
do we only factor in the "prime" years? are we supposed to ignore the almost 15 year reign of being mediocre/bum status?
im confused here.. it seems when guys like ali, robinson, louis, leonard, duran, tyson and chavez are judged people just erase all the losses out of the equation because they were not "prime" anymore.
so do you rate guys like jones in totality of the entire career or do you just focus on the "prime" years? what is your method here and where do you place him historically?
Comment