As We Saw - They Never Were The Greatest

[ProBox1]

In Hollywood it's called the it factor. You're either born with it or you're not, it can't be acquired or learned. Fighters/Athletes who have "it" are treated better by the media and fans usually want to accept whatever reason or excuse they offer justifying the reason they lost.

In boxing, some fans and writers will ignore fact and reality to elevate the stature of their favorite fighter. In his prime, only Sugar Ray Leonard and Marvin Hagler beat Thomas Hearns. However, I've seen him rated below Jose Napoles who was stopped by L.C. Morgan and Billy Backus in his prime. The boxing press loved Napoles for some reason and never really took to Hearns. I saw both fight at their best. Hearns defeated greater fighters than Napoles who were also bigger. Had they met 10 times in their respective primes as welterweight champion, I have a hard time envisioning Napoles winning once.

Only George Foreman and Muhammad Ali can claim victory over "Smokin" Joe Frazier. Foreman is thought to be by many the strongest and most powerful puncher in boxing history. Muhammad Ali is viewed by many historians as the greatest heavyweight champion who has yet lived. Conversely, Mike Tyson was stopped by Buster Douglas, who never beat one upper-tier heavyweight before or after fighting Tyson. In his second career defeat, Tyson was knocked out by Evander Holyfield. Prior to fighting Tyson, Holyfield hadn't scored a knockout in five years encompassing his last eight fights. In his two previous bouts before fighting Tyson, Holyfield was stopped by Rid**** Bowe and looked terrible against former middleweight contender Bobby Czyz. [details]

[wmute]

roy jones was not the greatest, but Lotierzo is almost as wrong as the people who said so

Lotierzo hates roy jones, I don't know why exactly

"what excuses can be made for him losing?"
he was 35,
when ali was 36, he lost to leon spinks, we all know that ali would have killed spinks in his prime.

fighting with rj style at 35 is not gonna do it. it is not difficult to see that unless you hate the guy for some reason

logic goes out of the window:

"he said he was in great shape and Tarver was going to get the real Roy this time"

what do you expect a fighter to say before the fight:
"you know I am not as confident as I used to be, my reflexes seemed to be slower now" (note how roy jones trainer said before the fight that jones was slowing starting to slip, but lotierzo wisely does not mention this, cos it goes against his argument)

[BadMagick]

roy jones was not the greatest, but Lotierzo is almost as wrong as the people who said so

Lotierzo hates roy jones, I don't know why exactly

"what excuses can be made for him losing?"
he was 35,
when ali was 36, he lost to leon spinks, we all know that ali would have killed spinks in his prime.

fighting with rj style at 35 is not gonna do it. it is not difficult to see that unless you hate the guy for some reason

logic goes out of the window:

"he said he was in great shape and Tarver was going to get the real Roy this time"

what do you expect a fighter to say before the fight:
"you know I am not as confident as I used to be, my reflexes seemed to be slower now" (note how roy jones trainer said before the fight that jones was slowing starting to slip, but lotierzo wisely does not mention this, cos it goes against his argument)

I find it very ironic that he's bashing everyone in the world for making excuses for Mike and Roy, and then he makes an excuse for Toney. Well, who's fault was it that Toney was so out of shape before the fight with Roy? The fact is, Roy beat the **** out of him for all twelve rounds. Roy lost the fights against Tarver and Johnson, but no one can say that Roy was in some of his best fighting condition. Even though he stayed on the ropes a lot in his later career, he never did that for 8 out of 9 rounds, never moving away from them. With Tarver, HE GOT CAUGHT. That punch would have taken anyone in the division out. He also fails to mention just how much older Tarver is, making it seem as though Tarver were five years older, when in reality, he's two months older. Two months doesn't mean much; they're essentially the same age.

Now, I'm not making excuses for Roy, but the facts are: he was older, and not the same fighter he used to be; he got CAUGHT with a punch in Tarver II; and he did nothing all night against Johnson. Also, I don't think Roy is pound for pound the greatest of all time, although I do think he's top 15 or so.

Tyson, yeah, no one has a really solid reason as to why he didn't win. After jailtime you can see he wasn't the same guy, though.

[wmute]

this article is the kingdom of bias

take the beginning of his article... (without getting in the question of who's better bewtween napoles and hearns)

he mentions how napoles was stopped by 2 not so great fighters.

I wonder why he forgets to mention how both stoppage were on cuts, and avenged by real stoppages.

did hearns avenge his losses? no (well, leonard, but they were both past their primes, and srl past his prime was not a great fighter)
does lotierzo mention this? no, very objective

he makes excuses just like the writers he criticizes