Does Kellerman's comment about Roy's losses hold true for Tito too?

At some point, Kellerman came out with this comment that Roy's performance was impressive that it would actually make him look worse in retrospect, because it meant that he lost to Glen Johnson at a time when he wasn't nearly as deteriorated as people had originally thought.

Since a lot of people on here are claiming that Tito was impressive too in his own way (ie: winning a fair share of rounds, boxing well, staying the distance against a bigger, stronger man), does the same logic hold true for him too? In other words, how will his lopsided loss to Winky Wright look in retrospect? If this fight really proves that he isn't really a has-been or a "shell", will that also make a loss like Winky Wright look even worse for him?

 

I think he was talking about Roy beating somebody like Calzaghe. Even if Roy did beat Calzaghe he is still way past his prime. Tito woul;dn't have won 1 round against Roy in 2001.

 

In a sense, yes, but I feel that accomplishments and resume are more important than how good you are in your prime. Roy had an aura of invincibility, but being unbeatable is a myth. If Roy went on and scored a couple of meaningful wins in the future, it would help his legacy IMO, rather than hurt it because he lost to Tarver and Johnson when he wasn't shot.

As for Trinidad, I never thought he was shot against Wright. It was a terrible performance for Tito. Trinidad was dumbfounded beyond belief.

 

I think what we saw last night was Roy adjusting to his appaerent loss in speed (maybe not so much in hand-speed, but certainly in foot and reflexes) and endurance.....Jones avoided being hit by hold a tight, high guard, wheras in the past he relied almost solely on movement and speed, only bringing his guard up when against the ropes.......what if he did this against Tarver and Johnson? both of whom knocked him out with long shots (....although against these bigger opponents, standing in range albeit behind a high guard, may play straight into their hands)

....i'd be interested to see if he employs these defensive tactics in future fights.....it is possible that he somply adopted this approach in order to replicate Winky's style, more than for any other reason

 

Titos losses had very little to do with a loss of prime- the Hopkins loss had to do with him being found out in terms of weight and style, and Winky was also a style issue, aggravated by inactivity. In that respect I feel that Jones losses had little to do with "Prime" either, instead they had to do with weight-issues aggravating a chin issue. Personally, I feel that there was very little for either guy to take from last nights fight, and Roy may have unwittingly alluded to this when he said that he is the first HW Champ to get down to 170 again. He may be right........but what does that tell us about what many would claim to be Roys greatest accolade??

 

interesting observation.

 

It's great to see work on defense because I don't want him going out like he did against Johnson.

 

both were great fighters in their respective primes. End of story. I don't need Kellerman to affirm or discredit shit. Both are past their primes and basically irrelevant.