"Terrible" Terry Norris vs PBF aka Money May @ 154 lbs / 11 Stone: Who wins?

[Elroy The Great]

when was the last time anyone even mentioned norris the great ?!?!?!?!? what other ATG would he beat ?!?!?! and lets face it, a 154 may is far from prime may and even then norris gets schooled.

i get it. some people dont like may....so he must be inferior to everyone who never fought him but calls him out.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Jeff Lacy was an Olympian.

Jeff Lacy had 4 title defenses, Jirov had 6 title defenses. Every last one of which against bums.

Jeff Lacy lost to the first good fighter he faced, Jirov lost to the first good fighter he faced.

Neither man beat a good fighter in their entire careers.

Sound pretty alike if you ask me.

Big dofference between being an Olympian and being an actual medalist

One guy got his face bashed in by the first good fighter faced.
One guy lost a close fight to the first good fighter he faced in one of the best fights of the decade...

Huge differences between the 2

[IronDanHamza]

Big dofference between being an Olympian and being an actual medalist

One guy got his face bashed in by the first good fighter faced.
One guy lost a close fight to the first good fighter he faced in one of the best fights of the decade...

Huge differences between the 2

Yeah true, Audley Harrison and David Price are Olympic medalists and they're awesome.

Ok? Both guys lost to the only good fighters they faced and both guys have zero wins over good or ranked fighters.

The parallels are obvious.

[!! Shawn]

Far from dominant and Jirov is Jeff Lacy before Jeff Lacy.

If Lacy had a Gold Medal and a Val Barker Trophy...

Since i must now assume you are dense. The Val Barker Trophy is awarded to the most talented boxer at the olympics.

Vasilly Jirov won the Val Barker Trophy in 1996 not Floyd Mayweather.

[sunny31]

My definition of great is very simple man. If you're an ATG fighter then I'm willing to call you great. I don't throw the word "great" around loosely and brand any very good fighter a great fighter.

Miguel Cotto is a 4 weight world champion and one of the fighters of his era and was on the P4P list for years, he's not a great fighter.

Kosta Tszyu was a long time lineal champion and top 3 P4P fighter for a while , he's not a great fighter.

Mark Johnson was on the P4P list for a while and a very good champion, not a great fighter.

These guys are not great fighters just like Terry Norris is not a great fighter. He's just not. His resume is not great and far from it.

As for your last point I disagree entirely. Just because I and others pick him to beat Mayweather doesn't mean he just be great. I'd pick Kalule to beat Mayweather at 154 and he's not a great fighter either.

Your description of great and mine are very different.

An 'All time great' is someone who is among the very best to have laced them up, i.e. would have competed with anyone around his weight past or present, and been one of the best if not the best in any era in and around his best weight classes. He also has the resume to back it up with other ATG's or HOF'ers on their resume.

A great fighter is someone who is probably in the HOF, definitely one of the best of his era, beat some elite champions, and at least one substantial reign as champion, may or may not been able to compete with the very best in every era, and/or may have some patchy results/losses to not put them into all time great category.

A good or very good fighter who is someone who will definitely NOT be in the hall of fame, and was not a stand out champion during his era, a fairly normal world champion if there is such a thing, and generally came up short against the better champions of his era.

No offence but I think you are in the minority here, in terms of your opinion on the subject. Its is all subjective anyway - but I think in most peoples minds their is a difference between GREAT and ALL TIME GREAT, in your way to view things there isn't, which is strange.

[IronDanHamza]

Your description of great and mine are very different.

An 'All time great' is someone who is among the very best to have laced them up, i.e. would have competed with anyone around his weight past or present, and been one of the best if not the best in any era in and around his best weight classes. He also has the resume to back it up with other ATG's or HOF'ers on their resume.

A great fighter is someone who is probably in the HOF, definitely one of the best of his era, beat some elite champions, and at least one substantial reign as champion, may or may not been able to compete with the very best in every era, and/or may have some patchy results/losses to not put them into all time great category.

A good or very good fighter who is someone who will definitely NOT be in the hall of fame, and was not a stand out champion during his era, a fairly normal world champion if there is such a thing, and generally came up short against the better champions of his era.

No offence but I think you are in the minority here, in terms of your opinion on the subject. Its is all subjective anyway - but I think in most peoples minds their is a difference between GREAT and ALL TIME GREAT, in your way to view things there isn't, which is strange.

So I guess by your definition you consider Dariusz Michalczewski a great fighter?

Yes I suppose we have different standards. I find throw the term great around especially not for HOF'ers and someone who had a solid reign.

[IronDanHamza]

If Lacy had a Gold Medal and a Val Barker Trophy...

Since i must now assume you are dense. The Val Barker Trophy is awarded to the most talented boxer at the olympics.

Vasilly Jirov won the Val Barker Trophy in 1996 not Floyd Mayweather.

I'm talking the pros.

They're both in the zero good wins club

[Elroy The Great]

cmon norris fans....what other PRIME ATG would he have beaten ?

[sunny31]

So I guess by your definition you consider Dariusz Michalczewski a great fighter?

Yes I suppose we have different standards. I find throw the term great around especially not for HOF'ers and someone who had a solid reign.

Complicated case - I think you could go either way and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong. I think his career mirrors some past fighters, some similarities with Calzaghe. The main difference being that Calzaghe actually stepped up and fought Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins, etc. towards the end, whereas Dariusz didn't really step up, and lost to lower tear guys.

If you put me on the spot, I would say no based on the above, and competition he beat. I would say just very good, whereas I would say Calzaghe just qualifies for great.

Also when I put my eyeball test over Dariusz, to me he isn't great. Extremely good jab, right hand, durable, and obviously power. But no defence, far too open, lack of variety and skills.

[IronDanHamza]

Complicated case - I think you could go either way and you wouldn't necessarily be wrong. I think his career mirrors some past fighters, some similarities with Calzaghe. The main difference being that Calzaghe actually stepped up and fought Lacy, Kessler, Hopkins, etc. towards the end, whereas Dariusz didn't really step up, and lost to lower tear guys.

If you put me on the spot, I would say no based on the above, and competition he beat. I would say just very good, whereas I would say Calzaghe just qualifies for great.

Also when I put my eyeball test over Dariusz, to me he isn't great. Extremely good jab, right hand, durable, and obviously power. But no defence, far too open, lack of variety and skills.

He ticks all your boxes though?

If you're saying Dariusz could be called a great fighter and not be considered wrong then we just outright disagree.

I use the term "great" for great fighters. Fighters who did great things.

The list of ATG surpasses 100 fighters. There's enough of them to be called great without having to call very good fighters great aswell.

And no Terry Norris doesn't make the cut.