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

[robertzimmerman]

Because he lost both IMO. He was defintely far from impressive in the Johnson fight or either Griffin fight.

I mean, despite turning it round, he wasn't impressive. He gets full credit for the win, but it wasn't an impressive performance. It's like I'm talking to a 6 year old child who's first language isn't English. Is your first language English?

I'll give you an example, Carl Froch-Jermain Tayor. Froch won by KO, turned it round impressively, but it wasn't an impressive performance.

Deontay Wilder-Arthur Szpilka, impressive KO, not an impressive performance?

Need more examples or have you grasped it?

At no point have I dismissed either win. Merely stated that neither are impressive performances or dominant performances. Literally all there is to my statment. Also that I don't feel Toney beat McCallum but gant argue with the result as it was an either way fight.

Despite turning it around?

It didn't happen by magic did it?

And you think you're the one talking to a child?

I can't believe you've just used Wilder to try and illustrate your point.

The differences are literally staggering.

So what if he lost to Griffin and Johnson? (unofficially) That doesn't mean they were poor performances. Like you say, they were real tough matches for him stylistically. I think they were very good performances.

Are you going to list these string of losses to subpar opposition?

[robertzimmerman]

Styles making fights played a factor IMO and in the case of Griffin yeah it definitely played a part. Toney always struggled when the guy across from him had his own skills. Griffin showed just that.

Thadzi I believe he overlooked but Thadzi had a perfect gamelan on the night.

Being out of shape may have been an issue yeah but who knows they had thT excuse ready every single time.

Who had that excuse ready every time?

[IronDanHamza]

So Dan, I assume you must think that Jones was underrated and probably not a top 100 ATG, considering his two standout wins in the decade were Hopkins (green) and Toney (in your opinion overrated. His second best wins are probably Griffin (struggled in the first fight but got the impressive KO in the rematch) and McCullum...Toney drew against a far better, stronger, closer to best weight version of Mc. Jones had a sparring match at times.

I think Roy Jones was clearly the fighter of the 90's next to Whitaker and an ATG.

Toney whilst overrated is still a sure fire HOF'er. Jones win over him was very impressive.

Jones has a list of dominant and impressive performances against top level guys.

I don't think McCallum was nearly his best win. Maybe name wise yeah but not in terms of quality. Obviously the versions of McCallum that Toney fought the first two times were much better than the one Roy dominated. But I don't feel that Toney beat McCallum either time.

[IronDanHamza]

Despite turning it around?

It didn't happen by magic did it?

And you think you're the one talking to a child?

I can't believe you've just used Wilder to try and illustrate your point.

The differences are literally staggering.

So what if he lost to Griffin and Johnson? (unofficially) That doesn't mean they were poor performances. Like you say, they were real tough matches for him stylistically. I think they were very good performances.

Are you going to list these string of losses to subpar opposition?

I read your last line and literally sighed to myself in exhaustion. Do I honestly need to explain it, again? Loss/POOR PERFORMANCES.

You think he wasn't poor against Johnson or Griffin. Ok, fair enough. I do.

I think he was poor against Sosa, Tiberi, Thadzi. I've already stated this.

I don't say the fights were similar I'm using it as an example of a fighter who turned a fight around with a KO but failed to put on an impressive performance but clearly you cannot grasp the most simple of things just bare with me whist I **** my head against this wall.

Is English your first language? Because if it's not let's just stop the conversation here I don't have time to repeat myself over and over again.

[robertzimmerman]

Not even going to waste my time responding to the idea that James Toney and Roy Jones have careers or resumes that are anywhere near close to one another.

Again, you're talking to Roy's biggest fan.

MW:

Wins over Nunn and McCallum were better than Roy's wins over Tate and Hopkins.

SMW: Obviously Roy beat him easy, but he did have to lose something crazy like 40 pounds to make weight.

Wins over Barkley, Littles and Williams etc, are better than wins over Malinga and Lucas.

LHW: This is obviously where Roy eclipses him with wins over Griffin, Hill and Tarver etc.

CW: Toney has the win over Jirov.

HW: Roy has Ruiz. Toney has Evander, and was extremely unlucky in the Peter and Rahman fights.

Roy has more wins against good competition, and he was far more dominant.

But their very best wins are very close.

You can't say that Roy's resume eclipses Toney's.

[IronDanHamza]

Again, you're talking to Roy's biggest fan.

MW:

Wins over Nunn and McCallum were better than Roy's wins over Tate and Hopkins.

SMW: Obviously Roy beat him easy, but he did have to lose something crazy like 40 pounds to make weight.

Wins over Barkley, Littles and Williams etc, are better than wins over Malinga and Lucas.

LHW: This is obviously where Roy eclipses him with wins over Griffin, Hill and Tarver etc.

CW: Toney has the win over Jirov.

HW: Roy has Ruiz. Toney has Evander, and was extremely unlucky in the Peter and Rahman fights.


Roy has more wins against good competition, and he was far more dominant.

But their very best wins are very close.

You can't say Roy's resume eclipses Toney's.

Again, I won't even waste my time entertaining the idea that their careers or resumes are anywhere near close to one another.

[robertzimmerman]

Because it's irrelevant. It's Toney's choice to decide to be out of shape.

You can repeat that nonsense about Haye/Holyfield/Valuev all you want it doesn't make it true.

It's irrelevant?

On a debate analysing his career?

[robertzimmerman]

I read your last line and literally sighed to myself in exhaustion. Do I honestly need to explain it, again? Loss/POOR PERFORMANCES.

You think he wasn't poor against Johnson or Griffin. Ok, fair enough. I do.

I think he was poor against Sosa, Tiberi, Thadzi. I've already stated this.

I don't say the fights were similar I'm using it as an example of a fighter who turned a fight around with a KO but failed to put on an impressive performance but clearly you cannot grasp the most simple of things just bare with me whist I **** my head against this wall.

Is English your first language? Because if it's not let's just stop the conversation here I don't have time to repeat myself over and over again.

Yes, I know what you were trying to point out with your example, but you failed miserably.

Now you're backtracking. You said he had a string of losses to subpar opposition. Yet that's not true. And it makes no difference that you worded it like: 'a string of losses/poor performances to subpar opposition'

It's a gross exaggeration on your part. But that's to be expected.

[robertzimmerman]

Again, I won't even waste my time entertaining the idea that their careers or resumes are anywhere near close to one another.

You've done us both a massive favour here.

[robertzimmerman]

Iron,

We've had a good go at this, but I'm now signing off.

Nice debating with you, and I'll catch you on another thread at some point.