali had slipped dramatically in the fight with Jimmy Young. Young was a talent that's true but Muhammud was way off in his timing and forget about getting up on his toes and dancing. He couldn't do that at this late stage of his career while leonard still could.

You saw only glimpses of movement in the Young and Norton fights.

Whereas Ali could only dance for a minute at a time, Leonard was dancing for the entire 12 rounds with the crowd booing. And he never seemed to noticably tire. With Ray it was the same as usual-taunting, shuffling, running, and the same speedy combinations. It's there in the tape and the scores relfect that.

How does that make him comparable with Ali vs. Holmes or Berbick???

I even saw Leonard get off some combinations whenever Norris stayed on the ropes or got lazy but the rest of the time, he didn't stay put for Ray to hit. You have to be stationary for Ray to connect with the combinations (see Leonard-Hearns 1). That proves he could land the combinations whenever Norris became stationary but not when he moved out of range.

I told you, Leonard cannot handle that kind of fighter. Never could.

IMO, Ali had lost a one sided decision to Young and Norton killed him and caused trauma to the head. After that he just got slower and more hittable than ever and should never have been allowed a license to face Holmes, let alone Berbick.

You're mistaken big time comparing leonard with Ali. Now repent of this ignorance.

[brownpimp88]

Leonard may have been in his mid 30's but please, he was never 'shot'. Which fighter made him shot? I mean if the fight between him and hearns would have went 15 rounds, leonard could have won the decision cuz he was starting to pick it up in the later rounds. Norris owned him!

[Seamus]

1. Tommy Hearns
2. Mike McCallum
3. Julian Jackson
4. Terry Norris
5. Winky Wright


I like the first four but Julio Cesar Vazquez has to take the last spot, seeing as he KD'd Wright 5 times during their fight. A very, very under-rated fighter. Also, please note that Norris never wanted any part of Vazquez. As a Ring Magazine writer wrote during their respective primes, "If Troy Water puts Norris on the canvas, Vazquez puts him through the canvas."

And just to add to the chagrin of most here, I had him winning over Whitaker in their tilt.