Quote Originally Posted by ICB View Post
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?