Best Ever!!!!

[Majesty]

As much as i love RJJ i felt his career in a way, could of been much better. There was atleast 10 fights that could of been made, which didn't happen for whatever reason that would of made his legacy, x2 better.

Now a fighter like Pernell Whitaker for example, took on the best and never avoided any fights. Plus i find him more entertaining because he was in more dramatic fights.

Wouldn't more dramatic fights means he showed more weakness? Because when you are one sidedly dominating divisions I always considered it a compliment he didnt have a "Frazier" or something because it just went to show how dominant he was doesn't it? But analysts what they really wanna see is a fighter lose. I really don't know where the theory a fighter needs to be truly tested to be considered great. Why? Can't a fighter be just as great if he dominates anyone and is unchallenged? Just my opinion. I like Whitaker as well and him and Roy traded spots at 1 p4p didn't they?

I never said Pernell Whitaker was better because he was in, more dramatic fights. I just said thats why i find him more exciting, because not only could he put on a beautiful boxing exhibition, avoiding punches in a exciting fashion.

He also could stay on the inside and brawl in a skillful way, which he did quite a few times at Lightweight. I mean his fight with Roger Mayweather was great, and so was many of his other fights. And i think the difference between RJJ/Pernell Whitaker.

Is that when Pernell Whitaker slowed down, he showed he was not only a flashy defensive fighter. He showed what he was really made of, in his fights with Felix Trinidad, Diosbelys Hurtado, Wilfredo Rivera 2.

And lastly you said why does a fighter need to be challenged, to prove he is great ? because boxing is more than just about skills. Its about what you have on the inside aswell, skills is only part of the package. And that was never really proven with RJJ, we don't know how he would of reacted in a really tough fight, that answers question's what you have on the inside.

And im sure had he took a few more risks, we would of found that out but we never did. He fought some good opposition but i can't help thinking, it could of been a much better career, there was atleast 10 names as i said that would of made his legacy alot better as i said earlier.

Yeah but if your skills are good enough shouldn't you not have to show your heart? cause with the right skills you wouldn't be put in that position. Having to dig down deep just shows you deal with more adversity. If you dominated everyone and were never tested that wouldn't make you any less of a fighter all it does is answer the question on whether if you needed to dig deep could you, in my opinion couldn't a truly great fighter not even find themself in that position? It sounds more like a 'fan want to know' rather then the fighter proving it themself. If someone fights 100 times and dominates a weight class and never has to dig down deep it doesn't mean they are a lesser fighter then someone who does, it just means they were so good they never put themself in a position to have to. I think thats just a case of 'fan wants to know more' about a fighter rather then their greatness themself.

[JonesJrMayweather]

The logic of proving how great you were by being in a close fight is the dumbest shit I've ever heard...And the whole he has to have heart to be great is subjective loser BS. Gatti had heart against floyd, but floyd floyd's heart was bigger IMO because it takes heart to go out there focused and whoop his ass round after round knowing he wasn't on his level.