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

[robertzimmerman]

Great win, good win. Tomato, tomato. It's a good win, very good win, great win. Whatever, semantics.

At what point do I label the Griffin loss's a "travesty" or even a bad thing at all? Merely breaking down the fights and highlighting that he once again failed to dominante or clearly beat an opponent.

Credit for what? Going up to Heavyweight and losing some of the contenders. Ok, well done James.

At no point did I hold any of his loss's as "evidence" why he's not an ATG you are once again putting words in my mouth and filling in your own blanks.

James Toney is not an ATG IMO because firstly his resume is no where near strong enough, secondly because he has zero impressive performances against top calibur opponents and thirdly because of a string of loss's/poor performances against sub par opposition.

You and many other Toney fans seem to blame all of that on him being "out of shape". While I agree Toney seemed to apparently never be in shape, #1 that's not an excuse and #2 I don't buy everytime he lost/looked terrible it was down to that anyway.

Toney is just not as good as you think he is IMO.

Do you even READ what you type?

"Credit for what? Going up to HW and losing to some of the contenders. Okay, well done James"

That is what you have typed.

It's just more flippant, sarcastic bull ****.

You say he has zero impressive performances against elite comp. Then why I point out that he beat them, it's: "Okay, he did beat them, but he wasn't impressive"

If you can't see how it was impressive for a young fighter in his early 20's, to beat McCallum and Nunn, then you are completely clueless.

And now all of a sudden he has a string of losses to subpar opposition?

Really?

List them.

Obviously Roy and Griffin weren't subpar.

So let's see the losses.

Who have we got?

Tiberi and Thadzi? A grand total of 2.

Who else?

Peter? No.

Lebedev? No?

Or are we going to count his recent losses where he was in his late 40's?

[robertzimmerman]

No he doesn't have a great resume. Not IMO.

What you just listed is not a great resume. And that's pretending that he won those fights clearly and in dominant fashion when in actual fact he won barely any of them clearly let alone in dominant fashion.

Once again you don't consider it objective because you seem to be struggling with me being truthful. You can't dispute that I've been very fair in my breakdown of Toney's career. Every single fight I have been fair.

No I don't think Nunn is great. Do you consider Nunn an ATG?

Great potential maybe. But that's pushing it to be honest. I may be mistaken but is he even in the HOF? I don't think he is.

**** me, what do you class as a great resume?

You don't think Nunn was a great fighter in the early 90's, before his struggles with drink and drugs?

And you expect people to debate with you?

[robertzimmerman]

So he was in shape at Middleweight?

I couldn't care less if he was in shape or not to be honest I don't know how to make that any more clear.

YES!

He was mostly in shape at MW when he was young.

But from the Roy fight onwards, he was hardly ever in the best possible shape, which is why I gave you that quote of his.

He's honest, he knows he let himself down.

If you've started a thread to objectively analyse his career, where you've asked for other people's opinions, then you SHOULD care whether or not he was in shape.

[robertzimmerman]

I didn't say he didn't have any success. Are you going to put words in my mouth every post.

I asked you to tell me about his success. It's overstated on your part.

The fact you think if you say James Toney doesn't have a great resume is failing to be objective is as laughable as it is baffling. As if that's not even up for debate. Well yes it clearly is VERY debatable if Toney has a great resume. VERY debatable.

I will ask you again, do you think Nunn is an ATG? I don't. So no I don't think he's a "great fighter" at all.

You need to go back and reread what you've written.

Your posts are riddled with flippant sarcasm.

You are repeatedly asking questions such as: "What success"?

Yes, I along with most of the boxing world, think that Nunn was a great fighter in the early 90's.

[IronDanHamza]

Do you even READ what you type?

"Credit for what? Going up to HW and losing to some of the contenders. Okay, well done James"

That is what you have typed.

It's just more flippant, sarcastic bull ****.

You say he has zero impressive performances against elite comp. Then why I point out that he beat them, it's "Okay, he did beat them, but he wasn't impressive"

If you can't see how it was impressive for a young fighter in his early 20's, to beat McCallum and Nunn, then you are completely clueless.

And now all of a sudden he has a string of losses to subpar opposition?

Really?

List them.

Obviously Roy and Griffin weren't subpar.

So let's see the losses.

Who have we got?

Tiberi and Thadzi? A grand total of 2.

Who else?

Peter? No.

Lebedev? No?

Or are we going to count his recent losses where he was in his late 40's?

Seriously now why is it every single post I have to explain the most simple things?

I said he has a string of loss's/poor performances.

They include;

Tiberi, Thadzi, Griffin x2, Sosa, Johnson.

I won't include Jones or McCallum 2 because losing or not looking stellar against ATG's is no big deal.

"You say he has zero impressive performances against elite comp. Then why I point out that he beat them, it's "Okay, he did beat them, but he wasn't impressive"

Precisely. Which part of the above are you struggling to comprehend?

I'm not asking you to tell me who he beat I'm not asking you to tell me which of his wins are impressive I'm asking for dominant impressive performances.

I don't know how I can make this easier to understand seriously I don't.

Nunn despite the KO was not an impressive performance. Neither was McCallum 2. Neither were dominant/impressive performances.

[IronDanHamza]

**** me, what do you class as a great resume?

You don't think Nunn was a great fighter in the early 90's, before his struggles with drink and drugs?

And you expect people to debate with you?

Modern era? Roy Jones, Evander Holyfield, erm, Manny Pacquaio. Top of my head I know I'm missing a few.

Toney? No.

Do I need a on repeat again that I don't think Nunn is a great fighter? No, I don't. Far from an ATG. Great potential, maybe.

[IronDanHamza]

YES!

He was mostly in shape at MW when he was young.

But from the Roy fight onwards, he was hardly ever in the best possible shape, which is why I gave you that quote of his.

He's honest, he knows he let himself down.

If you've started a thread to objectively analyse his career, where you've asked for other people's opinions, then you SHOULD care whether or not he was in shape.

I don't care if he's in shape or not that's his own fault and I've been hearing the same excuses for 20 odd years. But run with it if you think that's the entire reason why he didn't reach certain heights. You're entitled to think that, I don't.

I've had back and forth with others just fine. It's you that offended that I don't feel the same way about Toney.

[IronDanHamza]

You need to go back and reread what you've written.

Your posts are riddled with flippant sarcasm.

You are repeatedly asking questions such as: "What success"?

Yes, I along with most of the boxing world, think that Nunn was a great fighter in the early 90's.

I'll respond to you with sarcasm if you take the conversation that way and if you continue to refuse to read/understand my posts.

Yeah I have asked that question you've failed to answer it for the most part. All you've done is tell me the reason he looked poor and didn't dominate any of his opponents is because he wasn't In shape. Ok? That's fantastic.

Ok you think Nunn is a great fighter. I don't. I wouldn't expect to see Nunn on any ATG list.

[robertzimmerman]

No I've explained many times now why I don't feel he's an ATG and made it extremely clear for you as you appear to struggle.

It's an excuse because you blame it entirely on that when I don't believe that's the entire reason.

Haye was awful, but he far from struggled. He won almost every round.

How could his weight struggles and overall preparation be just excuses?

The Griffin fights were extremely close. Again, many people think Toney won them. You've acknowledged that Griffin was a very good, underrated fighter. And we know that Toney had keep busy fights during that period, some of which were at 200 pounds. And we know that he had to spend an hour in the sauna to make the weight for Griffin. We also know that he'd fought almost 50 times at that point.

So how can you not take those factors into account?

Holyfield gave a better performance against Valuev than Haye, yet you won't give Toney any credit for beating him.

[IronDanHamza]

How could his weight struggles and overall preparation be just excuses?

The Griffin fights were extremely close. Again, many people think Toney won them. You've acknowledged that Griffin was a very good, underrated fighter. And we know that Toney had keep busy fights during that period, some of which were at 200 pounds. And we know that he had to spend an hour in the sauna to make the weight for Griffin. We also know that he'd fought almost 50 times at that point.

So how can you not take those factors into account?

Holyfield gave a better performance against Valuev than Haye, yet you won't give Toney any credit for beating him.

I do take them into account. I also take into account that Griffin had a style and his own batch of skills that gave Toney problems and allowed him to beat him the first time. I don't blame it all on him being out of shape like you and other Toney fans do. And even if it's the case it's his own fault anyway so who cares?

Holyfield did not beat Valuev easier than Haye did. That's just sheer nonsense. Holyfield beat Valuev but he lost rounds. Haye barely lost a round.