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

[IronDanHamza]

You quoted someone who said it and then specifically agreed with that phrase, which is the same thing.

How is having what you consider to be one of the greatest, most skilful fights of all time not impressive? So you say he's in what is one of your favourite, most amazing fights, full of the highest level of skill you've seen, but it's a terrible, unimpressive performance too?

You don't find coming from behind and figuring out an unbeaten, P4P Nunn in your first ever title fight as a young fighter impressive? Nunn was considered the second coming of Leonard at that stage and was a huge favourite. So, he didn't dominate the whole fight and then stop Nunn, but how does that make it an unimpressive performance? That speaks more to the grit, determination and skills of both guys.

The amount he was behind is always massively overstated too. By the mid to late portion of the fight Toney was coming on in a huge way and it had become a real equal fight. People act like he lost every round then suddenly just landed one punch. That is patently absurd and just not what happened at all.

How is the performance against Barkley not good?

It just seems you're looking at everything with an incredible negative slant on what are normal things in boxing. Don't go NSB style on us Dan!

You said Froch has some good performances against top fighters, but seem to ignore Toney's ones against equally good, or clearly better, opposition.

He looked great (and sometimes not so great, but that's why Toney is rated where he is, because he was inconsistent and sometimes lazy in his fights) against some top rated and championship level fighters of the time and great in close, hard fights against the other HOF/ATG...which is to be expected of a fight between two great fighters.

That's pretty standard of all fighters though. Toney was more inconsistent than most really high level ATG's, but that's why he's not in the top 30-50 all time and why he is considered lower half, specifically because of those flaws and inconsistencies in an otherwise great career.

I don't recall. Maybe I was agreeing with something else. I do not feel James Toney has a great resume.

I didn't ever label Toney's draw with McCallum as "terrible" I merely said that it wasn't dominant or an "impressive win". The skill level shown was impressive by both.

Just as I don't think he was "terrible" losing to Johnson or Griffin IMO he lost by was far from terrible. Well, on second thought Johnson did make him look veg amateurish for most of the fight notably the first 4 rounds that he dominated and the 5th that he won.

But still, all his close wins that he sc****d I don't consider "terrible" because you can argue he won.

I think he looked terrible against Dave Tiberi and Thadzi. Two fights he lost clearl and obviously Jones (no shame there)

I find the Nunn win impressive just not the performance. He struggled badly in the fight but props for turning it round and getting the KO. I also had Nunn well ahead. I've not said he landed one punch he ground his way back.

When would you consider Toney looking great against a top opponent? No I don't consider Barkley a top opponent. I don't know of any. Jirov perhaps? Still would argue he didn't look great in that fight.

[IronDanHamza]

Iron,

This is what I'm struggling with:

What do you class as a top fighter? What's your definition?

Give me some examples.

Are you talking about truly elite guys such as McCallum, Nunn and Roy etc?

You've confused me when you say that Froch has had top wins. Yet Carl has never beaten anyone who I'd call elite.

My definition of a top level fighter, would be a an accomplished champion/top rated guy of a division.

I think there's a difference between elite level and top level.

Every time you type that Toney didn't dominate a top level fighter, I'm reading that as though you're saying he never dominated an elite fighter. But how many people have dominated elite guys? It's actually very rare. For example, Lennox Lewis never dominated an elite fighter.

Personally, I'd say that Toney did dominate top level guys. And those guys were Tim Littles and Evander Holyfield. Why? Because they were very good, top 10 rated guys of their respective divisions.

In fairness it's obviously debatable.

For me, I'd say anyone that's top 3 in the division.

It's all relative, in fairness. Tim Littles I think was #5 and whilst I'll agree he is a good fighter I wouldn't say a top guy.

But these are things that we could debate.

[robertzimmerman]

In fairness it's obviously debatable.

For me, I'd say anyone that's top 3 in the division.

It's all relative, in fairness. Tim Littles I think was #5 and whilst I'll agree he is a good fighter I wouldn't say a top guy.

But these are things that we could debate.

It's definitely debatable.


Again, I think there's 2 tiers of fighters:

Elite: Roy, McCallum, Nunn etc.

Top level: Kessler, Froch, Jirov etc.


I guess we're just using different terms.

It just bothers me when you say that Toney didn't dominate top level guys.

I wouldn't mind it if you'd said that he never dominated elite guys. Ha!


I don't know whether it should be narrowed down specifically to the top 3, but Jirov was regarded as the number 1 CW in the world when Toney fought him. And a lot of people think that Toney dominated him. So that could be one top level guy who Toney dominated, that fits your criteria.

[Anthony342]

Do a lot of people call him an ATG? Take a skim through this thread and ask yourself that again.

Almost everyone who's posted here thinks I'm bat**** crazy for even suggesting otherwise.

We've got a handful of people saying "If Toney stayed in shape he'd be one of the greatest fighters of all time"

Despite the fact when he was allegedly "in shape" at Middleweight he struggled with Sanderline Williams and Merqui Sosa, he very arguably lost to Refgie Johnson and his one good win at the weight against Micheal Nunn he was being easily beaten before the come from behind KO. He also lost clearly to Dave Tiberi, but they say he was out of shape for that middleweight bout.

So if that's not overrated then what is?

Didn't you also say he was a great fighter?

[Anthony342]

Yeah, he's an absolute tool. Pathological liar...like a weird little spoiled child or something.

Well, he sometimes makes good points as well.

He also said he used to be a fan of Lewis and Hagler, so he must have been heartbroken or "butthurt", as the kids say these days, over what he deems bad losses in their careers.

[Anthony342]

Anyway, like many fighters he can be a little overrated by some. I don't think there is a consensus on this one and I certainly don't think he's the most overrated of that entire decade. I think people rave about him because of some of his brilliant individual skills, but I don't think I've ever seen him rated that highly as an ATG. He seems to be consistently rated as a lower 50-100 type ATG mostly because of the exact things you mention. Seems about right to me.

But surely you need some consistency in rating fighters IDH? I've seen you say Froch is the greatest SMW of all time with the best resume etc. Well, he's had losses and shady wins/poor performances like Toney, except without the skill Toney shows and a much lesser resume. Surely if you think Toney is unimpressive and the most overrated fighter of an entire decade, you'd have to think similarly of Froch? However, you think the exact opposite and go to the other extreme saying he's the best SMW ever!

The performances thing makes no sense. I doubt you think of Froch as the most overrated 168er of this era and arguably of all time based on his performances in fights alone right?

If we followed your logic of going by performances and shaky wins etc, then you yourself must think Froch is clearly the most overrated 168er of this era and maybe the most overrated in boxing's 168 history if you hold any consistency in rating fighters.

Like Toney he was beaten by the best fighter he faced easily in Ward and also the second best in an ageing Kessler. He had 'unimpressive/poor' (your words for close, albeit winning, fights) performances against Dirrell, an unimpressive come from behind win that he looked terrible, was dropped etc against a never that good Taylor (much worse than struggling against Nunn), nearly stopped against a never was Groves, had a close fight against Pascal, looked lacklustre against Johnson etc etc.

That's a lot of unimpressive performances for someone you call the greatest SMW ever against some very unspectacular opposition. His best wins, Kessler and Bute, were another close (read poor) fight against an ageing fighter that he'd already lost to and what most now consider a highly overrated Bute.

You've certainly never called Forch overrated. The extreme opposite in fact. Surely there should be some attempt at consistency?

Anyway, just some food for thought.

what's IDH?

[IronDanHamza]

Didn't you also say he was a great fighter?

No, I definitely didn't.

[IronDanHamza]

It's definitely debatable.


Again, I think there's 2 tiers of fighters:

Elite: Roy, McCallum, Nunn etc.

Top level: Kessler, Froch, Jirov etc.


I guess we're just using different terms.

It just bothers me when you say that Toney didn't dominate top level guys.

I wouldn't mind it if you'd said that he never dominated elite guys. Ha!


I don't know whether it should be narrowed down specifically to the top 3, but Jirov was regarded as the number 1 CW in the world when Toney fought him. And a lot of people think that Toney dominated him. So that could be one top level guy who Toney dominated, that fits your criteria.

I did say Jirov could be argued. IMO his best win.

I wouldn't say it's a dominant win, but, it is a clear win, you can't argue Jirov won unlike many of Toney's other fights.

Fair enough brother you've made good points, we've had a good debate that's what this forums for.

[LacedUp]

I don't recall. Maybe I was agreeing with something else. I do not feel James Toney has a great resume.

I didn't ever label Toney's draw with McCallum as "terrible" I merely said that it wasn't dominant or an "impressive win". The skill level shown was impressive by both.

Just as I don't think he was "terrible" losing to Johnson or Griffin IMO he lost by was far from terrible. Well, on second thought Johnson did make him look veg amateurish for most of the fight notably the first 4 rounds that he dominated and the 5th that he won.

But still, all his close wins that he sc****d I don't consider "terrible" because you can argue he won.

I think he looked terrible against Dave Tiberi and Thadzi. Two fights he lost clearl and obviously Jones (no shame there)

I find the Nunn win impressive just not the performance. He struggled badly in the fight but props for turning it round and getting the KO. I also had Nunn well ahead. I've not said he landed one punch he ground his way back.

When would you consider Toney looking great against a top opponent? No I don't consider Barkley a top opponent. I don't know of any. Jirov perhaps? Still would argue he didn't look great in that fight.

Didn't read the whole thread, but is the general consensus that Toney is an ATG or not?

[IronDanHamza]

Didn't read the whole thread, but is the general consensus that Toney is an ATG or not?

I would say yes. Most definitely on Forums.

What would you say?