It is a paradox. Your assertion is that he wouldn't be as good as he is if he didn't clinch - yet at the same time make the claim that when he is less clinchy he is actually better. Take away the clinches and he's becomes more vulnerable...but also more dangerous. I'm sure Steward had to put a lot of thought into the cost-benefit of it all.
I tend to think he would still turn out to be a champion even if he did not employ the tactics, BUT when looking at that paradox straight in the face, it probably was the most responsible direction for Steward to take him. He will never meet the peak of his talent, but I think he would have reached similar career benchmarks just not had such a long uninterrupted reign.
I tend to think he would still turn out to be a champion even if he did not employ the tactics, BUT when looking at that paradox straight in the face, it probably was the most responsible direction for Steward to take him. He will never meet the peak of his talent, but I think he would have reached similar career benchmarks just not had such a long uninterrupted reign.
Comment