Best MW Champion since Marvin Hagler?

[DeeMoney]

You said it's an example of "Pure greatness".

I'm questioning why dominating a past prime Iran Barkley would ever equate to "pure greatness".

There's nothing great about it. It's not some spectacular feat.

Adolpho Washington literally did the same thing a few months later.

I believe it was pure greatness in regards to the style in which he did it, not on the level of accomplishment. Washington did not do the same thing, his victory was achieved differently.

[IronDanHamza]

I believe it was pure greatness in regards to the style in which he did it, not on the level of accomplishment. Washington did not do the same thing, his victory was achieved differently.

Then your bar on what greatness is is extremely low

There's nothing great about what Toney did to Barkley, at all.

You say what Washington did was not the same thing. He whooped him the same way, quicker too.

[The Old LefHook]

Toney seemed too strong for Mcallum. Mike was a natural junior middleweight, pure and simple. His power (which was good) was barely enough to even annoy Toney, who can take the punches of Sam Peter, though I did see tiny reactions from two or three body shots.

To be a good fight does not make a fight razor thin; to be hard-fought does not make a fight extremely close. Mcallum was doing the tapping, Toney the smashing. You do not have to dominate a man to win. Mcallum seems indomitable anyway. No one can blame Toney for that, except you, that is.

Toney's legacy is a highlight reel one-punch Kayo of Nunn, plus he could take the punches of big heavyweights and I saw him handle Mcallum twice, a fighter with some legacy, albeit a slightly smaller man. As well, Toney would certainly seem a contender for the greatest middleweight or super middleweight chin ever. We never got to see if Hagler could actually endure the punches of the bigger men. Against an oaf like Peter, Toney even began to look pretty clever. But consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and Toney was inconsistent. Not an ATG, but will give most ATGs a hard fight, if not beat them up. His mean streak was built-in.

[IronDanHamza]

Toney seemed too strong for Mcallum. Mike was a natural junior middleweight, pure and simple. His power (which was good) was barely enough to even annoy Toney, who can take the punches of Sam Peter, though I did see tiny reactions from two or three body shots.

To be a good fight does not make a fight razor thin; to be hard-fought does not make a fight extremely close. Mcallum was doing the tapping, Toney the smashing. You do not have to dominate a man to win. Mcallum seems indomitable anyway. No one can blame Toney for that, except you, that is.

Toney's legacy is a highlight reel one-punch Kayo of Nunn, plus he could take the punches of big heavyweights and I saw him handle Mcallum twice, a fighter with some legacy, albeit a slightly smaller man. As well, Toney would certainly seem a contender for the greatest middleweight or super middleweight chin ever. We never got to see if Hagler could actually endure the punches of the bigger men. Against an oaf like Peter, Toney even began to look pretty clever. But consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, and Toney was inconsistent. Not an ATG, but will give most ATGs a hard fight, if not beat them up. His mean streak was built-in.

I mean, you can say that he handled McCallum twice but the fact is he didn't. He has one draw and one win, and you could easily argue he could be 0-2 in those fights. Fact is he's 1-0-1 and that's fair. Toney get's full credit for his win over McCallum whether I disagree with the decision or not because it was a close fight.

You say I blame Toney for McCallum's toughness and not stopping him when I don't, that's fantasy. Now you're acting like the raging lunatic fanbase. Where did I say, or have I ever said anything of the sort? McCallum is the best win on Toney's resume by far and he get's full credit from me for that win.

[joseph5620]

James Toney lost to Dave Tiberi according to everyone on the planet except the 2 of the judges (who were investigated)

Not even sure why he’s even on the shortlist here.

Toney's win over Nunn is better than any win on Golovkin's resume. In fact I can't think of a single fighter Golovkin beat that will go to the HOF. The best since Hagler is Hopkins and I don't even think it's close. That includes Golovkin.

[IronDanHamza]

Toney's win over Nunn is better than any win on Golovkin's resume. In fact I can't think of a single fighter Golovkin beat that will go to the HOF. The best since Hagler is Hopkins and I don't even think it's close. That includes Golovkin.

Micheal Nunn's not in the HOF either nor will he ever be. So what's the point there?

I don't really rate Golovkin, I wouldn't vote for him into the HOF if I had a vote. But he'd smash Nunn to pieces. Nunn was an average fighter.

Regardless, the post I was replying to was in response to Golvkin's fight with Danny Jacobs being an either way fight and that being a knock on him.

On that same token James Toney was beaten clearly by Dave Tiberi at MW so????

[joseph5620]

Micheal Nunn's not in the HOF either nor will he ever be. So what's the point there?

I don't really rate Golovkin, I wouldn't vote for him into the HOF if I had a vote. But he'd smash Nunn to pieces. Nunn was an average fighter.

Regardless, the post I was replying to was in response to Golvkin's fight with Danny Jacobs being an either way fight and that being a knock on him.

On that same token James Toney was beaten clearly by Dave Tiberi at MW so????

The point is the he's better than anybody Golovkin has ever beaten. By far. Golovkin never "smashed" any fighters on or near Nunn's level and there is nothing on his resume that indicates he would have. When Golovkin has stepped up he didn't dominate at all.

[IronDanHamza]

The point is the he's better than anybody Golovkin has ever beaten. By far. Golovkin never "smashed" any fighters on or near Nunn's level and there is nothing on his resume that indicates he would have. When Golovkin has stepped up he didn't dominate at all.

Your point is none of Golovkin's win's will make the HOF and use a guy who's not in the HOF as an example? I don't get it.

Nunn's not a HOF'er nor close to it. I don't even think Nunn is much better than Danny Jacobs.

Canelo's the best opponent between them at MW, and the large majority thought Golovkin won that first fight. So there's that aswell.

It's irrelevant anyway, Golovkin is by far a more accomplished MW than Toney and I'd imagine he'll be ranked higher than him on any MW list worth it's salt.

[The Old LefHook]

Some of our posters should be reminded that mythical match ups generally take place when both fighters are at their best, not when they are having a terrible off night and being beaten by the likes of Tiberi or Watts. Those were not typical nights. Hagler's draw with Antefeurmo was a classic rotten decision. If a rotten decision is the best argument one has, then they have no argument at all.

It pains me to say it, but I would have to go with either Mclellan or Ho'kins. They have ape index all over GGG and Canelo. Ho'kins will spoil and bore, and Mclellan unleash long range artillery onto the palefaces.

[DeeMoney]

Toney's win over Nunn is better than any win on Golovkin's resume. In fact I can't think of a single fighter Golovkin beat that will go to the HOF. The best since Hagler is Hopkins and I don't even think it's close. That includes Golovkin.

That may be true, but the question isnt about resume (who you beat). Its about who would win if they faced each other. Thats not to write that Hopkins still wouldnt be the best MW since Hagler, just that its about how hood he was in your opinion- not his opponents.