Honestly atsch I've got no problem if someone wants to say Jones, Mayweather, Pacquiao but Toney? seriously?
Yes he's the greatest. No way he would have ducked a guy like Margarito. He fought EVERYONE. His Pacquaio was Trinidad and he whupped his ass. He didn't cry like a ***** ass ***** ass ***** coward *****.
It's not just about dominance (where Hopkins is obviously greater), if they ever fought I'd pick Hopkins to outpoint Toney at MW, SMW or LHW. The thread isn't really clear on what 'this era' is, Roy Jones was the greatest fighter of the 90's, for me Mayweather was the greatest of 2000-present. I wouldn't put Hopkins up there in the 90's, but from 2000-present, I'd say the only fighters I could rate above Hopkins would be Mayweather and Pacquiao
James Toney had the tallent, but not the dedication. One thing that makes him rise is that he's not a ***** ass ***** scared to fight fighters like that one guy....oh yeah, Mayweather, the coward. He was never afraid of an Asian midget and an unskilled Mexican brawler, both of whom he said he would fight. Toney will fight a Klitschko in his backyard. I'm talkin, literally, in his back yard.
That may be one the dumbest things I've read before. I don't think he is the best but want I will say is he has had the best career of this or maybe any era. He has basically been a champ for 20 years longest middleweight reign ever (20 defenses) won more titles in his 40's than in his 20's and 30's and yeah he has lost some fights but who cares all great fighters lose for the most part.
Hopkins claim to ATG is his middleweight realm. The years after Taylor have been handpicking and beating the guys he should have and losing to the faster better guys. And Cloud yes he is B level. If he were A level he would have beaten Bernard easily. Best guy his era? Which era is that? This era is Manny Pacman, the last era was Oscar Delahoya and Shane and Roy Jones. He is special in that he can fight and beat guys at 48, but when he fought Taylor 8 years ago he did not beat him twice, and Calzaghe beat him and so did Dawson. I am not a person who believes because a fighter can beat guys in his 40s, that adds to his legacy. If he can beat Ward at 48 that is a different story, but if he could not beat Taylor 8 years ago he will not beat Ward now, who is better than Taylor was then . Just like Foreman,who beat Moorer after having 2 other chances at the title and even losing to Morrison by decision. Moorer stood in front of him and was knocked out. Good win, but was it shocking? No.
I don't think champions of the world in hard sport like boxing are B level fighters.And how you can't add this victory to Hopkins legacy?But it is your opinion and Hopkins doesn't care much about this kind of opinions,if he does he would never become light heavyweight champion of the world at age 48.
Quality of opposition: Toney Consistency: Hopkins (The above two categories are really the most important ones) Accomplishments: Hopkins Reaction to adversity: Toney Toney's lack of consistency from Griffin I to Adolpho Washington hurts him overall Winner: Hopkins Both HOFers though:good
Hopkins gets a lot of love and credit for his longevity and deservidly so but the truth is that prime for prime, there were plenty of guys better than him.
It's not the same. Hopkins had nothing to lose taking on Tito. he was fighting for a few thousand dollars a fight at the blue horizon and Tito opened the doors to the big time for him. He had nothing to lose and everything to gain. Not making excuses for the pacquiao thing, just pointing out they are not the same exact thing. His pacquiao would have been a Jones rematch and he priced himself out of it.
Toney had a chance to fight the Klitskos and wanted no part of it. his career at heavyweight annoyed the **** out of me. he wanted the division handed to him without having to earn it and got busted in back to back fights for steroids.