What's wrong with this paragraph you wrote? "It's understood that, nearing 40, Jones is aging leather. He hasn't won a relevant fight in years. Hasn't, in fact, knocked out anyone in nearly six. The dizzying speed that flummoxed journeymen (and the occasional future champion) has evaporated. Sporting a chin twice cracked, he has to be careful when boxing his shadow." Mixed amongst many comments we can all agree to be accurate about the 40yr old Jones, you decided to infer that Roy Jones in his prime was what? Help me out, was Roy Jones Jr. not that good?