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

[IronDanHamza]

But that's saying that Roy doesn't have a win over a prime ATG which I believe to be false.

I also don't buy into the excuses some people make for Toney's loss, the stuff about being out of shape or drained etc.

It's still completely irrelevant to my thread and doesn't contradict my thread in any way.

You think it's false, fair enough.

I think Hopkins at 28 was pretty close to prime if not prime. He won the title a year later. Plus Jones was just as green as Hopkins as a pro.

[Syf]

I'd say overall tony is an easy target. I don't give him credit for fights he could have done better in if he were in better shape. It's his fault that he wasn't in shape. Also I have a giant chip on my shoulder towards him for disgracing boxing and taking his side show act over to the MMA to sacrifice the honor and worth of boxing against other arts like a sacrificial lamb.

Having said that, I don't see how the logic in this thread adds up. On one hand we have Roy who is undoubtably an all-time great, and one of his best wins is James Toney. On the other hand we have Mike McCallum who is being touted as an all time great, and James Toney isn't even though he has two victories over the Body Snatcher, and one draw.

"Impressive performances" is another one that makes me scratch my head. Seems to me a dominating impressive performance isn't worth watching as much as a tightly contested match of will and skill. That's what everyone wants to see. Not mismatches, and not giant gulfs in levels. The come from behind win against Nunn..and the classics against McCallum were excellent performances by Toney. He was just matched tough. Can't expect Roy'esque blowouts every time to give someone credit for their performance. There are different types of fighters and different types of methodology they employ...

[BKM-]

It's still completely irrelevant to my thread and doesn't contradict my thread in any way.

You think it's false, fair enough.

I think Hopkins at 28 was pretty close to prime if not prime. He won the title a year later. Plus Jones was just as green as Hopkins as a pro.

It's relevant to your other thread, you wanted to make Roy's resume look as good as possible but it's doing it a disservice by underrating his best win and denying Toney's ATG stance which most people believe he is. It's certainly better than Roy's win over green Hopkins, the Hopkins who fought Trinidad would 12-0 that young version of himself.

[IronDanHamza]

Can't say i disagree.
Figured "movement" is a poor choice of word since he lacks footwork haha.
Obvious in the rjj fight. But then rjj is a different animal after all.

Most defintely.

But the signs were there as early as Reggie Johnson.

Johnson boxed absolute circles around Toney for the first 5 rounds of the fight. Infact, he made Toney look amateurish the entire fight even the rounds he lost. Toney could not handle the movement and defense of Johnson at all. Johnson couldn't miss with the jab to the body, straight left to the body or the straight left up top.

Toney couldn't cut off the ring, he couldn't let his hands go because he couldn't get into position, he would often throw wild single shots and miss by a mile.

Johnson was so unlucky to lose that fight. He collapsed to the floor with disbelief when they read Toney as the winner.

[IronDanHamza]

It's relevant to your other thread, you wanted to make Roy's resume look as good as possible but it's doing it a disservice by underrating his best win and denying Toney's ATG stance which most people believe he is. It's certainly better than Roy's win over green Hopkins, the Hopkins who fought Trinidad would 12-0 that young version of himself.

No it's not relevant to my other thread at all.

No my thread is not to make his "resume look as good as possible" I've just explained in the post you replied to that my thread is to take a look at the alleged "weak opponents" Roy fought and compare his fights with them with the other top fighters of that era and how their performances were against them in comparison.

My thread has absolutely nothing at all to do with James Toney I even make a point of stating that he's not included in the thread along with Hopkins.

I don't think it is better to be honest. I'd expect that version of Hopkins to easily beat Toney.

[IronDanHamza]

I'd say overall tony is an easy target. I don't give him credit for fights he could have done better in if he were in better shape. It's his fault that he wasn't in shape. Also I have a giant chip on my shoulder towards him for disgracing boxing and taking his side show act over to the MMA to sacrifice the honor and worth of boxing against other arts like a sacrificial lamb.

Having said that, I don't see how the logic in this thread adds up. On one hand we have Roy who is undoubtably an all-time great, and one of his best wins is James Toney. On the other hand we have Mike McCallum who is being touted as an all time great, and James Toney isn't even though he has two victories over the Body Snatcher, and one draw.

"Impressive performances" is another one that makes me scratch my head. Seems to me a dominating impressive performance isn't worth watching as much as a tightly contested match of will and skill. That's what everyone wants to see. Not mismatches, and not giant gulfs in levels. The come from behind win against Nunn..and the classics against McCallum were excellent performances by Toney. He was just matched tough. Can't expect Roy'esque blowouts every time to give someone credit for their performance. There are different types of fighters and different types of methodology they employ...

Why can't we expect blowouts when Roy Jones blew out the same guys the likes of Toney, Eubank, Collins etc etc etc either lost to or struggled with?

You may prefer to watch back and forth fights but we're not taking preference here we are analaysing someone. Impressive dominant performances are better than performances that aren't those things.

I've explained why I think McCallum is an ATG. He beat better fights than Toney, he was more dominant than Toney, he beat top level fighters in dominant and impressive fashion. Toney got a draw with McCallum and got the decision in the second one but I thought McCallum won. The third fight shouldn't even be mentioned.

Where does the logic not add up?

[BKM-]

No it's not relevant to my other thread at all.

No my thread is not to make his "resume look as good as possible" I've just explained in the post you replied to that my thread is to take a look at the alleged "weak opponents" Roy fought and compare his fights with them with the other top fighters of that era and how their performances were against them in comparison.

My thread has absolutely nothing at all to do with James Toney I even make a point of stating that he's not included in the thread along with Hopkins.

I don't think it is better to be honest. I'd expect that version of Hopkins to easily beat Toney.

You're not gonna convince me that that thread isn't meant to glorify Roy Jones jr. pal no matter how you deny it, I don't care for the semantics I'm just pointing out that this thread defeats its own purpose. And you should make a poll asking what's Roy's best win is and I'd be very surprised if most people won't vote for Toney. It won't be Hopkins, he was green and fought nothing like the crafty, dirty vet who was breaking records much later on.

You have a very strange set of opinions on this topic. Toney is overrated and not an ATG and Roy beat Hopkins at his best? Just lol.

[IronDanHamza]

You're not gonna convince me that that thread isn't meant to glorify Roy Jones jr. pal no matter how you deny it, I don't care for the semantics I'm just pointing out that this thread defeats its own purpose. And you should make a poll asking what's Roy's best win is and I'd be very surprised if most people won't vote for Toney. It won't be Hopkins, he was green and fought nothing like the crafty, dirty vet who was breaking records much later on.

You have a very strange set of opinions on this topic. Toney is overrated and not an ATG and Roy beat Hopkins at his best? Just lol.

How can you tell me what my thread is about? I am telling you categorically what my thread is about.

The title of the thread explains itself and if that fails then the OP of the thread explains it very clearly.

I've purposely mentioned that Toney and Hopkins are not to be included in the thread.

So I will state again, no, it does not contradict the thread in any way.

I don't care who people vote for in a poll. Knowing how ridicously overrated Toney is on Boxing forums I'd have little doubt Toney would win an online poll. Still doesn't change my opinion that that 28 year old version of Hopkins would easily beat James Toney.

[BKM-]

How can you tell me what my thread is about? I am telling you categorically what my thread is about.

The title of the thread explains itself and if that fails then the OP of the thread explains it very clearly.

I've purposely mentioned that Toney and Hopkins are not to be included in the thread.

So I will state again, no, it does not contradict the thread in any way.

I don't care who people vote for in a poll. Knowing how ridicously overrated Toney is on Boxing forums I'd have little doubt Toney would win an online poll. Still doesn't change my opinion that that 28 year old version of Hopkins would easily beat James Toney.

Thinking that that Hopkins would 'easily beat' Toney doesn't mean that it was a better win for Roy. Hopkins and Toney have different styles which makes fights. You overrate Roy's win over Hopkins while underrating his win over Toney, that's what it comes down to, but of course you don't want to risk seeing how wrong you are by taking up the poll challenge.

I think you should make a choice here. Either Toney is overrated which makes Roy also overrated, or Toney is not overrated and your thread about Roy being underrated is correct. Either way one of your threads is incorrect, you can't have it both ways pal

[IronDanHamza]

Thinking that that Hopkins would 'easily beat' Toney doesn't mean that it was a better win for Roy. Hopkins and Toney have different styles which makes fights. You overrate Roy's win over Hopkins while underrating his win over Toney, that's what it comes down to, but of course you don't want to risk seeing how wrong you are by taking up the poll challenge.

I think you should make a choice here. Either Toney is overrated which makes Roy also overrated, or Toney is not overrated and your thread about Roy being underrated is correct. Either way one of your threads is incorrect, you can't have it both ways pal

Well that's just one part. I not only believe Hopkins would beat Toney I also believe he's a better fighter in general. Even the 28 year old version. So IMO it's a better win.

I understand I am in the minority there and the idea that I'm afraid to make a poll due to the chances of being "wrong" is laughable. Like I previously pointed out, I am well aware that Toney would win a poll if that question were to be asked. I'm well aware that the majority would consider Toney a better win. I don't follow the crowd though I have my own mind and I've given valid reasoning as to why I believe Hopkins is a better win.

Make a decision? Pure nonsense.

What you've just said is literally gibberish.

So firstly, Toney being overrated means Jones is overrated? What kind of ridiculous logic is that?

Secondly, my thread isn't about Jones being "underrated" so that point you've made there is moot. I've explained to you three times what my thread is about must I explain it to you again?

Thirdly, by what logic does "admitting Toney is not overrated" equate to Roy Jones being underrated?

At no point have I made a single implication that I feel Roy Jones is underrated.

Now I will explain to you how both of my threads can easily co-exist;

1. James Toney IS overrated IMO, nor is he an ATG IMO. That has absolutely no bearing or relevance to my thread what so ever. It also doesn't have any knock on Roy because despite the fact Toney's overrated and not an ATG it's still an impressive dominant victory over a sure fire first ballot HOFer in their prime.

2. My thread about Roy Jones, as I've once again clearly stated, has nothing to do with James Toney as one of his opponents. My thread is about specific Roy Jones opponents (WHICH DOES NOT INCLUDE JAMES TONEY) and whether or not those opponents are "weak", by comparing his performances against them to the other top fighters of that era.

Extremely simple.