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

[!! Shawn]

You're asking me who I'd consider a boarderline great fighter I.e not great but close to it?

Erm, I don't know that's a difficult question. Tony Zale maybe.

If you want me to list great fighters then I can;

Mayweather, Pacquaio, Hopkins, Roy Jones, Holyfield, Morales, Leonard, Duran, Hearns (no order) there's a list of modern day great fighters.

Norris? No.

So Terry Norris isn't great because he lost to Julian Jackson and Brown, but Hearns gets a pass for getting stopped by Leonard, Hagler, and Barkley?

Terry Norris gets not credit for Meldrick Taylor at 154, despite him being considered the #1 WW in the world at the time, but Hearns gets credit for Knocking out Roberto Duran who we all know was a career lightweight, at 154lb.

I smell some double standards.

I agree all the fighters you listed are great, but so is Terry Norris. If he has the skills, the talent, and the resume to back it up, how can you deny that he is great? You say because he isnt because he is chinny, but you list Tommy Hearns, who lost all of the truly big fights by KO.

You can't have it both ways.

Either being chinny and losing in your prime by KO disqualifies you from greatness, or it doesn't.

Which is it?

[!! Shawn]

False.

Your comprehension skills are pathetic.

I never said James Toney isn't great because he didn't come in shape all the time.

I said "he's not cut from that old school cloth" like you laughably claimed because he was never shape.

James Toney isn't great for many reasons, the fact his discipline is piss poor is irrelevant. He isn't great because he doesn't have a single dominant victory over a top opponent and regularly lost and struggled to sub par fighters.

Vassily Jirov.

[IronDanHamza]

Vassily Jirov.

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

[IronDanHamza]

So Terry Norris isn't great because he lost to Julian Jackson and Brown, but Hearns gets a pass for getting stopped by Leonard, Hagler, and Barkley?

Terry Norris gets not credit for Meldrick Taylor at 154, despite him being considered the #1 WW in the world at the time, but Hearns gets credit for Knocking out Roberto Duran who we all know was a career lightweight, at 154lb.

I smell some double standards.

I agree all the fighters you listed are great, but so is Terry Norris. If he has the skills, the talent, and the resume to back it up, how can you deny that he is great? You say because he isnt because he is chinny, but you list Tommy Hearns, who lost all of the truly big fights by KO.

You can't have it both ways.

Either being chinny and losing in your prime by KO disqualifies you from greatness, or it doesn't.

Which is it?

Norris' resume doesn't "back it up" at all. Do you actually think he has a great resume?

Are you dense? I never said he wasn't great because he was chinny either. I never said "losing by KO In your prime disqualifies you from being great" nor did I even imply it. You're literally just making that up.

Are you actually trying to claim that Terry Norris and Tommy Hearns are comparable?

If so we can end this conversation here as I can't deal with that kind of ******ity.

[LoadedWraps]

Norris' resume doesn't "back it up" at all. Do you actually think he has a great resume?

Are you dense? I never said he wasn't great because he was chinny either. I never said "losing by KO In your prime disqualifies you from being great" nor did I even imply it. You're literally just making that up.

Are you actually trying to claim that Terry Norris and Tommy Hearns are comparable?

If so we can end this conversation here as I can't deal with that kind of ******ity.

I see you are getting your jimmies rustled here but he has a point, you have to be consistent.

Saying the best fighter of all time in his own division isn't great is a bold claim and you know it.

Who else could he have beaten?

[IronDanHamza]

I see you are getting your jimmies rustled here but he has a point, you have to be consistent.

Saying the best fighter of all time in his own division isn't great is a bold claim and you know it.

Who else could he have beaten?

No not really.

Please give me an example of what I've said that is inconsistent.

It's not a bold claim at all because the Jr Middleweight divison doesn't have lengthy history.

Kalule is Top 5 in that division, is he great?

Also, Norris isn't the best fighter of all him in that division first and foremost, secondly, even if he was it wouldn't necessarily mean he's great anyway.

Calzaghe, Froch, Ottke.

3 of the greatest Super Middleweights of all time. None of them are great fighters.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

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

Jirov is much much better than lacy... No way are they the same caliber

[IronDanHamza]

Jirov is much much better than lacy... No way are they the same caliber

Based on what?

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Based on what?

Jirov is an Olympic medalist, long time reigning champ with multiple defenses..lost a fight of the year candidate to toney

Lacy was hype that got his face bashed in his first step up fight,mand then struggled vs journeymen the rest of his career.. Made 2009 roy jones look like 1995 again..

Lacy has absolutely nothing on jirov

[IronDanHamza]

Jirov is an Olympic medalist, long time reigning champ with multiple defenses..lost a fight of the year candidate to toney

Lacy was hype that got his face bashed in his first step up fight,mand then struggled vs journeymen the rest of his career.. Made 2009 roy jones look like 1995 again..

Lacy has absolutely nothing on jirov

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.