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

[IronDanHamza]

If you actually have some in ring experience, you then appreciate how skillful Toney was and how great he is.

Inconsistent? Yes. Unfulfilled potential? Certainly.

Overrated? No way.

All irondanhandjob knows how to do is GARGLE DEM NUTZ BOY!!coz DEY isn't clean yet

I would assume your reading skills leave a lot to be desired but if you give it an attempt, you would clearly see that I appreciate the skills of James Toney. However skills are not the be all and end all.

You once again have brought nothing to this discussion so why even bother responding with your childish, know-nothing nonsense?

[robertzimmerman]

IronDanHamza,

So you're telling me your reasoning for Toney being an ATG is that he beat a shell of Evander Holyfield and valiantly failed to beat Hasim Rahman and Sam Peter twice? Ok fair enough. I disagree.

Toney's resumes speaks for itself.

His HW exploits are just one example. Yet it's a great example. Just think for a second, and name me some 5'10, SMW's/LHW's of today or of recent years.

Who have we got?

Ward, Froch, Kessler.

Put 40 plus pounds on those guys (mainly body fat) and then throw them in with big punching 6ft plus HW's.

Be serious, what do you think would happen?

That shell of Evander got robbed against Valuev 5 years later.

Did you see the Peter fights? Did you see the trouble Wlad had with Peter? Think about the size difference between Wlad and Toney? Then look at all of the other factors that you've obviously overlooked.

A fat, former MW, should have been decimated by any top 10 HW.

No one really had a dominant win over Nunn that's because Nunn was very good but a couple guys looked better than Toney against Nunn.

Nunn wasn't very good. He was an elite fighter. One of the very best boxers in the world.

Again, Littles good fighter yes hardly a top level opponent.

He was good enough to beat Frankie Liles.

You ask "how is he not an ATG" I've given many reasons but I'll re-list them.

Never beat a top level opponent in dominant fashion.

Resume isn't strong enough.

Struggled/lost to too many sub par opponents.

Combination of all three really.

But why did he struggle with those sub par opponents? Was it just due to the fact that they were as good as him or better, or again, was it because there were also other factors involved?

Toney beat a prime Nunn. He beat McCallum. Yet he lost to Tiberi. (unofficially) So what are you saying, that Tiberi was better than those guys?

Do you seriously think guys like Tiberi and Thadzi etc, would have beaten him had he been 100% fit, and fighting to his full capabilities? Really?

Chris Eubank beat Benn and Watson etc, yet struggled like hell with the likes of Ray Close. It happens all the time, again, especially if a fighter has a hectic schedule.

Again, if you have no sympathy with Toney's struggles, then that's cool, I don't blame you. But let me tell you something for the final time:

Any fighter, no matter how good he is, will drop the odd decision to lesser guys, if he fights on a regular basis, and he has issues with his weight and his overall preparation. It's just inevitable.

Regarding his resume, it's a great resume:

Johnson, McCallum, Nunn, Barkley, Thornton, Sosa, Littles, Williams, Jirov and Holyfield.

A draw against Rahman.

A close loss to Peter.

Never been knocked out.

If he's not an ATG, then I don't know is.

[robertzimmerman]

That's exactly how I feel in a nutshell.

I love watching Toney fight just like I love watching Ian Napa fight.

I just don't see the greatness though.

(Not comparing Toney to Napa)

You don't see the greatness?

Wow!

Look harder.

He beat a prime Nunn who was elite.

Nunn had beaten: Tate, Curry, Kalambay.

He beat McCallum: Who'd recently beaten: Graham, Kalambay, Watson, Collins.

He was only in his early 20's then.

Go and watch the McCallum fights. Go and watch the skill on show. Then come back and tell me you can't see the greatness.

The only thing that hampered Toney was his lack of dedication. Again, he was regularly out of shape, sometimes killing himself to make weight, which again, inevitably resulted in many inconsistent performances throughout his career. Again, not many fighters have 200 pound keep busy fights while they're still campaigning as a LHW.

Toney was truly a great fighter, and with a different mindset, he'd have been even greater.

[IronDanHamza]

IronDanHamza,



Toney's resumes speaks for itself.

His HW exploits are just one example. Yet it's a great example. Just think for a second, and name me some 5'10, SMW's/LHW's of today or of recent years.

Who have we got?

Ward, Froch, Kessler.

Put 40 plus pounds on those guys (mainly body fat) and then throw them in with big punching 6ft plus HW's.

Be serious, what do you think would happen?

That shell of Evander got robbed against Valuev 5 years later.

Did you see the Peter fights? Did you see the trouble Wlad had with Peter? Think about the size difference between Wlad and Toney? Then look at all of the other factors that you've obviously overlooked.

A fat, former MW, should have been decimated by any top 10 HW.



Nunn wasn't very good. He was an elite fighter. One of the very best boxers in the world.



He was good enough to beat Frankie Liles.



But why did he struggle with those sub par opponents? Was it just due to the fact that they were as good as him or better, or again, was it because there were also other factors involved?

Toney beat a prime Nunn. He beat McCallum. Yet he lost to Tiberi. (unofficially) So what are you saying, that Tiberi was better than those guys?

Do you seriously think guys like Tiberi and Thadzi etc, would have beaten him had he been 100% fit, and fighting to his full capabilities? Really?

Chris Eubank beat Benn and Watson etc, yet struggled like hell with the likes of Ray Close. It happens all the time, again, especially if a fighter has a hectic schedule.

Again, if you have no sympathy with Toney's struggles, then that's cool, I don't blame you. But let me tell you something for the final time:

Any fighter, no matter how good he is, will drop the odd decision to lesser guys, if he fights on a regular basis, and he has issues with his weight and his overall preparation. It's just inevitable.

Regarding his resume, it's a great resume:

Johnson, McCallum, Nunn, Barkley, Thornton, Sosa, Littles, Williams. Jirov and Holyfield.

A draw against Rahman.

A close loss to Peter.

Never been knocked out.

If he's not an ATG, then I don't know is.

Just can't agree at all that he has a great resume. Maybe if you just consider the opposition yeah it's great but not if we consider the results or the performances.

The majority of the best fighters he fought he fell short.

Roy Jones, McCallum, Nunn, Griffin are the best fighters he fought IMO and his record is 2-3-1 against those and could easily be 1-5. Not ATG stuff from where I'm sitting.

[IronDanHamza]

You don't see the greatness?

Wow!

Look harder.

He beat a prime Nunn who was elite.

Nunn had beaten: Tate, Curry, Kalambay.

He beat McCallum: He'd recently beaten: Graham, Kalambay, Watson, Collins.

He was only in his early 20's then.

Go and watch the McCallum fights. Go and watch the skill on show. Then come back and tell me you can't see the greatness.

The only thing that hampered Toney was his lack of dedication. Again, he was regularly out of shape, sometimes killing himself to make weight, which again, inevitably resulted in many inconsistent performances. Not many fighters have 200 pound keep busy fights while they're still campaigning as a LHW.

Toney was truly a great fighter, and with a different mindset, he'd have been even greater.

As my OP states, I've seen that fight many times as its one of my favourites. I scored it a draw. Second fight I scored for McCallum.

Nunn is a good win. One of his only impressive wins. (If you can call it that, I guess the KO was impressive)

Yeah, still don't see greatness.

I don't care if he was out of shape. That just supports my argument if anything. What kind of great fighter is never in shape for their fights?

Sounds more like shoulda, woulda, coulda to me. Every time James Toney fought a top level fighter he either struggled or lost. Again, not ATG stuff IMO.

[Suckmedry]

I would assume your reading skills leave a lot to be desired but if you give it an attempt, you would clearly see that I appreciate the skills of James Toney. However skills are not the be all and end all.

You once again have brought nothing to this discussion so why even bother responding with your childish, know-nothing nonsense?

Im actually a law student so I'm 99.9% certain my reading comprehension is superior to yours.

I thoroughly read your puerile analysis and while you threw in the odd line to make it seem as if you aren't biased, a clear agenda seeped through.

The guy knocked out a prime Michael Nunn. Nunn was one of the smoothest boxers ever, and a southpaw to boot. NO one in history at 160 lbs is having an easy time with Nunn. And only a handful could beat him by KO.

[Suckmedry]

As my OP states, I've seen that fight many times as its one of my favourites. I scored it a draw. Second fight I scored for McCallum.

Nunn is a good win. One of his only impressive wins. (If you can call it that, I guess the KO was impressive)

Yeah, still don't see greatness.

I don't care if he was out of shape. That just supports my argument if anything. What kind of great fighter is never in shape for their fights?

Sounds more like shoulda, woulda, coulda to me. Every time James Toney fought a top level fighter he either struggled or lost. Again, not ATG stuff IMO.

like we are supposed to care if IronDanHandjob cant see greatness
You are a 50 something year old ****** who's obsessed with boxing yet has never laced a glove in his life. Your opinions on boxing were formulated whilst sitting on your fat british "arse" in front of a TV with a bag of "crisps" and a can of "Iron-Bru"

Anyone who's ever actually fought has an appreciation of the level of Toney's skills. End of discussion.

[IronDanHamza]

Im actually a law student so I'm 99.9% certain my reading comprehension is superior to yours.

I thoroughly read your puerile analysis and while you threw in the odd line to make it seem as if you aren't biased, a clear agenda seeped through.

The guy knocked out a prime Michael Nunn. Nunn was one of the smoothest boxers ever, and a southpaw to boot. NO one in history at 160 lbs is having an easy time with Nunn. And only a handful could beat him by KO.

Oh right, Mr "I'm a law student therefore I'm smart" What's the agenda here then?

What you've just responded with isn't refuting anything. I'm well aware that Toney knocked out Nunn whilst well behind on the cards.

Does that one come from behind win make him an ATG?

[IronDanHamza]

like we are supposed to care if IronDanHandjob cant see greatness
You are a 50 something year old ****** who's obsessed with boxing yet has never laced a glove in his life. Your opinions on boxing were formulated whilst sitting on your fat british "arse" in front of a TV with a bag of "crisps" and a can of "Iron-Bru"

Anyone who's ever actually fought has an appreciation of the level of Toney's skills. End of discussion.

Once again your law books aren't helping with your reading skills.

I've clearly stated numerous times that I have great appreciation for the skills of James Toney and I enjoy watching his fights.

You don't have to care about anything I say. It's a discussion board and I have opened a discussion. You aren't obliged to respond.

Take me for example, I couldn't care less what you say because you're an idiot. Hence why I never ever quote you, because I don't read your posts. Yet, you always respond to mind for some reason.

Also, I hate Iron-Bru.

[robertzimmerman]

Just can't agree at all that he has a great resume. Maybe if you just consider the opposition yeah it's great but not if we consider the results or the performances.

The majority of the best fighters he fought he fell short.

Roy Jones, McCallum, Nunn, Griffin are the best fighters he fought IMO and his record is 2-3-1 against those and could easily be 1-5. Not ATG stuff from where I'm sitting.

I don't know what to say you.

It's baffling.

Nunn and McCallum were true elite fighters, who he beat when he was in his early 20's. It makes no difference how he won those fights.

Look at who they themselves beat. And then look at who they beat.

Dropping a decision to Roy at 25 means nothing. I don't think there's any SMW in the history of the division who I'd have favoured over Roy at 25.

Did you see the Griffin fights? Do you know about his preparation? Do you know how many fights he'd had at that point? Was Griffin better or equal to Nunn and McCallum?

Griffin was a good fighter, and he presented a tough challenge stylistically. But I don't think he'd have beaten Toney while at his best. This is what you're overlooking. How many former MW's in their 20's, move up to CW? He moved up to CW, because he could no longer make LHW healthily. And how could killing yourself on the scales after 50 fights not have an affect on your performances? Look at him at HW. Why do you think he ended up at HW looking like he did at 230 plus pounds?

Look at Roy at HW. Him and Toney were the same size. Yet Roy had to hire Mackie Shilstone to bulk him up to fight Ruiz, whereas Toney went up by not keeping himself in shape.

Are you going to answer my question?

What do you think would have happened if Froch, Kessler or Ward etc, fought a big hard hitting HW, with 40 plus pounds of body fat on them?