Quote Originally Posted by Majesty View Post
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?

That's exactly what it was..roy dominated so thoroughly that no one can accept that he beat more top ten opponents, champs and future champs than any one yet he somehow managed not to fight anybody??