Whos a better fighter overall? Hopkins or Toney

If you're talkin legacy, Hopkins may be remembered in higher standing. But simply in terms of what they do in the ring Toney has a fuller arsenal than Bernard.

More consistent by winning yes. But from a performance stand point no, he didn't always perform to his fullest. I still remember the first time i seen Hopkins fight, i was like damn, this guy is going to be a star(not till many years later) Then i recall that Tuesday Night Fights was going to have Hopkins on and i thought damn he is going to bring the pain. Vs. Bo James borring fucken fight, that i erased it from the video with which i used to record the fight. Hopkins is like a hot and cold fighter, somtimes he's on, sometimes he just does enough to win. I think Toney actually had more problems with getting motivated to fight, he fought down to the level of his opponents way more often than Hopkins did. Edit: Just wanted to add, when Toney was properly motivated and in shape, he was a very, very good fighter and could've been great.

I think Hopkins used his potential to the maximum, he was much more consistent throughout his career, if Toney had controlled himself and had more discipline, I don't think this question would be up for debate. More consistent by winning yes. But from a performance stand point no, he didn't always perform to his fullest. I still remember the first time i seen Hopkins fight, i was like damn, this guy is going to be a star(not till many years later) Then i recall that Tuesday Night Fights was going to have Hopkins on and i thought damn he is going to bring the pain. Vs. Bo James borring fucken fight, that i erased it from the video with which i used to record the fight. Hopkins is like a hot and cold fighter, somtimes he's on, sometimes he just does enough to win.

I think the same can be said about Hopkins. Toney besides weight problems and the rage or rage to control, maybe that didn't let him fullfill his potentail but he still went a long ways. As did Hopkins. I just disaggree with your post. I think Hopkins used his potential to the maximum, he was much more consistent throughout his career, if Toney had controlled himself and had more discipline, I don't think this question would be up for debate.

Toney had more potential than Hopkins but I don't think he ever used that potential to the fullest so I voted for Hopkins. I think the same can be said about Hopkins. Toney besides weight problems and the rage or rage to control, maybe that didn't let him fullfill his potentail but he still went a long ways. As did Hopkins. I just disaggree with your post.

Allen and Echols did not give Bernard Hopkins trouble. If you mean trouble with being thrown on the canvas and his shoulder being fucked up and Lane pulling on Hopkins then making it a NC, then yeah. Holmes didn't give Hopkins trouble either. He lost a huge uniamous decision. (ferocity being calm) go and see Echols v. Hopkins 1, you're talking about Echols v. Hopkins 2. And the Allen fight im refering too is the 2nd Allen v. Hopkins fight. Go see this fight too. You want to see a crazy fight see Echols v. Charles Brewer 1, don't know if they every had a rematch but if they did then watch the 1st one. And if you havn't seen the fight don't look up there record to see who won. That fight was crazy.

Toney had more potential than Hopkins but I don't think he ever used that potential to the fullest so I voted for Hopkins.

james toney.toney period.

John Ruiz he was on Steroids and he lost the first Peter bout. Even if he "won" it, I could say Bernard Hopkins beat Jermain Taylor twice and Joe Calzaghe (Which I think he did. Calzaghe bout could go either way), but it doesn't change it.

No doubt about that, but Evander Holyfield was way past his prime. It was his only good win at Heavyweight, but even then. I know he didn't beat them with chin alone, I love watching Toney, but he was not better then Bernard Hopkins. This is a pretty even match up and this fight is close as hell (maybe a draw. I see Toney giving Bernard a hell of a time), but who's the better fighter overall, goes to Bernard Hopkins. edit: Also I overexagrated the Margarito chin thing. no way, Toney's best wins at Heavy were either Sam Peter 1 or John Ruiz. Toney simply looked his best vs Holyfield, because he wasnt super fat.

I think people are insane to vote for James Toney. :boxing: This is an honest question. Do you have some sort of mental handicap?

Toney didn't beat those Heavyweights with his chin. He beat them with skill. He didn't beat Jirov or Barkley or Nunn with chin alone. Margarito could not take punches from Kelly Pavlik... comparing Antonio Margarito to James Toney is just about the most polar opposite comparison you could think of. Toney was not some guy who relied on his ability to take punches... it was actually the opposite. Margarito is the one who takes punches. No doubt about that, but Evander Holyfield was way past his prime. It was his only good win at Heavyweight, but even then. I know he didn't beat them with chin alone, I love watching Toney, but he was not better then Bernard Hopkins. This is a pretty even match up and this fight is close as hell (maybe a draw. I see Toney giving Bernard a hell of a time), but who's the better fighter overall, goes to Bernard Hopkins. edit: Also I overexagrated the Margarito chin thing.

I agree, Toney has a great chin, but it's his ability to slip punches that is much more impressive. And no, Margarito is not standing up to 12 rounds of punches from Pavlik. Definitely. I don't even see how a Margarito-Toney comparison is valid.

Toney didn't beat those Heavyweights with his chin. He beat them with skill. He didn't beat Jirov or Barkley or Nunn with chin alone. Margarito could not take punches from Kelly Pavlik... comparing Antonio Margarito to James Toney is just about the most polar opposite comparison you could think of. Toney was not some guy who relied on his ability to take punches... it was actually the opposite. Margarito is the one who takes punches. I agree, Toney has a great chin, but it's his ability to slip punches that is much more impressive. And no, Margarito is not standing up to 12 rounds of punches from Pavlik.

Trinidad was not that much smaller then him. Trinidad fit perfectly in at Middleweight, even if his best wins were at smaller weights. De La Hoya is not his second best win anyway. Toney has 2 wins and a draw over Mike MCcallum, but let's not even mention that he was his best at Jr.Middleweight. Holyfield was a heavyweight, but that just shows that Toney has an INCREDIBLE chin. Antonio Margarito has an incredible chin and could probably take punches from Kelly Pavlik, but that does not make him a better Welterweight then Sugar Ray Lenoard. Bernard Hopkins is a better Middleweight then James Toney and he has a better resume. Toney didn't beat those Heavyweights with his chin. He beat them with skill. He didn't beat Jirov or Barkley or Nunn with chin alone. Margarito could not take punches from Kelly Pavlik... comparing Antonio Margarito to James Toney is just about the most polar opposite comparison you could think of. Toney was not some guy who relied on his ability to take punches... it was actually the opposite. Margarito is the one who takes punches.

Nunn beats Bernard, too. And the fact remains that his two biggest wins came over guys who were much smaller. Old or not, Holyfield was a HEAVYWEIGHT. That was more of the message I'm sending with that one. He fought guys who were not only his size, but much bigger than him, too. Bernard Hopkins struggled with elite guys who were truly his size. The best he's done in that respect was Antonio Tarver. Trinidad was not that much smaller then him. Trinidad fit perfectly in at Middleweight, even if his best wins were at smaller weights. De La Hoya is not his second best win anyway. Toney has 2 wins and a draw over Mike MCcallum, but let's not even mention that he was his best at Jr.Middleweight. Holyfield was a heavyweight, but that just shows that Toney has an INCREDIBLE chin. Antonio Margarito has an incredible chin and could probably take punches from Kelly Pavlik, but that does not make him a better Welterweight then Sugar Ray Lenoard. Bernard Hopkins is a better Middleweight then James Toney and he has a better resume. edit: If Echols gave Bernard so much problems, he would have beat him easily in the rematch since Bernard had a very bad shoulder when he was flipped over.

To be fair to Hopkins he did beat some top contenders that were suppsedly able to beat Hopkins and he beat them. But, not saying they were great contenders. Just saying Hopkins had great success at Middlweight with what was there for him. I can remember lot of people wanted Hopkins to lose but Hopkins keep winning, he's a fighter that did it his way and one of the best thing he could have done for his career is join Golden Boy Promotions. I think, Hopkins should have had no trouble with Taylor if he was that great but i felt Hopkins held back in those fights or Taylor forced him to hold back. Had Hopkin not lost to Taylor i think his greatness could have really had a strong point with that win since Taylor was an Olympian. As it was he lost. Having seen a Monzon fight, i don't think Hopkins gets past Monzon who was big for his weight and very techniqlly skilled, i don't think Hopins would get knocked out either. I think Hopkins is a great fighter, maybe not as great as many give him credit for but a great fighter none the less. I think he wasn't liked more times then none because of the way he fought. He always seemed too cautious and made for ugly fights. But yeah, you have to really rewatch Hopkins to see what he did inside the ring or else you'd think Hopkins has no game plan and is just and ugly style of boxing to watch as i used to think. Though not always as i said he was too cautious but when he wasn't he looked great. But maybe without being caustious he wouldn't have held his title as long as he did. Hopkins biggest win is Trinidad? Then Tarver? Never seen the second Mercado fight but his win over him the second time around should get good credit for as he was clearly out boxed and fought the first time around with Mercado. The Allan fights don't know much only seen one fight of there trillogy. At the time i thought Allan was winning but the fight was not half way even. I think one of Hopkins toughest fight was the Holmes fight maybe mentally or physiclly cause Hopkins resorted to his dirtyness to win this fight. And of course Echols fight the first one was very close fight one that Hopkins almost lost, only seen parts of it, but do recall some people feeling that Hopkins lost that fight. But over all Hopkins should defently be contemp with how his career went.

To be fair to Hopkins he did beat some top contenders that were suppsedly able to beat Hopkins and he beat them. But, not saying they were great contenders. Just saying Hopkins had great success at Middlweight with what was there for him. I can remember lot of people wanted Hopkins to lose but Hopkins keep winning, he's a fighter that did it his way and one of the best thing he could have done for his career is join Golden Boy Promotions. I think, Hopkins should have had no trouble with Taylor if he was that great but i felt Hopkins held back in those fights or Taylor forced him to hold back. Had Hopkin not lost to Taylor i think his greatness could have really had a strong point with that win since Taylor was an Olympian. As it was he lost. Having seen a Monzon fight, i don't think Hopkins gets past Monzon who was big for his weight and very techniqlly skilled, i don't think Hopins would get knocked out either. I think Hopkins is a great fighter, maybe not as great as many give him credit for but a great fighter none the less. I think he wasn't liked more times then none because of the way he fought. He always seemed too cautious and made for ugly fights. But yeah, you have to really rewatch Hopkins to see what he did inside the ring or else you'd think Hopkins has no game plan and is just and ugly style of boxing to watch as i used to think. Though not always as i said he was too cautious but when he wasn't he looked great. But maybe without being caustious he wouldn't have held his title as long as he did. Hopkins biggest win is Trinidad? Then Tarver? Never seen the second Mercado fight but his win over him the second time around should get good credit for as he was clearly out boxed and fought the first time around with Mercado. The Allan fights don't know much only seen one fight of there trillogy. At the time i thought Allan was winning but the fight was not half way even. I think one of Hopkins toughest fight was the Holmes fight maybe mentally or physiclly cause Hopkins resorted to his dirtyness to win this fight. And of course Echols fight the first one was very close fight one that Hopkins almost lost, only seen parts of it, but do recall some people feeling that Hopkins lost that fight. But over all Hopkins should defently be contemp with how his career went.

Anyone disagree with me? Toney's skill amalgamated with Hops' dedicaton= p4p top 10 ever.

Segundo Mercado and Allan and Echols and Holmes gave Hopkins tons of trouble, even a Bo James gave Hopkins a lot of trouble. Play the waiting game and Toney will out play you. Hit with power and Toney will hit with power too. Toney was just the better fighter and it was a plus that he was more exciting then Hopkins. Allen and Echols did not give Bernard Hopkins trouble. If you mean trouble with being thrown on the canvas and his shoulder being fucked up and Lane pulling on Hopkins then making it a NC, then yeah. Holmes didn't give Hopkins trouble either. He lost a huge uniamous decision.