Roy Jones is a special case. He did things wrong and got away with it because of his extraordinary athletic ability, but don't kid yourself into thinking he didn't have very good skills.
He had a long successful amateur career and had plenty of skill.
I understand that. WHat i was getting at is that if you restrict the definition of "skills" to purely technical skills its not like he is right up there with the greatest of the all time greats as would be the case if physical attributes were to be included in that definition.
I understand that. WHat i was getting at is that if you restrict the definition of "skills" to purely technical skills its not like he is right up there with the greatest of the all time greats as would be the case if physical attributes were to be included in that definition.
ideally you need both to be a great fighter. but choosing one, resume. why? well it shows who you beat. you can have all the skills in the world but what good is it if your fighting tomato cans?
This has probably been done before......lets do it again...........whats the litmus paper...........of how good a fighter really is....................poll to follow...............give your reason.......why........i vote resume.........skills is way subjective.........imo..........choose just one..........we know both are important....................
what use is skill if you don't have the resume to back it up?
Andre Ward has tons of skills but does he have the resume to back it up? c'mon man this is easy.
Comment