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

[sonnyboyx2]

This explains a lot. You might be the worst scorekeeper I've ever seen.

DLH over Sturm? Seriously?

most definately.. DeLaHoya won in my book

[sonnyboyx2]

20,000+ fights? hahahaha...........thats a good one!

I can prove it... but you must leave the forum forever if i do... deal or no deal Walter Mitty?

[BennyST]

I said he didn't beat a top level fighter in dominant or impressive fashion. Not didn't beat any top level fighters.

I had him losing to Johnson, McCallum 2 (first one a draw), Griffin 1, Tiberi, Jones and Thazdi all in his prime years. Doesn't that mean anything?

Even the fights I had him winning, Griffin 2, that was still a close fight that could have gone either way.

Micheal Nunn was a very good win but once again he looked unimpressive in that fight.

Yeah if you look at the names he fought at face value yeah it's a "great resume" but if you actually look at the performances and results then it's really not that impressive.

If it means something that you think he lost those fights, then surely it also means just as much that he should have won against Griffin and Peter also?

How he won is subjective. Who he won against is objective. It's your subjective opinion that his performances were lacking, but it doesn't actually change the fact that, as you yourself state above, his resume is a great one. He doesn't need dominating performances when he's already beating guys on the level of Nunn, McCallum etc. Getting the win is impressive enough in itself. Not dominating such great opposition is certainly not grounds for suddenly becoming the most overrated fighter of that decade. Who else in that decade beat more top fighters over more divisions?

If a fighter beats great fighters, then he's a great fighter himself. It doesn't matter if he didn't necessarily look good, great or horrible or reach his potential. He beat them. The subjective 'performance' aspect if it is a superficial cherry on top. It doesn't change his wins to losses.

Performances alone don't change a fighters resume of wins from great to unimpressive and most overrated of the decade.

You yourself admit that if you look at the fighters he beat, then it's a great resume...His performances in those wins don't cancel that out. Performances don't turn a great resume into a bad one. You still have to win, despite the performance you put on. It's still a great resume no matter how he performed if he won. So you don't like how he performed, fine. But you still say his resume is great. Well, that's the most important thing by far.

He still beat a lot of great fighters. You're saying he's overrated because, despite beating a lot of great fighters and having a great resume, you just didn't like how he performed in those fights and thus is overrated?

Not really how wins work. If he won he won. It can help if he won in dominant fashion, but that doesn't change that he beat a great resume of fighters.

[BennyST]

There it is again. You know, earlier you claimed you didn't say you had over 20,000 fights, but you just said it again above. Just saying.

And what about Paul Williams vs. Erislandy Lara? That has to be the worst decision I've ever seen.

Yeah, he's an absolute tool. Pathological liar...like a weird little spoiled child or something.

[BennyST]

Anyway, like many fighters he can be a little overrated by some. I don't think there is a consensus on this one and I certainly don't think he's the most overrated of that entire decade. I think people rave about him because of some of his brilliant individual skills, but I don't think I've ever seen him rated that highly as an ATG. He seems to be consistently rated as a lower 50-100 type ATG mostly because of the exact things you mention. Seems about right to me.

But surely you need some consistency in rating fighters IDH? I've seen you say Froch is the greatest SMW of all time with the best resume etc. Well, he's had losses and shady wins/poor performances like Toney, except without the skill Toney shows and a much lesser resume. Surely if you think Toney is unimpressive and the most overrated fighter of an entire decade, you'd have to think similarly of Froch? However, you think the exact opposite and go to the other extreme saying he's the best SMW ever!

The performances thing makes no sense. I doubt you think of Froch as the most overrated 168er of this era and arguably of all time based on his performances in fights alone right?

If we followed your logic of going by performances and shaky wins etc, then you yourself must think Froch is clearly the most overrated 168er of this era and maybe the most overrated in boxing's 168 history if you hold any consistency in rating fighters.

Like Toney he was beaten by the best fighter he faced easily in Ward and also the second best in an ageing Kessler. He had 'unimpressive/poor' (your words for close, albeit winning, fights) performances against Dirrell, an unimpressive come from behind win that he looked terrible, was dropped etc against a never that good Taylor (much worse than struggling against Nunn), nearly stopped against a never was Groves, had a close fight against Pascal, looked lacklustre against Johnson etc etc.

That's a lot of unimpressive performances for someone you call the greatest SMW ever against some very unspectacular opposition. His best wins, Kessler and Bute, were another close (read poor) fight against an ageing fighter that he'd already lost to and what most now consider a highly overrated Bute.

You've certainly never called Forch overrated. The extreme opposite in fact. Surely there should be some attempt at consistency?

Anyway, just some food for thought.

[BennyST]

I can prove it... but you must leave the forum forever if i do... deal or no deal Walter Mitty?

I will. I'll take you up on that challenge 100%. Prove you have the biggest boxing collection in the entire world, of over 20K fights, obviously including most of the rarest fights ever seen, and i'll leave for good.

[IronDanHamza]

If it means something that you think he lost those fights, then surely it also means just as much that he should have won against Griffin and Peter also?

How he won is subjective. Who he won against is objective. It's your subjective opinion that his performances were lacking, but it doesn't actually change the fact that, as you yourself state above, his resume is a great one. He doesn't need dominating performances when he's already beating guys on the level of Nunn, McCallum etc. Getting the win is impressive enough in itself. Not dominating such great opposition is certainly not grounds for suddenly becoming the most overrated fighter of that decade. Who else in that decade beat more top fighters over more divisions?

If a fighter beats great fighters, then he's a great fighter himself. It doesn't matter if he didn't necessarily look good, great or horrible or reach his potential. He beat them. The subjective 'performance' aspect if it is a superficial cherry on top. It doesn't change his wins to losses.

Performances alone don't change a fighters resume of wins from great to unimpressive and most overrated of the decade.

You yourself admit that if you look at the fighters he beat, then it's a great resume...His performances in those wins don't cancel that out. Performances don't turn a great resume into a bad one. You still have to win, despite the performance you put on. It's still a great resume no matter how he performed if he won. So you don't like how he performed, fine. But you still say his resume is great. Well, that's the most important thing by far.

He still beat a lot of great fighters. You're saying he's overrated because, despite beating a lot of great fighters and having a great resume, you just didn't like how he performed in those fights and thus is overrated?

Not really how wins work. If he won he won. It can help if he won in dominant fashion, but that doesn't change that he beat a great resume of fighters.

I give him credit for Griffin 2, I had Toney winning that. Griffin 1 I had Griffin winning. I had Peter winning both fights.

I don't say he has a great resume. I've not said that once.

I don't understand why we're acting like loss's and poor performances scraping victories at every level is being ignored. That means a lot to me if a fighter hasn't been a single top fighter in dominant or impressive fashion. You aren't going to dominate everyone at the top level nor beat everyone most of the time but the guy literally has none. Not a single dominant or impressive performance. Except maybe Jirov I would concede you could argue is Toney did clearly win that one IMO.

In terms of "great fighters" he fought 2, Roy Jones and Mike McCallum and he's 1-1-1 in those and IMO he's 0-2-1.

[IronDanHamza]

Anyway, like many fighters he can be a little overrated by some. I don't think there is a consensus on this one and I certainly don't think he's the most overrated of that entire decade. I think people rave about him because of some of his brilliant individual skills, but I don't think I've ever seen him rated that highly as an ATG. He seems to be consistently rated as a lower 50-100 type ATG mostly because of the exact things you mention. Seems about right to me.

But surely you need some consistency in rating fighters IDH? I've seen you say Froch is the greatest SMW of all time with the best resume etc. Well, he's had losses and shady wins/poor performances like Toney, except without the skill Toney shows and a much lesser resume. Surely if you think Toney is unimpressive and the most overrated fighter of an entire decade, you'd have to think similarly of Froch? However, you think the exact opposite and go to the other extreme saying he's the best SMW ever!

The performances thing makes no sense. I doubt you think of Froch as the most overrated 168er of this era and arguably of all time based on his performances in fights alone right?

If we followed your logic of going by performances and shaky wins etc, then you yourself must think Froch is clearly the most overrated 168er of this era and maybe the most overrated in boxing's 168 history if you hold any consistency in rating fighters.

Like Toney he was beaten by the best fighter he faced easily in Ward and also the second best in an ageing Kessler. He had 'unimpressive/poor' (your words for close, albeit winning, fights) performances against Dirrell, an unimpressive come from behind win that he looked terrible, was dropped etc against a never that good Taylor (much worse than struggling against Nunn), nearly stopped against a never was Groves, had a close fight against Pascal, looked lacklustre against Johnson etc etc.

That's a lot of unimpressive performances for someone you call the greatest SMW ever against some very unspectacular opposition. His best wins, Kessler and Bute, were another close (read poor) fight against an ageing fighter that he'd already lost to and what most now consider a highly overrated Bute.

You've certainly never called Forch overrated. The extreme opposite in fact. Surely there should be some attempt at consistency?

Anyway, just some food for thought.

Valid points but Froch does have dominant performances though against some top fighters.

I'll admit that Froch IS overrated by some most definitely. I actually have Ward #1, changed my mind.

But that's solely because 168 is so weak and a reasonably new division.

In regard to Froch, he's not an ATG and far from it. Infact he's a boarder line HOF'er IMO.

If someone were to claim he was an ATG I'd certainly call him overrated also.

For the record I rank Toney over Froch but at 168 I would probably pick Froch to win a SD type fight.

And surely if performances don't matter and it's just "wins" then Froch is highly rated?

[BennyST]

I give him credit for Griffin 2, I had Toney winning that. Griffin 1 I had Griffin winning. I had Peter winning both fights.

I don't say he has a great resume. I've not said that once.

I don't understand why we're acting like loss's and poor performances scraping victories at every level is being ignored. That means a lot to me if a fighter hasn't been a single top fighter in dominant or impressive fashion. You aren't going to dominate everyone at the top level nor beat everyone most of the time but the guy literally has none. Not a single dominant or impressive performance. Except maybe Jirov I would concede you could argue is Toney did clearly win that one IMO.

In terms of "great fighters" he fought 2, Roy Jones and Mike McCallum and he's 1-1-1 in those and IMO he's 0-2-1.

You quoted someone who said it and then specifically agreed with that phrase, which is the same thing.

How is having what you consider to be one of the greatest, most skilful fights of all time not impressive? So you say he's in what is one of your favourite, most amazing fights, full of the highest level of skill you've seen, but it's a terrible, unimpressive performance too?

You don't find coming from behind and figuring out an unbeaten, P4P Nunn in your first ever title fight as a young fighter impressive? Nunn was considered the second coming of Leonard at that stage and was a huge favourite. So, he didn't dominate the whole fight and then stop Nunn, but how does that make it an unimpressive performance? That speaks more to the grit, determination and skills of both guys.

The amount he was behind is always massively overstated too. By the mid to late portion of the fight Toney was coming on in a huge way and it had become a real equal fight. People act like he lost every round then suddenly just landed one punch. That is patently absurd and just not what happened at all.

How is the performance against Barkley not good?

It just seems you're looking at everything with an incredible negative slant on what are normal things in boxing. Don't go NSB style on us Dan!

You said Froch has some good performances against top fighters, but seem to ignore Toney's ones against equally good, or clearly better, opposition.

He looked great (and sometimes not so great, but that's why Toney is rated where he is, because he was inconsistent and sometimes lazy in his fights) against some top rated and championship level fighters of the time and great in close, hard fights against the other HOF/ATG...which is to be expected of a fight between two great fighters.

That's pretty standard of all fighters though. Toney was more inconsistent than most really high level ATG's, but that's why he's not in the top 30-50 all time and why he is considered lower half, specifically because of those flaws and inconsistencies in an otherwise great career.

[robertzimmerman]

Iron,

This is what I'm struggling with:

What do you class as a top fighter? What's your definition?

Give me some examples.

Are you talking about truly elite guys such as McCallum, Nunn and Roy etc?

You've confused me when you've said that Froch has had top wins. Yet Carl has never beaten anyone who I'd call elite.

My definition of a top level fighter, would be an accomplished guy who was highly rated in his division.

I think there's a difference between elite level and top level.

Every time you type that Toney didn't dominate a top level fighter, I'm reading that as though you're saying he never dominated an elite fighter. But how many people have dominated elite guys? It's actually very rare. For example, Lennox Lewis never dominated an elite fighter.

Personally, I'd say that Toney did dominate top level guys. And those guys were the likes of Tim Littles and Evander Holyfield. Why? Because they were very good, top 10 rated guys of their respective divisions. Jirov was also a top level fighter.