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

[Humean]

Was interested in your view.

How did you score Toney-Johnson. I really thought Toney was far from impressive in that one I thought Johnson made him look really bad.

How did you score McCallum 2?

As for Nunn yeah I'll agree very impressive to turn it round but he looked so bad for the first half though.

Your second sentance is the point I was trying to make in a nutshell.

I don't have the Johnson or McCallum II scorecards on my computer but from my memory I think they were certainly fights that the decision could have went either way but i'm pretty sure I scored for McCallum although I did have Toney winning the first McCallum fight. I think these are highly impressive opponents though so yes Nunn was certainly getting the better of him but in the end he knocked a 1991 version of Michale Nunn out, that is impressive in my book. I think that with Toney people who love him focus on his best nights but I like to focus more on the average performance level, due to his unprofessionalism Toney had quite a big swing in performance levels and those bad nights should be counted just as much as his great nights especially as these bad nights happened when he was in his 20s 3-10 years into his career, it is not like he was some old man on the physical decline.

[IronDanHamza]

I don't have the Johnson or McCallum II scorecards on my computer but from my memory I think they were certainly fights that the decision could have went either way but i'm pretty sure I scored for McCallum although I did have Toney winning the first McCallum fight. I think these are highly impressive opponents though so yes Nunn was certainly getting the better of him but in the end he knocked a 1991 version of Michale Nunn out, that is impressive in my book. I think that with Toney people who love him focus on his best nights but I like to focus more on the average performance level, due to his unprofessionalism Toney had quite a big swing in performance levels and those bad nights should be counted just as much as his great nights especially as these bad nights happened when he was in his 20s 3-10 years into his career, it is not like he was some old man on the physical decline.

Oh yeah without question they could have gone either way.

I scored Johnson, McCallum 2 and Griffin 1 for them but Toney could easily have got the decision.

Same way I scored Griffin 2 for Toney but that could have gone the other way aswell.

As for Johnson, he let him down down the stretch and lost it for himself or made it close. He was in complete control IMO and actually dominated the first 4-5 rounds + a KD. And even though he was still making Toney look average by making him miss and hitting him with the odd clean counter he if he just let his hands go more he'd have won that comfortably as opposed to close (on my card). For what it's worth though in my eyes Johnson is one of the most underrated fighters of that era.

I defintely agree Nunn, McCallum 2, even Prince Charles are impressive wins. It's the performance I'm looking at I.e he struggled to dominate them. But I agree the wins themselves ARE impressive. I've not disputed that and it all adds to why he has a HOF career.

Couldn't agree more with the second half of your post. That is my main gripe with Toney and his fans.

[Humean]

Oh yeah without question they could have gone either way.

I scored Johnson, McCallum 2 and Griffin 1 for them but Toney could easily have got the decision.

Same way I scored Griffin 2 for Toney but that could have gone the other way aswell.

As for Johnson, he let him down down the stretch and lost it for himself or made it close. He was in complete control IMO and actually dominated the first 4-5 rounds + a KD. And even though he was still making Toney look average by making him miss and hitting him with the odd clean counter he if he just let his hands go more he'd have won that comfortably as opposed to close (on my card). For what it's worth though in my eyes Johnson is one of the most underrated fighters of that era.

I defintely agree Nunn, McCallum 2, even Prince Charles are impressive wins. It's the performance I'm looking at I.e he struggled to dominate them. But I agree the wins themselves ARE impressive. I've not disputed that and it all adds to why he has a HOF career.

Couldn't agree more with the second half of your post. That is my main gripe with Toney and his fans.

I agree that Reggie Johnson was an excellent fighter who is rarely acknowledged as such, he was incredibly unlucky to have lost so many either-way type fights on the scorecards. The biggest criticism you can make of the Williams win is the weight but then with the way Williams fought that fight i'm not sure that such a criticism stands up. Williams is another quality fighter not sufficiently acknowledged.

[billeau2]

You think froch would beat Toney at 168? make way sonny boy and elroy. The history forum has a new resident jackass

That would literally be one of the most one sided fights ever. Froch would get dissected by Toney and probably stopped late.

I see this fight as follows:

Maybe for the first round or two Froch exchanges with Toney and catches him with a few shots.

Then Toney gets his timing down. Froch is limited...I don't know what he could do not to get countered by Toney. I don't see this fight going past 7 rounds or so imo. There is no way Froch stands up to the power of Toney, who hits harder and is a better puncher than anyone Froch has fought I can think of... the fight would be worse than the Ward fight for Froch imo because at the end of the day Toney hits harder than Ward and is as accurate.

I don't know if its me but I see Froch as so damn ordinary! I feel like there is something I must be missing. it looks to me like he loops a lot of his shots also which would kill him against a counter puncher as good as Toney. The Ward fight is pretty much the guide for how I think this fight would go.

[IronDanHamza]

I agree that Reggie Johnson was an excellent fighter who is rarely acknowledged as such, he was incredibly unlucky to have lost so many either-way type fights on the scorecards. The biggest criticism you can make of the Williams win is the weight but then with the way Williams fought that fight i'm not sure that such a criticism stands up. Williams is another quality fighter not sufficiently acknowledged.

Agreed I had him beating Castro twice especially the second one. I only actually had Roy Jones beating him.

I agree with that assesment and I feel the same way about Thadzi. Toney did miss the weight but Thadzi's game plan was spot on.

[IronDanHamza]

I see this fight as follows:

Maybe for the first round or two Froch exchanges with Toney and catches him with a few shots.

Then Toney gets his timing down. Froch is limited...I don't know what he could do not to get countered by Toney. I don't see this fight going past 7 rounds or so imo. There is no way Froch stands up to the power of Toney, who hits harder and is a better puncher than anyone Froch has fought I can think of... the fight would be worse than the Ward fight for Froch imo because at the end of the day Toney hits harder than Ward and is as accurate.

I don't know if its me but I see Froch as so damn ordinary! I feel like there is something I must be missing. it looks to me like he loops a lot of his shots also which would kill him against a counter puncher as good as Toney. The Ward fight is pretty much the guide for how I think this fight would go.

So your assesment is Froch might land a punch here and there for one or MAYBE two rounds before Toneh dominates and ultimately knocks him out in 7 rounds.

And you're asking me why I think Toney is overrated?

When has Toney EVER done that to anyone on Froch's level? When has Toney ever fought someone and eluded punches that consistently for an entire fight?

You think Froch is ordinary, what is Dave Tiberi? What is Drake Thadzi? What is Merqui Sosa?

I can't even imagine what people would say if Toney was matched against the above 3 in fantasy fights. "Tiberi would last maybe 4 rounds and would maybe land one grazing jab" yet Tiberi beat him clearly.

"Sosa? Can he even spell defense? Does he even know how to put his hands up? He's slow as molasses, Sosa I'd expect will land zero punches in the first and then will get knocked out in the second"

Toney only performs the way you've described in fantasy fights I'm afraid.

[robertzimmerman]

That's your opinion you're entitled to it.

Considering that James Toney couldn't do that to barely anyone he fought I highly doubt he'd do it to Froch.

I'd expect Toney to have an early lead but down the stretch Froch would take rounds when Toney fades, plus I think Froch's jab would land, and he'd outwork him in spots.

Toney was clearly beaten by Dave Tiberi and Drake Thadzi so it's not crazy to think Froch has a shot. I did say a SD type decision aswell.

Another example of Toney being overrated IMO, you say Toneh-Froch would be "one of the most one sided fights ever" and not only would dissect him but stop him late (extremely doubtful) yet when did Toney ever do that to someone on Froch's level? Never. He struggled and lost to fighters much worse than Carl Froch yet you think it would be a wipe out.

Precisely my point.

Whenever I comment on a fantasy fight, I always assume that both fighters would be fully fit, fighting to their full capabilities.

If that was the case here, I'd have Toney beating him comfortably based on styles.

However, there could have been a chance that Toney may have underestimated and disrespected him, leading to a harder night that imagined.

Toney's serious problems did seem to start from his fight with Roy and onwards though. But prior to that, he did seem motivated and in shape at SMW. The Thadzi fight wouldn't really influence my opinion here.

[BennyST]

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.

Quote: "Yeah if you look at the names he fought at face value yeah it's a great resume but if you actually look at the performances and results then it's really not that impressive." Unquote.

I couldn't be bothered looking through all the posts to find the original, so just copy and pasted it from my earlier post. Anyway, it's not a big deal. Was just a bit confused by you saying it was only his performances in winning, or close fights that made him overrated, despite his excellent resume and overall career.

I think he obviously looked amazing against Jirov. I'm truly baffled that you don't consider that a top performance. Jirov was an impressive fighter at his every best and Toney outboxed him, then outfought him.

Being a close fight doesn't take away from it being a great performance. Anyone is going to struggle with a big, tall southpaw, who has killer stamina, good boxing and doesn't stop. Toney did about as well as you could have considering...explain what is not impressive about that performance. He showed stamina, great boxing skill, impressive counter punching, speed, great defense, amazing heart and grit, slick movement and great fighting off the ropes. There was nothing unimpressive about it.

It seems like you equate a close fight with a poor performance. Who is ever going to dominate Mike McCallum, unless it's the 90 year old version Roy fought? Not everyone is Roy Jones and if you look that way at most great fighters careers, their best wins against their best opponents will nearly always be in close, hard fights which means nearly every great fighter has largely unimpressive performances in all their biggest fights.

Doesn't make it unimpressive. The opposite in fact, because they have to lift so much more.

Toney had to lift his game dramatically to win, and he did. It was an incredible display of boxing.

As for the performance against McCallum, of course he's not going to dominate him! This isn't Floyd/Gatti. Floyd's fight against Castillo was close, but that doesn't make it unimpressive in the slightest! That's like saying Duran fought an unimpressive fight against Leonard because he didn't dominate him, or Leonard against Hearns, or Ali against Frazier.

I don't know...

I guess I see a win over McCallum as impressive because it's Mike McCallum! You have to fight an impressive fight in every aspect to beat and it's never going to be easy or dominant. That's what he did. You even agree, but then say it's not good because he didn't dominate him? That makes no sense to me.

Same with Nunn. Despite him having to come from behind, he was very young still, very inexperienced, in his first ever championship fight, against one of the sports top P4P fighters, and while he showed his youth and inexperience, he also showed off an impressive display of defense, offence, and heart to come back and get the win by KO. What was unimpressive about that? That he didn't dominate from the first bell? Like I said, that's gong to happen against great, hard to beat opponents like Nunn. Nunn's only KO and he was never even really beaten clearly again. His only other losses were all incredibly close fights that could have gone either way. The fact that Toney came into his first ever title fight, in Nunn's hometown, young still, inexperienced and did what no one else was able to do...I find that impressive.

Do you think Leonard's first win over Hearns is also unimpressive?

Anyway, although he might get overrated a bit, I think that comes about because of his amazing individual skills and abilities. However, because of his lack of discipline and losses to guys he should't have lost to, that obviously hurts his overall standing. But mostly, he seems to be rated very accordingly for what he achieved and I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say he's the most overrated of the entire decade.

I love the Jirov fight. Particularly the bit where Steward nearly falls off his seat at the end. Haha awesome!

[BennyST]

That's your opinion you're entitled to it.

Considering that James Toney couldn't do that to barely anyone he fought I highly doubt he'd do it to Froch.

I'd expect Toney to have an early lead but down the stretch Froch would take rounds when Toney fades, plus I think Froch's jab would land, and he'd outwork him in spots.

Toney was clearly beaten by Dave Tiberi and Drake Thadzi so it's not crazy to think Froch has a shot. I did say a SD type decision aswell.

Another example of Toney being overrated IMO, you say Toneh-Froch would be "one of the most one sided fights ever" and not only would dissect him but stop him late (extremely doubtful) yet when did Toney ever do that to someone on Froch's level? Never. He struggled and lost to fighters much worse than Carl Froch yet you think it would be a wipe out.

Precisely my point.

The same argument can be used the other way too though. When did Froch ever beat anyone with as much skill as Toney, or even look good against someone with good skills?

The closest fighter to Toney he fought was obviously Ward and it was an easy UD. He struggled with fighters like Taylor and Groves, nearly getting stopped by both, who are far inferior to Toney so the same argument applies.

You are looking at the worst of Toney and then comparing him to the best of Froch. Toney rarely faded late and was actually a good champions fighter. A spot fighter, but didn't fade late.

One last thing. You keep saying he didn't beat any 'top' opponent. What do you consider a top opponent? It seems like you're talking of top opponents in an ATG, historical kind of sense. Surely the champions and top rated contenders of Toney's day qualify as top opponents.

Otherwise you end up having to take off all opponents from everyone you rank except for the ATG's they fought and suddenly hardly anyone has done anything good or impressive in their careers.

Obviously I think Barkly is a top opponent. He was a champion when Toney beat him. Aside from that he was a 3 division champ, and beat Hearns by decision and by KO right after Hearns had beaten Virgil Hill, Dennis Andries, Roldan, etc. He gave everyone he fought a very tough night out...except Toney. That's impressive to me.

I don't know what it takes to impress you. It would have to be a lot though.

[IronDanHamza]

Quote: "Yeah if you look at the names he fought at face value yeah it's a great resume but if you actually look at the performances and results then it's really not that impressive." Unquote.

I couldn't be bothered looking through all the posts to find the original, so just copy and pasted it from my earlier post. Anyway, it's not a big deal. Was just a bit confused by you saying it was only his performances in winning, or close fights that made him overrated, despite his excellent resume and overall career.

I think he obviously looked amazing against Jirov. I'm truly baffled that you don't consider that a top performance. Jirov was an impressive fighter at his every best and Toney outboxed him, then outfought him.

Being a close fight doesn't take away from it being a great performance. Anyone is going to struggle with a big, tall southpaw, who has killer stamina, good boxing and doesn't stop. Toney did about as well as you could have considering...explain what is not impressive about that performance. He showed stamina, great boxing skill, impressive counter punching, speed, great defense, amazing heart and grit, slick movement and great fighting off the ropes. There was nothing unimpressive about it.

It seems like you equate a close fight with a poor performance. Who is ever going to dominate Mike McCallum, unless it's the 90 year old version Roy fought? Not everyone is Roy Jones and if you look that way at most great fighters careers, their best wins against their best opponents will nearly always be in close, hard fights which means nearly every great fighter has largely unimpressive performances in all their biggest fights.

Doesn't make it unimpressive. The opposite in fact, because they have to lift so much more.

Toney had to lift his game dramatically to win, and he did. It was an incredible display of boxing.

As for the performance against McCallum, of course he's not going to dominate him! This isn't Floyd/Gatti. Floyd's fight against Castillo was close, but that doesn't make it unimpressive in the slightest! That's like saying Duran fought an unimpressive fight against Leonard because he didn't dominate him, or Leonard against Hearns, or Ali against Frazier.

I don't know...

I guess I see a win over McCallum as impressive because it's Mike McCallum! You have to fight an impressive fight in every aspect to beat and it's never going to be easy or dominant. That's what he did. You even agree, but then say it's not good because he didn't dominate him? That makes no sense to me.

Same with Nunn. Despite him having to come from behind, he was very young still, very inexperienced, in his first ever championship fight, against one of the sports top P4P fighters, and while he showed his youth and inexperience, he also showed off an impressive display of defense, offence, and heart to come back and get the win by KO. What was unimpressive about that? That he didn't dominate from the first bell? Like I said, that's gong to happen against great, hard to beat opponents like Nunn. Nunn's only KO and he was never even really beaten clearly again. His only other losses were all incredibly close fights that could have gone either way. The fact that Toney came into his first ever title fight, in Nunn's hometown, young still, inexperienced and did what no one else was able to do...I find that impressive.

Do you think Leonard's first win over Hearns is also unimpressive?

Anyway, although he might get overrated a bit, I think that comes about because of his amazing individual skills and abilities. However, because of his lack of discipline and losses to guys he should't have lost to, that obviously hurts his overall standing. But mostly, he seems to be rated very accordingly for what he achieved and I certainly wouldn't go so far as to say he's the most overrated of the entire decade.

I love the Jirov fight. Particularly the bit where Steward nearly falls off his seat at the end. Haha awesome!

Well there you go I said "the names he fought" I.e his opposition was great which it was.

But he didn't win all of them so I don't include them on his resume.

His resume is wins isn't great IMO.

A lot of what you're saying is twisting what I said.

I never said McCallum win wasn't good. Even though I didn't have him winning. What I said first is it wasn't dominant. I said it wasn't impressive because he very arguably could have lost, but that's debatable.

I don't think Mayweather was impressive at all against Castillo the first time, no.

The other fights you mentioned were clear wins for the winners except Leonard-Hearns and I don't think Leonard looked impressive in that fight either but the win is great to comeback and KO him. That fight is similar to Nunn-Toney IMO.

Firstly I don't think Nunn is a great fighter secondly no obviously you don't have to dominate from the first bell but getting beaten handily is not something I consider impressive.

If you think he looked amazing against Jirov that's your opinion I don't think he looked amazing in that fight. The fight was amazing as most drawn out wars are but Toney did struggle at times despite winning close but clear.

Does he get rated accodrdingly? I don't know. I think that's debatable.

If he isn't then who is? He has to be amongst the discussion IMO. I'd say maybe Lopez is a better choice.