Greater Performance:Sumbu Kalambay Vs Mike McCallum I or Roy Jones Jr Vs James Toney?

:think

 

it's hard not to pick Jones-Toney

Kalambay put on a good performance, but it was nothing like what Jones did to Toney

 

i go with Jones-Toney, and I am not a fan of Jones, but he was just briiliant that night.

 

I'm thinking :cus!

 

Jones Toney was more one sided, but McCallum was a better fighter on the night he lost than the drained Toney.

Relatively speaking i'd say it's about an equal performance.It was a bit disappointing that Jones never opened up more on Toney and took more risks late once he'd established his superiority through his speed on the outside.I wouldn't have been surprised if he could really have given him a beating late, but he was content to take it easy.

 

It's tough to decide IMO because IMO MM was on par with the level of Toney at the very least, was fought with no asterisks (people love to say Toney was drained) and Sumbu doesn't have the physical gifts Jones has in order to make things look THAT easy, so he had to work a bit harder, but having earned it using every faculty should garner major props.

Then you have Roy who absolutely schooled Toney (was ranked the best fighter in the world at the time) losing neary a minute of the fight, considering it was Jones' first real big test to most people. And consider Toney was never done like that, ever, not even at heavyweight.

Lots of variables to consider

 

Don't think he clearly won any, but there were 3-4 fairly quiet rounds where not much landed and it was just back and forth fencing\probing shots.Kalambay was never a fighter to go all out in every round and neither was McCallum.It was a typical consummate pure boxers wide decision, not a flashy shutout where even someone who is new to the sport would easily see who was winning every round.I'd say Jones vs Toney was closer to that, but not fully either. as Jones didn't go flat out either(never his style) and there were probably about the same number of quiet rounds in Jones vs Toney, but Toney seemed more consistently out of touch and there was that three-four round spell round about\just after the mid-way point where Jones just made a fool of him.Toney started doing that pathetic side-ways crab walk etc.

 

First and last time I've ever seen Toney legitimately intimidated in a boxing match. He wasn't sure what the hell was going to happen

 

Jones Toney is probably the best post-hagler performance involving two middleweight fighters, even though strictly speaking it's a light heavy performance.

Hopkins Trinidad, Kalambay McCallum, McCallum Watson and Nunn Tate would be my other picks.

 

if Toney was drained, that's his problem

I don't like that excuse, and I also give full credit to the winner, unless there is some sort of very detrimential catch-weight involved

I think McCallum may have been a better scalp yes, because McCallum, though his skill set was comparable to the one of Toney, was an undefeated fighter who didn't struggle to beat his opponents, he was more dominant, no Tiberi kind of mess on his record

another point in Kalambay's favor is the fact that after their rematch, McCallum wouldn't lose for another 4 or 5 years

meanwhile, Toney had quite a bit of trouble at 175

but I still think the one-sided nature of Jones-Toney is the determining factor if you ask which is the better performance :yep

 

Mike was clearly more able on the night.

I think Toney underperformed to what was expected of him. Sumbu simply rose to the occasion more than Mike failing to meet expectations.

I think both Sumbu and Roy put on very skilful displays. Jones to some extent simply out-athleticised Toney though, and didn't really allow it to become a battle of skills.

I wouldn't classify either showing as superior to the other. Both were excellent.

As Mante said, perhaps Roy coasted in the end instead of taking his performance to the next level and trying to lay a beating on Toney. It became a bit ho-hum after the initial shock of un-competitiveness. Nevertheless he made it look like a stroll in the park.

The Kalambay-McCallum fight was more competitive and I think you could give Mike about 4 rounds. But of course Mike was the better opponent on the night and gave a solid effort.

Both performances were impressive, but I got the impression with both that the victors were working a stylistic advantage against their opponents, which kind of made them academic after a few rounds.