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

[IronDanHamza]

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?

I clearly have been objective and very fair in my breakdown. Fights Toney officially lost and drew I have scored him as the winner. How is that not fair?

If you read my initial response to the Micheal Nunn fight my words clearly state it as a "great win".

The RESULT was impressive the PERFORMANCE was not. How can I make this easier for you to understand?

No, I never said he has "no top level wins" I said he doesn't have an dominant/impressive performances over a top level opponent. That's what I said and that's the truth.

[rudy]

if he is overated, then Mayweather is a bum!!

[robertzimmerman]

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.

The running theme is: You're completely biased with no real understanding of his career.

Toney was almost always out of shape. That's a fact. Which you would know if you knew anything about him.

Here's a truthful quote:

"Lack of motivation hurt me. I didn't train right. I didn't run for eight years. After The Barkley fight, I was never really in shape."

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/james-toney-reaches-for-glory1

How can you diminish his HW exploits, when he was a 5'10, former MW, who was a long way past his best, having had almost 80 fights??

Once again, did you see the first Wlad vs Peter fight?

Again, name some former 5'10 MW's who could have survived Peter after almost 80 fights, pushing 40?

You can't!

If Holyfield was completely shot, how did he manage to get robbed of the Valuev win 5 years later?

It doesn't even matter than Rahman and Peter weren't great HW's. Because an out of shape former MW should have no business even being in the ring with them in the first place.

[Sugar Adam Ali]

Toney schooled PETER in the first fight... That was masterclass counterpunching..

2nd fight PETER clearly won and was much smarter and stayed behind the jab and didn't recklessly barrel in at toney..

But the first fight was one of toney's greatest performances.. He just gob screwed on scorecards

[IronDanHamza]

The running theme is: You're completely biased with no real understanding of his career.

Toney was almost always out of shape. That's a fact. Which you would know if you knew anything about him.

Here's a truthful quote:

http://www.secondsout.com/columns/thomas-hauser/james-toney-reaches-for-glory1

How can you diminish his HW exploits, when he was a 5'10, former MW, who was a long way past his best, having had almost 80 fights??

Once again, did you see the first Wlad vs Peter fight?

Again, name some former 5'10 MW's who could have survived Peter after almost 80 fights, pushing 40?

You can't!

If Holyfield was completely shot, how did he manage to get robbed of the Valuev win 5 years later?

It doesn't even matter than Rahman and Peter weren't great HW's. Because an out of shape former MW should have no business even being in the ring with them in the first place.

Yes mate I am well aware that James Toney was literally never in shape I've been reminded of that 100 times in this thread alone when it's been used as excuse for all of his poor performances and his failing to dominate a single top level opponent.

Holyfield managed to get robbed against Valuev years later because Valuev is probably the worst Heavyweight title holder in the history of Boxing.

Holyfield lost to Larry Donald in his very next fight after Toney and handily I might add.

[IronDanHamza]

Toney schooled PETER in the first fight... That was masterclass counterpunching..

2nd fight PETER clearly won and was much smarter and stayed behind the jab and didn't recklessly barrel in at toney..

But the first fight was one of toney's greatest performances.. He just gob screwed on scorecards

Disagree. Far from a robbery.

I often see people consider McCallum 1, both Grffin fights and Peter 1 as robberies. None of them are.

The only robbery James Toney was involved in was when he fought Dave Tiberi.

[robertzimmerman]

IronDanHamza,

"It doesn't matter how he won" Really? Performances don't matter to you?

Once again, how was it not a great performance?!

So he was losing on the cards? So what?! He was facing a prime Michael Nunn.

Did he land a lucky punch to end the fight? No he didn't!

Who else knocked out a prime Nunn? Nobody!

But in your supposedly objective world, it was only a good win?

I must be crazy for even debating with you. You're deluded.

I didn't have Toney beating McCallum I had the first one a draw and the second one for McCallum.

That's your opinion.

McCallum was defintely an elite fighter, as I've once again already stated. Much more so than Toney, IMO.

Yes, and Mike's one of my favourite fighters.

Did I see the Griffin fight? Why are you asking me questions that I've clearly answered in my OP? Yes I've seen it and I scored it for Griffin who IMO is a very good and underrated fighter. Griffin was a 14-0 novice when he beat Toney.

Right, so if you've seen those fights, you'd know that they were EXTREMELY CLOSE, and that MANY people thought that Toney had won them?

Yes?

Not only that, you rate Griffin very highly as a fighter.

You say that he was a 14 fight novice, yet Toney had fought almost 50 fights at that point, yet he was only 26.

So to summarize:

Griffin was a very good fighter, they were extremely close fights, Toney had fought 50 times, yet you're using the losses as evidence as to why you think he's not an ATG?

It's an absolute joke!

Not forgetting of course, that Toney wasn't 100%, due to once again struggling to make weight:

http://articles.philly.com/1995-02-19/sports/25705430_1_montell-griffin-james-toney-majority-decision

Now I suggest that you take on board the above info before you respond.

Yeah I'll answer your question, what would happen if Ward moved up to HW and fought Holyfield, Peter and Rahman? Assuming Ward was also on performance enhancing drugs, I could easily see him going 1-2-1 in those fights respectively. That's neither here nor there anyway because people move and adjust to higher weights easier than others and we are talking fantasies on what other would or could do (much like most of Toney's career)

Andre Ward is an elite fighter himself. But imagine him with 40 pounds of mostly fat on him, and then have a rethink.

What about Froch and Kessler?

How do you think they'd have fared?

[robertzimmerman]

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.

Great post!

[robertzimmerman]

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.

There you have it.

He was a fat, lazy man.

Correct.

How many other fat, lazy fighters who were the same size, could have replicated his success?

The fact that he has the resume he does, whilst hardly ever been at 100%, just highlights his ability as a fighter.

Nunn wasn't a great fighter?

[IronDanHamza]

IronDanHamza,



Once again, how was it not a great performance?!

So he was losing on the cards? So what?! He was facing a prime Michael Nunn.

Did he land a lucky punch to end the fight? No he didn't!

Who else knocked out a prime Nunn? Nobody!

But in your supposedly objective world, it was only a good win?

I must be crazy for even debating with you. You're deluded.



That's your opinion.



Yes, and Mike's one of my favourite fighters.



Right, so if you've seen those fights, you'd know that they were EXTREMELY CLOSE, and that MANY people thought that Toney had won them?

Yes?

Not only that, you rate Griffin very highly as a fighter.

You say that he was a 14 fight novice, yet Toney had fought almost 50 fights at that point, yet he was only 26.

So to summarize:

Griffin was a very good fighter, they were extremely close fights, Toney had fought 50 times, yet you're using the losses as evidence as to why you think he's not an ATG?

It's an absolute joke!

Not forgetting of course, that Toney wasn't 100%, due to once again struggling to make weight:

http://articles.philly.com/1995-02-19/sports/25705430_1_montell-griffin-james-toney-majority-decision

Now I suggest that you take on board the above info before you respond.



Andre Ward is an elite fighter himself. But imagine him with 40 pounds of mostly fat on him, and then have a rethink.

What about Froch and Kessler?

How do you think they'd have fared?

My man, can you read? Or are you purposely choosing to ignore what I've said?

My very first response in regards to Nunn said it was a "great win" yes it was a great WIN.

But the performance was not great, Toney looked poor in that fight. Out of shape maybe? I don't know. Probably. He pulled out the KO and again, great win. Not s great performance.

Yes it's my opinion that the first was a draw and tha second McCallum won. But it's not an opinion I'm alone in. Both were very close fights.

Montel Griffin, once again, READ my posts. I have CLEARLY stated in very clear and simple English that both fights were very close. Far from robberies. I had Griffin winning the first and Toney winning the second but again, both very close. Are you following?

I don't use that as "evidence" at all I'm merely using them as yet another example of Toney failing to clearly beat an opponent. Which is a reoccurring theme in his career.

I think Froch and Kessler would fair badly but what's that supposed to prove? That they are less skilled than Toney? No ****, Sherlock. Toney has a skill set and style that has a better chance of transitioning through the weights as opposed to a Carl Froch or a Mikkel Kessler.