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

[billeau2]

toney is a counterpuncher, a skills guy like winky wright. these type of fighters are grinders, not roy jones type fighters who blow their opponents out in a few spectacular rounds. a fat, unmotivated toney showed his high skill level by fighting hws in the same style as he fought as middleweight and not getting knocked out because of his superb defensive skills. for a guy who struggled in his daily life with personal and mental problems, like many other people do, his performances were amazing. toney's old trainer bill miller said how he used to find piles of burger king wrappers under toney's bed when he was trying to get in shape for fights such as RJJ.

i'm not sure toney had any business fighting at 160 to begin with, he always had to drain himself to make that weight, toney played high school football in which as a teenager he weighed 215 lbs, which is probably a lot closer to his natural body weight. the lowest weight he ever really looked good at was 168, and i don't think he could have made that anymore once he was past his 20's.

Im so glad someone else sees the comparison to Winky! I thought I might be going out on a limb there because of the Trinidad fight but I think this comparison is very valid. both guys had mad skills and grind out rounds with counterpunching and other such skills.

One thing about Toney as well is that if we count his heavyweight time, which I am ambivalent about....I mean the division was weak and Toney was so good he could fight at that weight class, but it is not his best work...but if we see past this then the Evander fight has to count, for one. Evander was not as good, but still was able to fight a few well after Toney. The Peter fights were a draw and a close loss, and Toney beat up Rahman who was at the time in very good shape. Rahman said as much and looked in great shape.

To me the heavyweight fights and the Jirov fight put Toney over into ATG because along with Archie Moore, very few guys could take it that far up consistantly and be a threat as a heavyweight when they were really not heavy weights...not even cruisers at their best. Thats not Roy Jones picking a mark and then coming back down. Toney terrorized a weak division...Roy terrorized Ruiz.

Anyhow toney is inconsistant and does have great skills. I see Dan's point as well, but I do think Toney makes it to ATG. Also Toney would have been a lot better in the old days when guys fought a lot more often. You had guys like Max Rosenbloom who lost a lot, never dominated, but were recognized as great fighters because they fought enough so that a pattern emerged showing their ability to win fights over the long haul.

[IronDanHamza]

Here is a link to the Ring Mag annual ratings 1995

http://boxrec.com/media/index.php/Th..._Ratings:_1995

Looking at those ratings, James Toney is ranked No7 Cruiserweights. Toney has beaten Top Contenders in every division of these rankings, from Middleweight up to Heavyweight. 7 highly rated fighters in 5 different weight divisions all lost to James Toney. This is an incredible testament to his fighting abilities and skills.

The most overrated fighter of the 1990s would have to be Kostya Tzyzu.

Out of all of the guys ranked in the top 5 he fought there's Griffin who he went 0-2 with (IMO 1-1) there's Sosa he won by SD and failed to dominate, there's Littles who he beat impressively and there's Holyfield who he fought 8 years later.

Top 10 opponents are Johnson which I thought he lost, McCallum who I thought went 1-0-1 with him and Nunn who he came from behind to KO.

All outside of 2 he either struggled with or lost to.

Names look nice on paper but not so nice when you delve into the actual fights.

I'd agree with on Kosta Tszyu but I don't see him rated as highly as Toney tends to be.

Toney is a sure fire HOF'er though unlike Tszyu who I don't believe should have been inducted.

[IronDanHamza]

Good pick. I'd go with Finito Lopez as well.

I did mention Lopez.

Lopez, Toney or Lewis IMO.

[IronDanHamza]

Im so glad someone else sees the comparison to Winky! I thought I might be going out on a limb there because of the Trinidad fight but I think this comparison is very valid. both guys had mad skills and grind out rounds with counterpunching and other such skills.

One thing about Toney as well is that if we count his heavyweight time, which I am ambivalent about....I mean the division was weak and Toney was so good he could fight at that weight class, but it is not his best work...but if we see past this then the Evander fight has to count, for one. Evander was not as good, but still was able to fight a few well after Toney. The Peter fights were a draw and a close loss, and Toney beat up Rahman who was at the time in very good shape. Rahman said as much and looked in great shape.

To me the heavyweight fights and the Jirov fight put Toney over into ATG because along with Archie Moore, very few guys could take it that far up consistantly and be a threat as a heavyweight when they were really not heavy weights...not even cruisers at their best. Thats not Roy Jones picking a mark and then coming back down. Toney terrorized a weak division...Roy terrorized Ruiz.

Anyhow toney is inconsistant and does have great skills. I see Dan's point as well, but I do think Toney makes it to ATG. Also Toney would have been a lot better in the old days when guys fought a lot more often. You had guys like Max Rosenbloom who lost a lot, never dominated, but were recognized as great fighters because they fought enough so that a pattern emerged showing their ability to win fights over the long haul.

Toney "terrorised" Heavyweight? What by beating Holyfield's fossil and losing to Peter twice and getting a draw with Rahman? Hardly terrorising. We're also forgetting he was caught for enhancement drugs during this time.

The Winky Wright comparison is a good comparison. Winky is far from an ATG either Infact he's not even a HOF'er in my eyes. But even Winky has some clear cut impressive performances over top opposition unlike Toney.

[billeau2]

The running theme in his thread is;

Toney was always out of shape, imagine if he wasn't?

I see the fans have that convenient excuse ready just as quickly as Toney did.

Toney went up to Heavyweight and went 0-2-1 with heavyweights and 1-0 with shot heavyweights.

Fair enough. If that's the arguments being posed for Toney I can't argue nor agree.

Well in all fairness...and I see your points...I also think Sonny's response to you was very good btw even though Sam Peter won one of those fights and the other was a draw... there is some hype on both sides, in this debate imo.

Its not fair to say "if" Toney "had" been, but its also not fair to base so much capital on the way Toney won fights. I think you woud have more of a point if Toney had gotten blown away when he went up to heavy. You do make a good point about how he manages to blow away mediocre comp, but if we look at that as equal measures, in other words Toney never dominated elite comp, and he fought elite comp all the way up to heavy, and he managed to dominate subpar comp... then it kind of equalizes.

Where you are on more shakey ground imo is where we start to look at individual fights. I don't think Nunn was quite what some do, but he was definitely a very strong opponent and at that time, very good. Its debatable whether Toney fought a war of attrition that set up his KO, because if memory serves right, Nunn had a chin, or, if Toney just got lucky. I only say this is debatable, because Toney was coming on and was pressuring and basically took away the ko from Nunn even though he was getting hit.

Ditto for the McCallum fights. Even Jones could not dominate McCallum. A lot of posters here would say McCallum was on the same level as Toney and considering how good a fighter he was, its not a knock on Toney to not dominate, but to hold a win over McC. I agree with Sony on Prince Charles as well and then we have Toney's achievement at heavyweight.

You have an opinion about the Evander fight but again, its debatable. Evander was still a strong opponent and had significant size on Toney and...Evander could box! The proof of this is that Toney subsequently prevailed against several top ten heavyweights and was competative in all the fights.

[robertzimmerman]

You would be hard pressed to name 100 fighters better than toney in the history of boxing..

In atg rankings he is in the neighborhood of a Wilfred benetiz

While its fair to say he isn't a top tier atg like roy, pernell, leonard, hearns.. He is still an atg


I couldn't name another modern middleweight great that could go to heavy and **** away with Evander, Peter, Rahman, etc..

Toney was so gifted and talented he could come into a fight, fat, out of shape and just lean against the ropes and be able to hang with anyone.. That's just unreal talent..
I couldn't imagine floyd becoming fat and throwing down with kovolev, or roy getting fat and fighting Peter or Rahman...

Great post.

[IronDanHamza]

Well in all fairness...and I see your points...I also think Sonny's response to you was very good btw even though Sam Peter won one of those fights and the other was a draw... there is some hype on both sides, in this debate imo.

Its not fair to say "if" Toney "had" been, but its also not fair to base so much capital on the way Toney won fights. I think you woud have more of a point if Toney had gotten blown away when he went up to heavy. You do make a good point about how he manages to blow away mediocre comp, but if we look at that as equal measures, in other words Toney never dominated elite comp, and he fought elite comp all the way up to heavy, and he managed to dominate subpar comp... then it kind of equalizes.

Where you are on more shakey ground imo is where we start to look at individual fights. I don't think Nunn was quite what some do, but he was definitely a very strong opponent and at that time, very good. Its debatable whether Toney fought a war of attrition that set up his KO, because if memory serves right, Nunn had a chin, or, if Toney just got lucky. I only say this is debatable, because Toney was coming on and was pressuring and basically took away the ko from Nunn even though he was getting hit.

Ditto for the McCallum fights. Even Jones could not dominate McCallum. A lot of posters here would say McCallum was on the same level as Toney and considering how good a fighter he was, its not a knock on Toney to not dominate, but to hold a win over McC. I agree with Sony on Prince Charles as well and then we have Toney's achievement at heavyweight.

You have an opinion about the Evander fight but again, its debatable. Evander was still a strong opponent and had significant size on Toney and...Evander could box! The proof of this is that Toney subsequently prevailed against several top ten heavyweights and was competative in all the fights.

I believe James Toney lost twice to Sam Peter.

Toney failed to dominate mediocre comp aswell as elite comp in many instances.

I've never disputed his win over Nunn being a good win and I've never considered it "lucky" I don't believe in "lucky punches" I've merely stated that it wasn't an impressive or dominant performance.

I've gone over all the fights you've mentioned numerous times in the thread.

I don't believe Toney beat McCallum either of the first two times and Prince Charles much like Nunn was a fight he was struggling in before the KO (not as much as Nunn though)

I don't know about yourself but I felt Roy Jones beat McCallum very easily and carried him for the most part of the fight.

Once again so much emphasis is being put on the fact Toney went up to Heavyweight and lost and drew fights with the contenders. I'll say it again that's fair enough I don't hold those same standards.

[The Old LefHook]

Toney's contemporary legacy got a big boost late when he showed his skill set against Peter. Of course Peter was an overrated semi-scrub, whose punch is even overrated by some of our resident halfwits, but he was a legitimate handful for a man Toney's size.

I think historians will have a better handle on his career than some youngsters still mesmerized by his showing against a big man like Peter. They will not be as impressed because they will not be surprised.

Iron Dan gave an excellent overview of the career. Toney was a fat, lazy man with an IQ likely approaching 80 and a tremendous basket of skills. This thread has been nothing but a bunch of excuses and "what ifs" for him being out of shape.

Since when did Michael Nunn become so great? He was a fast mover with no punch. KO'd once and gone from the picture.

Toney's big weakness besides his brain were his legs. He didn't have the gams to chase people down and was probably to lazy to anyway.

He will skirt that borderline of a ATGness while never penetrating deep inside its borders. Only his fabulous skill set and chin put him up for consideration at all, not a batch of dominant performances, as Iron Dan pointed out correctly. If he makes ATG, it is as a bottom tier ATG, whose skills and chin were much better than the rest of the package.

[IronDanHamza]

Toney's contemporary legacy got a big boost late when he showed his skill set against Peter. Of course Peter was an overrated semi-scrub, whose punch is even overrated by some of our resident halfwits, but he was a legitimate handful for a man Toney's size.

I think historians will have a better handle on his career than some youngsters still mesmerized by his showing against a big man like Peter. They will not be as impressed because they will not be surprised.

Iron Dan gave an excellent overview of the career. Toney was a fat, lazy man with an IQ likely approaching 80 and a tremendous basket of skills. This thread has been nothing but a bunch of excuses and "what ifs" for him being out of shape.

Since when did Michael Nunn become so great? He was a fast mover with no punch. KO'd once and gone from the picture.

Toney's big weakness besides his brain were his legs. He didn't have the gams to chase people down and was probably to lazy to anyway.

He will skirt that borderline of a ATGness while never penetrating deep inside its borders. Only his fabulous skill set and chin put him up for consideration at all, not a batch of dominant performances, as Iron Dan pointed out correctly. If he makes ATG, it is as a bottom tier ATG, whose skills and chin were much better than the rest of the package.

Finally an opposing argument to the norm thus far

"This thread has been nothing but a bunch of excuses and "what ifs" for him being out of shape."

Whole heatedly agree here. But that's always been the case with Toney.

Dominated by Jones? "Ah, he was out of shape"

Lost to Tiberi, Thadzi and Griffin "out of shape"

Struggled with Sosa and Johnson "out of shape"

Only time he seemed to ever be "in shape" was when he knocked out Nunn. But imagine if he didn't KO him and it went to the cards and he lost a wide decision? What's the odds that he was "out of shape" for that one?

Oh and there's also McCallum, he was "in shape"for those fights but in my eyes he didn't win the first two anyway.

[robertzimmerman]

You're dealing with fantasies and shoulda woulda coulda's here. I don't "imagine" what he "could" have been I deal with what he was.

Yes I do question your standards if you think he has an ATG resume. Yes I do.

How many times must I explain that the PERFORMANCE wasn't impressive or dominant. The KO was, yes. The performance wasn't and Toney has zero of those, impressive dominant performance over a top opponent.

How is my post not objective? I've been absolutely fair and objective in every fight I've broken down for Toney.

Said he deserved the W for the Williams draw, the Sosa SD, the second Griffin L. I had Toney winning all of those. If I wasn't being objective or if I was being biased I could easily claim he lost all those.

Even the fights I did have him losing or drawing, Johnson, McCallum 1 & 2 and Griffin 1 I've said were very close and he could easily have got the W in all of those.

Only Tiberi, Jones and Thadzi did I have him losing clearly.

How could the Nunn performance not have been impressive?

He was getting outboxed by an elite southpaw, until he turned things around.

My god, you're an absolute joker, trying to fool us all that you've been objective.

Do you really think you've been fair? Really? Do me a favour. Saying that the Nunn win was good, before then begrudgingly admitting it was very good? Saying he had no top level wins?