How could Roy Jones Junior be the best of this era?

[Sweet Pete]

No, the same Montell Griffin who put abit of a schooling on Roy - outfeinting him and outboxing him, and beating him!

Then he got rid of Eddie Futch

Roy was winning the fight up until that point, Griffin was just doing a lot better than people expected. Roy lost the fight by hitting him after the knockdown, Griffin didn't win it. You're being a bit ridiculous here.

[Sweet Pete]

Wait, so you don't even think James Toney is a hall-of-fame fighter? Wow. You really do have trouble appreciating the subtleties of the sport, which is what made James Toney so good.

Trying to knock Toneys resume isn't that smart either since he literally fought everyone that would fight him, no matter the purse, no matter his condition. The guy has one of the best resumes in modern day boxing, plus he fought ALL THE TIME.

You misunderstood. He's easily HOF. The guy said that if someone had done what Toney did in one year(win over Nunn, draw over old McCallum, and whatever else) over their entire career, that they would be in the HOF. Nonsense.

[Sweet Pete]

Great debate in here, guys. I love to see real boxing buffs talk it out.

Sweet Pete- surely you can't discredit Toney's win over Tim Littles? He was a very dangerous guy back then.

Sure he was, but when taking into account someone's top wins, that doesn't really float my boat as someone you had to fight in the day or else you ducked him. He was someone Toney was supposed to beat, and beat he did. Good win, nothing special the way I see it.

[Azteca]

Toney isn't what I would call great. Too indisciplined, too lazy, too inconsistent. Yes, his win over Jirov and Ruiz were good, but we had to wait an awful long time for him to shine again after his middle and super-middleweight heyday in the early 90's. It also seems that Toney's poor performances aren't held against him as much as some other fighters. I can still recall the travesty against Dave Tiberi and Reggie Johnson. I lost interest in the sport for quite a while after these debacle's.

His lazy, countering style was made for a straight-ahead type fighters but not for a Roy Jones or Montell Griffin, after which Toney discovered he could get away with his lazy style against a whole succession of limited cruiserweights and heavyweights, though he did raise his effort against Jirov.

Toney was hardly considered such a super-talented old school tough guy just a few moons back. Prior to the Jirov win and after the embarrassing losses to Griffith and Thadzi, it seemed to me that James was seen by most boxing fans as a disappointing under-achiever. It's amazing what slipping a few punches from members of one of the sport's worst heavyweight lineups can do for your rep, isn't it?

Hs marketing skills have far exceeded his talent at ANY point in his career.


And that's the bottom line...cuz Azteca said so.

[crold1]

What is the era? Is it from...serious...when to when? From 1996-2003, he was the best fighter in the world in many eyes (starting with Whitaker-Rivera I as the break point). Prior to that it was Pea. Then after Jones Hopkins for a minute and now Floyd. Those are the consensus top guys of the last 15 or so. So what is the time span?

And just to clear it up, Toney was never really regarded as #1 by anyone of note. Pea was #1 during Toney's best run. Without the Tiberi fight, and had he beat Jones, the case would have been there. But it is just revisionist crap (mostly created by HBO) to say he was #1 when Roy beat him. They weren't saying that **** when Pea was doing SI covers.

[shawn_]

James Toney did not get hit. That is what you are neglecting to realize. When James Toney came into the ring prepared, it was like swinging at smoke that was beating the **** out of you for your troubles.

Even in the fights where he lost, with the exception of Roy Jones, he didn't lose because he was taking a beating, he lost because he did not have the energy to throw punches. He lay dormant for large parts of the rounds being elusive and making his opponent miss.

Its no coincidence that Most of James Toneys draws were immediately avenged by wide one sided victories.

Even in his fight vs Michael Nunn, James Toneys defense was incredible.

[Sweet Pete]

Toney isn't what I would call great. Too indisciplined, too lazy, too inconsistent. Yes, his win over Jirov and Ruiz were good, but we had to wait an awful long time for him to shine again after his middle and super-middleweight heyday in the early 90's. It also seems that Toney's poor performances aren't held against him as much as some other fighters. I can still recall the travesty against Dave Tiberi and Reggie Johnson. I lost interest in the sport for quite a while after these debacle's.

His lazy, countering style was made for a straight-ahead type fighters but not for a Roy Jones or Montell Griffin, after which Toney discovered he could get away with his lazy style against a whole succession of limited cruiserweights and heavyweights, though he did raise his effort against Jirov.

Toney was hardly considered such a super-talented old school tough guy just a few moons back. Prior to the Jirov win and after the embarrassing losses to Griffith and Thadzi, it seemed to me that James was seen by most boxing fans as a disappointing under-achiever. It's amazing what slipping a few punches from members of one of the sport's worst heavyweight lineups can do for your rep, isn't it?

Hs marketing skills have far exceeded his talent at ANY point in his career.


And that's the bottom line...cuz Azteca said so.

While a bit extreme, this is the first time I've agreed with the general point of one of your posts.

[Azteca]

James Toney did not get hit. That is what you are neglecting to realize. When James Toney came into the ring prepared, it was like swinging at smoke that was beating the **** out of you for your troubles.

Even in the fights where he lost, with the exception of Roy Jones, he didn't lose because he was taking a beating, he lost because he did not have the energy to throw punches. He lay dormant for large parts of the rounds being elusive and making his opponent miss.

Its no coincidence that Most of James Toneys draws were immediately avenged by wide one sided victories.

Even in his fight vs Michael Nunn, James Toneys defense was incredible.

Yeah, Nunn pitching a near shutout for 11 rounds....James Toney displayed incredible defense in that bout.

[shawn_]

Toney isn't what I would call great. Too indisciplined, too lazy, too inconsistent. Yes, his win over Jirov and Ruiz were good, but we had to wait an awful long time for him to shine again after his middle and super-middleweight heyday in the early 90's. It also seems that Toney's poor performances aren't held against him as much as some other fighters. I can still recall the travesty against Dave Tiberi and Reggie Johnson. I lost interest in the sport for quite a while after these debacle's.

His lazy, countering style was made for a straight-ahead type fighters but not for a Roy Jones or Montell Griffin, after which Toney discovered he could get away with his lazy style against a whole succession of limited cruiserweights and heavyweights, though he did raise his effort against Jirov.

Toney was hardly considered such a super-talented old school tough guy just a few moons back. Prior to the Jirov win and after the embarrassing losses to Griffith and Thadzi, it seemed to me that James was seen by most boxing fans as a disappointing under-achiever. It's amazing what slipping a few punches from members of one of the sport's worst heavyweight lineups can do for your rep, isn't it?

Hs marketing skills have far exceeded his talent at ANY point in his career.


And that's the bottom line...cuz Azteca said so.

James Toneys poor performances are not held against him because it obvious to all watching why he is performing so poorly.

In nearly every single one of his poor performances James Toney came in severely over weight, looking like butterbean.

It is really hard for anyone, nomatter how good they are, to fight when they are out of shape, overweight and underprepared.

[Sweet Pete]

James Toney did not get hit. That is what you are neglecting to realize. When James Toney came into the ring prepared, it was like swinging at smoke that was beating the **** out of you for your troubles.

Even in the fights where he lost, with the exception of Roy Jones, he didn't lose because he was taking a beating, he lost because he did not have the energy to throw punches. He lay dormant for large parts of the rounds being elusive and making his opponent miss.

Its no coincidence that Most of James Toneys draws were immediately avenged by wide one sided victories.

Even in his fight vs Michael Nunn, James Toneys defense was incredible.

Thing is, with your first point, against the style of fighter I mentioned, I agree, he didn;t get hit. But against a Roy Jones, who's speed and timing were so great, Toney could not slip and counter fast enough. Roy was a nightmare for counter-punchers.

And anyways, I'm still waiting on your excuse for Montell Griffin, especially given the part of your post I bolded.