Who ranks higher on the pound for pound all time greats Toney or Holyfield ?

[JAB5239]

It means that fight that Jones has that was declared an NC isn't a win on his record his just like Toney doesn't have a win over Ruiz. You might be finally getting somewhere on that one.

A close loss to Peter doesn't go on his resume, nor does his draw with Rahman.

It is a legitimate belt in the 4 belt era. Roy Jones was never the champion, but he was a legitimate belt holder. Unlike Toney who wasn't. Very simple stuff.

Your opinion is irrelevant. The facts are what matters.

Which are; Toney's resume at HW is no better than Jones. Both have one win over a ranked opponent at Heavyweight and one of the two was a title holder.

Unless we start including imaginary wins like Ruiz, Peter and Rahman.

If we're heading into bizarro world where we're giving fighters credit for wins that don't exist then I'll just add a prime Ali, Louis, Liston and Foreman to Jones' heavyweight resume while we're at it.

Look, we all know the vitriol you have towards Toney. It doesn't change the fact he was more proven at heavyweight. Honestly it's not even arguable. As far as your thinking one (or four) paper titles mean something while dismissing other paper titles I'll explain it again. There is only one world champion and it wasn't Ruiz. His trinket means nothing. At least Toney earned his way to his trinket shot. He was also looking for fights with all the best heavyweights. Roy bought a shot at the weakest link and never fought at heavyweight against a top 100 fighter again. Now tell me, am I lying?

[IronDanHamza]

Look, we all know the vitriol you have towards Toney. It doesn't change the fact he was more proven at heavyweight. Honestly it's not even arguable. As far as your thinking one (or four) paper titles mean something while dismissing other paper titles I'll explain it again. There is only one world champion and it wasn't Ruiz. His trinket means nothing. At least Toney earned his way to his trinket shot. He was also looking for fights with all the best heavyweights. Roy bought a shot at the weakest link and never fought at heavyweight against a top 100 fighter again. Now tell me, am I lying?

"Vitriol" Is that what you call factual information? Pull your skirt up and make actual points.

More proven at Heavyweight HOW? You can keep repeating these buzzwords until you're blue in the face, why don't you actually justify your position? How is he more proven when they both beat the same amount of ranked fighters there? Explain that.

If you can't grasp that in the modern say 4 title era that there are legitimate titles (WBC, WBO, WBA, IBF), recognized by the ranking systems (Ring Magazine etc) and then there are illegitimate titles that aren't recognized by any ranking systems (IBO, IBA, WBU etc) then I can't help you.

Roy won one, Toney didn't. Again, fact.

The rest of your post is waffle, you're talking into thin air for the sake of talking and not saying anything of substance.

Whether or not Roy fought there again or not is irrelevant, Roy had one fight at HW and beat the same amount of Top 10 ranked fighters as Toney did in all the fights he had there. That's the fact.

If you can't come to terms with these objective facts then you ought to run along.

[JAB5239]

"Vitriol" Is that what you call factual information? Pull your skirt up and make actual points.

More proven at Heavyweight HOW? You can keep repeating these buzzwords until you're blue in the face, why don't you actually justify your position? How is he more proven when they both beat the same amount of ranked fighters there? Explain that.

If you can't grasp that in the modern say 4 title era that there are legitimate titles (WBC, WBO, WBA, IBF), recognized by the ranking systems (Ring Magazine etc) and then there are illegitimate titles that aren't recognized by any ranking systems (IBO, IBA, WBU etc) then I can't help you.

Roy won one, Toney didn't. Again, fact.

The rest of your post is waffle, you're talking into thin air for the sake of talking and not saying anything of substance.

Whether or not Roy fought there again or not is irrelevant, Roy had one fight at HW and beat the same amount of Top 10 ranked fighters as Toney did in all the fights he had there. That's the fact.

If you can't come to terms with these objective facts then you ought to run along.

It's a fact the you are anything but objective when the subject of James Toney comes up.

It's also a fact that Roy was never the heavyweight champion of the world. I don't care if the Ring uses or even recognizes these organizations. You do realize Lennox Lewis was the IBO champion before right? Oleksandr Usyk is there current champion. Wlad Klitschko, Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua all held there paper title, but I guess they're not real fighters or recognizable representatives of the org because the "big 4" rule, right?

More facts are again, Toney fought and beat more heavyweights making him a more proven heavyweight than Jones who wouldn't fight an old Buster Douglas and avoided Lewis in favor of Ruiz who was never seen as a threat to most the other top heavies of his era.

So please dont try and tell me about objectivity. That is something you know nothing about when speaking of Toney.

I'll take Toneys win over the ATG rather than Jones win over the guy that will never get a whiff of the hall of fame. And believe me, that is nothing against Jones or Ruiz.

[IronDanHamza]

It's a fact the you are anything but objective when the subject of James Toney comes up.

Give me one example where I've not been objective in regards to Toney's career.

In this thread, or any thread and I'll transfer you £1000 to your personal bank account.

It's also a fact that Roy was never the heavyweight champion of the world. I don't care if the Ring uses or even recognizes these organizations. You do realize Lennox Lewis was the IBO champion before right? Oleksandr Usyk is there current champion. Wlad Klitschko, Tyson Fury and Anthony Joshua all held there paper title, but I guess they're not real fighters or recognizable representatives of the org because the "big 4" rule, right?

Well #1 I never said Roy Jones was THE Heavyweight champion. I said that he was A Champion, which he was, unlike Toney who wasn't.

I couldn't care less whether you care or not. You're picking and choosing when it suits you. You use The Ring Magazine for their rankings but aren't willing to adknowledge the 4 World titles that they consider legitimate and the boxing world has done for decades now.

Your second point is just almost painfully mind numbing.

Yes, I'm aware that many fighters, legit world champions have held those titles. What is your point?

There are a plethora of titles in Boxing. All the way from Domestic to the legit world titles. Unless you hold one of those 4 then you aren't a world champion. What you hold before or after has no bearing on that what so ever.

More facts are again, Toney fought and beat more heavyweights making him a more proven heavyweight than Jones who wouldn't fight an old Buster Douglas and avoided Lewis in favor of Ruiz who was never seen as a threat to most the other top heavies of his era.

Ok and I'll say it again, Jason Gavern fought over double the amount of Heavyweights Toney did. What's your point?

How many ranked Heavyweights did they each beat?

So please dont try and tell me about objectivity. That is something you know nothing about when speaking of Toney.

This is the genuine problem with people like you when it comes to Internet darlings like this. Instead of making counter arguments, or any kind of argument for that matter, you refer to this nonsense. It's pathetic and tiresome.

How about you just give me ONE example of me not being objective when it comes to Toney. Show me one post where I have said something about Toney that isn't an objective fact. Go ahead.

I'll take Toney's win over the ATG rather than Jones win over the guy that will never get a whiff of the hall of fame. And believe me, that is nothing against Jones or Ruiz.

You're aware that John Ruiz BEAT Holyfield before he fought Jones right?

They're 1-1-1 against each other. They couldn't be more evenly matched (at that time) if they tried.

They are both the sole ranked fighters at HW that either beat.

I say that means their HW resumes are even.

You say ones "much better"

And I'm the one that's not objective? This coming from a guy who gives the guy imaginary wins that didn't happen, doesn't recognize the 4 belt era despite the fact the ranking system that you use, The Ring Magazine, acknowledges all four of them.

Pot calling the Kettle black, as per usual.

[Slugfester]

Hmmm...two good boys going at it.

It isn't as if Danny hurls falsities against Toney. His consistency and persistence give people that impression. He is there to defend what he feels is truth every time people start over-pumping Toney in his mind. The man knows what he knows, he feels, I guess. He made me take another look at Toney. He has also praised a few fighters' merits highly. I did not always agree with his appraisals, which is why we have a forum.

[IronDanHamza]

Hmmm...two good boys going at it.

It isn't as if Danny hurls falsities against Toney. His consistency and persistence give people that impression. He is there to defend what he feels is truth every time people start over-pumping Toney in his mind. The man knows what he knows, he feels, I guess. He made me take another look at Toney. He has also praised a few fighters' merits highly. I did not always agree with his appraisals, which is why we have a forum.

And that is the key there. I challenge anyone to pull up just one single falsehood I've said about Toney, you won't find it.

On top of that, I give him the praise that he deserves. He's a HOF calibur fighter, has one of the ATG chins, has heart, would never quit in a fight. He's skillful. He's a top quality fighter and I've never even tried to make an argument otherwise. You don't hold legitimate wins over McCallum, Nunn, Johnson, etc by being average.

One further, his first fight with McCallum is one of the best fights I ever saw.

So it's all just total nonsense really. When these fairies get in their feelings about it, it's a joke and it's pathetic. What is even the point of this forum? You just said it perfectly; "Which is why we have a forum". No one is going to agree on everything and that's the entire point. But when you make opposing points, that are based in reality by the way, about particular internet darlings they get their pants in a bunch.

It's incredibly frustrating when trying to have a discussion on a topic and words like "vitriol" are used. In fact it's closer to cringe worthy.

Good to hear that you re evaluated your position, whether you changed your mind or not. That's the beauty of dialogue.

[QueensburyRules]

Holyfield. Not even close

- - Sorta like voting on who's the ugliest of two ugly sisters.

[Sharpshootah]

- - Sorta like voting on who's the ugliest of two ugly sisters.

That made me legit lol. Toney had some good ones. Holyfield had great ones

[kara]

I wonder how much Toney's ranking takes a hit from all the positive tests

[ShoulderRoll]

"Vitriol" Is that what you call factual information? Pull your skirt up and make actual points.

Pull your skirt up? What’s up with Dan making female references to people he has disagreements with? He has deliberately called me “she” and “her” on a couple of separate occasions now too.

Weirdo. Probably says something about his particular hangups and proclivities, though.