James Toney; Most overrated fighter of the 90's?

[IronDanHamza]

Didn't he win vs Ruiz?

No contest.

[IronDanHamza]

What you are saying is "The judges are wrong and you are right"? in Toney v McCallum (2) - is that what you are saying?

Toney vs Rahman (1) the judges had it 114-114, 114-114 Majority draw
Toney vs Rahman (2) Rahman quit before he was knocked out

Show me were you debated Holyfield fighting for 8yrs at World championsahip level, after losing by knock out to Toney?

You have the judges correct for Griffin and "Laugh of the decade" McCallum (2) - which is it?

What does Broner have to do with a 160lb champion at heavyweight?

No I'm saying that I thought McCallum edged it but I can't complain with the decision because it was very close.

I'm saying your claim that "Toney dominated McCallum" and using the scorecards to justify that zinger of a claim is hilarious.

Why don't you go by the judges card for the Griffin fights? Why do you ignore that over two fights and six cards not a single card had Toney as the winner?

I'm well aware Toney-Rahman was a draw and that was a fair decision and surely you agree as the judges cards mean so much to you. Oh no sorry, only when it suits you.

[LacedUp]

No contest.

But in fairness he did win and got the decision. It was changed because of drugs or something right?

[BennyST]

If you don't want to take into account how they might have done head to head against each other, and if you go exclusively by resume at the weight, then a stronger argument can be made for Tzyu. I agree.

It just gets too convoluted and confusing otherwise and you end up having to judge guys that might have only had one, two or three fights at that weight compared to entire careers for others. When you do that for one guy at one weight, then obviously you have to do that for everyone at every weight and suddenly everyone's overrated and everyone's underrated and madness ensues.

That's what the mythical P4P rankings are for anyway, whereas individual divisions you can only go by what has been accomplished at that specific weight alone, with resume, championship pedigree, longevity, skills etc etc. Head to head is a different argument altogether in my opinion.

Otherwise I'd agree. There have been many greater fighters at 140, but only a few of them actually accomplished more and beat a deeper resume of fighters there.

[ShoulderRoll]

It just gets too convoluted and confusing otherwise and you end up having to judge guys that might have only had one, two or three fights at that weight compared to entire careers for others. When you do that for one guy at one weight, then obviously you have to do that for everyone at every weight and suddenly everyone's overrated and everyone's underrated and madness ensues.

When you ask which fighting man was better than another you have to consider who could beat who, in my opinion. Resume can be be brought into the argument but it shouldn't be the only criteria.

I do understand it if people choose to go strictly by the records. But that doesn't tell the whole tale in my opinion. For example, who was the better featherweight: Kid Chocolate or Salvador Sanchez? Going just by the resumes maybe you have to lean one way, but if you consider their talents head to head then maybe you want to lean the other way.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Hopkins arguably won the last three fights you mentioned.

Not really,, he clearly lost taylor 2, and calzaghe..

Taylor 1 was at best a draw.. Just because hopkins rallied, everyone forgets taylor won 6 or 7 or the first 9 rds.

[BennyST]

When you ask which fighting man was better than another you have to consider who could beat who, in my opinion. Resume can be be brought into the argument but it shouldn't be the only criteria.

I do understand it if people choose to go strictly by the records. But that doesn't tell the whole tale in my opinion. For example, who was the better featherweight: Kid Chocolate or Salvador Sanchez? Going just by the resumes maybe you have to lean one way, but if you consider their talents head to head then maybe you want to lean the other way.

No, it shouldn't be the only criteria, but it's the most important. Resume tells you all about head to head at that weight. Resume is what actually happened. It's factual. Head to head is what you think might happen, but it never did and never will. It's unreliable and completely subjective. If you go by who could beat who as the ultimate criteria without looking at their longevity, accomplishments and resume at that weight alone it could be anyone...by that criteria, most of the great 140 guys would struggle to get into the top five.

Who is your number 1 at 140?

Roberto Duran? Floyd Mayweather? Ray Robinson? Henry Armstrong? All fought at 140.

Surely you've got to be consistent and rank everyone as you do Tszyu? If you have guys with a few fights above Tszyu, or only three title fights or whatever, and your ultimate judging criteria is who could beat who then they'd all be at the very top.

I'd have Sanchez above KC. KC fought more as a 130er and while his resume is pretty good at 126, Sanchez' is better in my opinion, he accomplished more at the 126 limit, had better longevity and less losses.

[billeau2]

Not really,, he clearly lost taylor 2, and calzaghe..

Taylor 1 was at best a draw.. Just because hopkins rallied, everyone forgets taylor won 6 or 7 or the first 9 rds.

All three of those fights were debatable, Im not even giving my opinion. the least debatable fight was the Calzighe fight but the only meaningful thing done in that fight was the knockdown and Calzighe was rewarded, to many, for essentially slapping away with little effect.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

All three of those fights were debatable, Im not even giving my opinion. the least debatable fight was the Calzighe fight but the only meaningful thing done in that fight was the knockdown and Calzighe was rewarded, to many, for essentially slapping away with little effect.

joe might have been slapping, but all hopkins did the majority of the fight, was complain to the ref and try and act his away into point deductions

[billeau2]

joe might have been slapping, but all hopkins did the majority of the fight, was complain to the ref and try and act his away into point deductions

He also knocked Joe down... From Sonny's favorite rag: here are the scores which indicate that One judge was off his rocker the other two scores were close with one going for Hopkins the other for slapperinski.

115-112 and 116-111, with the
third going for Hopkins 114-113.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/oth...#ixzz3ylQllwan
Follow us: mailonline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook