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

[IronDanHamza]

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?

What success? Losing, drawing and scraping decisions his whole career at every level the fought at?

You act like he has a great resume, he doesn't. Blame that on him being "out of shape" all you want, but he didn't manage to accumulate a "great resume" whilst being so.

No Nunn wasn't a "great fighter" IMO. Definitely not an ATG anyway. I don't think he's even in the HOF actually come to think of it.

[robertzimmerman]

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.

You are intolerable!

How are they excuses??

He WAS out of shape for Roy and Griffin etc.

That's a FACT!

Do some research.

He was in shape for Nunn and McCallum, but they were elite fighters.

Do you understand?

Early career:

He was in shape, and he had some great wins. However, due to fighting such a hectic schedule, he sometimes came unstuck against guys like Williams and Tiberi. He's admitted that he lost to Tiberi. No excuses. He was the better man on the night.

Later career:

After he'd lost to Roy and he'd moved up to LHW, he started to really struggle with his weight, due to a lack of professionalism. Which is why he was fighting as a CW in his 20's. He was having 200 pound keep busy fights, whilst still at LHW.

Your flippant behaviour is nauseating.

[robertzimmerman]

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.

It's absolutely astonishing that you think you've been objective.

[BG_Knocc_Out]

I mostly agree with TS. Toney is a sporadic fighter, when he looked great the sequence of events were sensational... but it was only in spurts. He's what I call a "highlight video" fighter; he looks excellent in 3 second clips..

Although, you have to credit him for having a defensive skill set that kept him out of trouble.

[IronDanHamza]

You are intolerable!

How are they excuses??

He WAS out of shape for Roy and Griffin etc.

That's a FACT!

Do some research.

He was in shape for Nunn and McCallum, but they were elite fighters.

Do you understand?

Early career:

He was in shape, and he had some great wins. However, due to fighting such a hectic schedule, he sometimes came unstuck against guys like Williams and Tiberi. He's admitted that he lost to Tiberi. No excuses. He was the better man on the night.

Later career:

After he'd lost to Roy and he'd moved up to LHW, he started to really struggle with his weight, due to a lack of professionalism. Which is why he was fighting as a CW in his 20's. He was having 200 pound keep busy fights, whilst still at LHW.

Your flippant behaviour is nauseating.

He was in shape for Nunn? Strange. I thought he was out of shape or does the KO equate to him being in shape?

So he was in shape twice in his career, looked poor the in the first one then got a draw in the second one. Fantastic. All time great stuff there.

Interesting, you say he came unstuck against Williams? Which Williams? Sanderline? I thought he won that one.

[IronDanHamza]

It's absolutely astonishing that you think you've been objective.

Tell me how I have not been objective.

The OP shows a clear breakdown of is career from 88-03 and every fight I've broken down fairly. Which one is unfair?

Williams draw I said Toney won.

Sosa SD I said Toney won.

Griffin 2 I said Toney won.

Even the fights I think he lost and drew; Johnson, Griffin 1, McCallum 1 & 2 I have clearly stated were very close that Toney could easily have been awarded with the W.

Tiberi and Thadzi loss's being the only clear ones aside from Roy Jones.

How is that not fair or objective?

You don't consider it "objective" because you clearly don't like hearing the truth.

[robertzimmerman]

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.

I've tried my best to patient with you. And I've no problem with anyone who disagrees with my opinions, as long as they're honest, objective, and they're based on logic.

Now this thread has been a complete waste of time on your part. Because you were never even open to a debate. The question mark on the end of your thread title is completely pointless. You'd already made up your mind before you even posted it. Again, it's absolutely laughable that you think you've been objective.

Why don't you do yourself a favour? Why don't you put your flippant sarcasm to one side, and actually read the links!

Go and do some actual research.

Forget what guys like me are telling you, and go and look for yourself.

How on earth are they merely excuses??

Go and read the thoughts of Bill Miller, Jackie Kallen, and Freddie Roach.

Again, after he'd left SMW, he was hardly ever in top shape.

No matter what you think about Valuev, he was still a top 10 HW at the time, who Haye struggled with.

You know that guys like Froch and Kessler etc would have been destroyed at HW. Yet instead of praising Toney's skills, all you can focus on is how poor those HW's were. You have no concept of what Toney was facing. You can't even answer the points I've put to you.

He was 5'10.

He had a 72" reach.

He wasn't fast.

He was out of shape.

He'd had almost 80 fights.

He was almost 40.

Not only have you to got to consider how other former SMW's would have done, you've also got to consider if they'd have had the balls in the first place to have took on guys like Holyfield, Rahman and Peter.

Think about it.

[IronDanHamza]

I've tried my best to patient with you. And I've no problem with anyone who disagrees with my opinions, as long as they're honest, objective, and they're based on logic.

Now this thread has been a complete waste of time on your part. Because you were never even open to a debate. The question mark on the end of your thread title is completely pointless. You'd already made up your mind before you even posted it. Again, it's absolutely laughable that you think you've been objective.

Why don't you do yourself a favour? Why don't you put your flippant sarcasm to one side, and actually read the links!

Go and do some actual research.

Forget what guys like me are telling you, and go and look for yourself.

How on earth are they merely excuses??

Go and read the thoughts of Bill Miller, Jackie Kallen, and Freddie Roach.

Again, after he'd left SMW, he was hardly ever in top shape.

No matter what you think about Valuev, he was still a top 10 HW at the time, who Haye struggled with.

You know that guys like Froch and Kessler etc would have been destroyed at HW. Yet instead of praising Toney's skills, all you can focus on is how poor those HW's were. You have no concept of what Toney was facing. You can't even answer the points I've put to you.

He was 5'10.

He had a 72" reach.

He wasn't fast.

He was out of shape.

He'd had almost 80 fights.

He was almost 40.

Not only have you to got to consider how other former SMW's would have done, you've also got to consider if they'd have the balls in the first place to take on guys like Holyfield, Rahman and Peter.

Think about it.

I put a question mark at the end of my question to discuss who else is overrated in the 90's like James Toney but no one seems to want to discuss that the topic has no moved toward whether Toney is an ATG or not. Which I'm more than happy to debate.

The reason I pose this question is because on this forum and forum's alike I see Toney rated extremely highly and that's something I'm dis*****g.

The points of debate you bring up are poor points, frankly.

Mate, how many times, I don't need to do research to know Toney was out of shape his entire career. I am fully aware of this. Not only is this not ATG material it's also been the reasoning used to defend Toney's poor performances for the last 20 odd years. I do not care less about it. It's an excuse, whether it's true or not. I have never disputed that Toney was always out of shape.

David Haye struggled with Valuev? What fight did you watch? I had Haye winning all but one round. Or did you just see it was an MD and assume he struggled?

Er, where did I say Peter and Rahman are poor? Quote me. I have not said that in this thread.

I clearly stated that Toney's abundance of skill is what allowed him to be successful at HW. No where have I disputed the skills of James Toney. I have highlighted that skill level in this thread many times but it's become abundantly clear that you either struggle with reading or refuse to take in what you read. Perhaps you just read it but purposely don't take it in who knows but clearly you are failing somewhere because every point you make I've already addressed earlier in the thread.

[billeau2]

well aside from Zoo I can't think of a fighter who was really overrated...except at the time he was coming up, maybe Judah, but Judah was viewed through less halcyon glasses after the Zoo fight.

[IronDanHamza]

well aside from Zoo I can't think of a fighter who was really overrated...except at the time he was coming up, maybe Judah, but Judah was viewed through less halcyon glasses after the Zoo fight.

That was more 00's though right? That fight was 2001 I believe.