Everyone here is a world-class boxing mind

[john l]

Yeah Toney was ****ing beast in the early 90's, I was a huge fan of his on the way up when he was beating McCallum, Nunn and Barkley(his best performance IMO) but by the mid 90's he completely fell off the rails. He's an example of a guy who a achieved a lot but could of achieved a whole lot more.

As for natural fighters, B-Hop and Salvador Sanchez (who I haven't watched loads of tbh) are two that always looked very natural in the ring to me. Duran is definetely the best example of a natural fighter though.

I REALLY don't like toney because of reasons I said but that guy i really think was the most relaxed guy outside of maybe Duran.And yea he was at his best during time you pointed out i thought 1st Mike Mc fight was best.Thet called it a draw but Toney won it.2nd fight was closer and could have been draw(think i still had JT shading it).But even during that time he got HUGE GIFT vs Tiberi because he was dead at weight.Also what a lot of people forget he was LOSING pretty good to Nunn before catching him with big shot in 9th i think.

[billeau2]

Good post. As annoyed as I get about over-hyped boxers, the worst posters here are the ones that go around calling every boxer a bum. In fact, there's a lot of guys who just bleed negativity all over this forum and the only way they know how to praise their favorite fighter is to shyt on other fighters.

To be critical of something specific is legit, and healthy.
But, they can't tell you anything about technique, or why they feel fights would play out in certain ways. They are just trash posters that get off on hating 24/7.

That is the difference to me. Why? Thats the basis for an intelligent opinion...low and behold when the "why" is asked there is rarely a reason to call a fighter a bum. Stiverne might actually qualify because he was so unprepared, but if take Chavez for example when he fought Canelo, it was obvious that the rules of logic were so that he could not fight at that weight. If anything he tried to hard to make a weight he had no business trying to make.

Regarding these new guys my frustration is that they are not fighting each other. They would get better fighting each other because that is progress.

[billeau2]

You've got to measure relative to their eras but based on athletism you could be right however based on technique perhaps not so much. Fighters used to fight more and there were more top fighters and perhaps a more level playing field so quality of sparring and level of fight quality perhaps enhanced a fighters skills. Also perhaps the professional training was better back then too.

It is common to make this logical mistake that the poster made. There are reasons why in each case there have been changes in a sport. For example, lets take your premise about fighting more and better competition and apply it to baseball players. One of the primary reasons most major league players have traditionally been from the west coast areas is because they can play ball all year round... so, this shows a specific cause where time spent playing the game produces more top level talent.

When the whole set of reasons for boxing changes is considered it simply does not support "better" fighters. Fighters fight less rounds, use more padded gloves, do less things well in the ring, have less opportunities, have more diversions from entering boxing, etc.

So the idea that all sports get better athletes is a logical fallicy.

[Ray*]

I don’t mind either way to be honest. I would love to think everyone that loves boxing respects every boxer, have always believe those people that call boxers a bum are doing so in terms of boxing. They probably aren’t calling them regular bums like the ones on the streets.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

I REALLY don't like toney because of reasons I said but that guy i really think was the most relaxed guy outside of maybe Duran.And yea he was at his best during time you pointed out i thought 1st Mike Mc fight was best.Thet called it a draw but Toney won it.2nd fight was closer and could have been draw(think i still had JT shading it).But even during that time he got HUGE GIFT vs Tiberi because he was dead at weight.Also what a lot of people forget he was LOSING pretty good to Nunn before catching him with big shot in 9th i think.

It was the 11th I think and your right Nunn was pretty much outboxing him, Toney really struggled with Nunn's length and range. And yeah Tiberi definitely won that fight, I completely forgot about that till you brought it up. Didn't Tiberi refuse to fight again because of the bogus decision?

[john l]

It was the 11th I think and your right Nunn was pretty much outboxing him, Toney really struggled with Nunn's length and range. And yeah Tiberi definitely won that fight, I completely forgot about that till you brought it up. Didn't Tiberi refuse to fight again because of the bogus decision?

yup he never fought again.But he was lucky Toney was dead at weight.And your right it was 11th vs Nunn.He is kinda interesting fighter Nunn.He looked to be next best thing after Tate and Kalumbay.One lucky shot in his home town and he went to s hite.

[john l]

It is common to make this logical mistake that the poster made. There are reasons why in each case there have been changes in a sport. For example, lets take your premise about fighting more and better competition and apply it to baseball players. One of the primary reasons most major league players have traditionally been from the west coast areas is because they can play ball all year round... so, this shows a specific cause where time spent playing the game produces more top level talent.

When the whole set of reasons for boxing changes is considered it simply does not support "better" fighters. Fighters fight less rounds, use more padded gloves, do less things well in the ring, have less opportunities, have more diversions from entering boxing, etc.

So the idea that all sports get better athletes is a logical fallicy.

nice post boxing is the ONE sport that does not fit into that "todays ath r better then yesterday" rule.

[billeau2]

nice post boxing is the ONE sport that does not fit into that "todays ath r better then yesterday" rule.

Thank you JOhn but I don't know if boxing is the one exception, it might be.

There are always specific reasons for changes that much I know.

[BoxingIsGreat]

Yeah, I dunno how some of these kids do it.

I'll criticise football (soccer) players to the max at times because I played that. But you can't play boxing, you have to have some reverence for these guys.

That said I do think I've criticised Stiverne recently. But more because he was in no position to fight. But even then getting your head caved in by Wilder for 500k is just about a good deal. But even then the reality of it is he got caught cold with perfect straight shot which took everything away.

A lot of wisdom here, bro! You made me physically imagine being punched in the face. Not cool.

I'm actually a critic of only one boxer right now, Golovkin. His fans (SOME) rub me the wrong way. REALLY.

Other than that, a great post.

Green K.

[RJJ-94-02=GOAT]

yup he never fought again.But he was lucky Toney was dead at weight.And your right it was 11th vs Nunn.He is kinda interesting fighter Nunn.He looked to be next best thing after Tate and Kalumbay.One lucky shot in his home town and he went to s hite.

Nunn's another one of those guys who didn't have the right mentality for the sport IMO. Although he went on to have a semi decent run at 168, his career started to spiral as soon as he started drug using. A lot of people say he was never the same following the Toney loss but I think there were already signs of decline vs Barkley, Starling and even Curry.
It's a shame how his life turned out, cause I always thought he had a lot of tools to be very successful.
On a more positive note that left hand he got Kalambay was sick! Especially considering Kalambay was very solid defensively and had a legit chin.