A question to Roy Jones Jnr fans about his win over J Toney

BlizzyBlizz · Feb 20, 2015

88Chris05 said: ↑

A few things, Foxy....

Having read a few of your posts in the past and usually finding them pretty interesting, you should know better than to start off the way you have above. McCallum was 35 in 1991, but he clearly aged better (or at least held off the ravages of father time) better than Jones did. Just because one fighter (McCallum) was still a good fighter at 35 it doesn't automatically mean that another fighter (Jones) can't have been finished at that age. Fighters peak and decline, sometimes very suddenly, at different ages. It's entirely possible for a speed and reflexes-reliant fighter like Jones to be done in his mid thirties and hit a steep decline while a less speedy but more savvy, ring-craft based guy like McCallum can produce the goods at such an age.

Do you actually watch fights or just judge off what BoxRec and the fighter's date of birth says? You're having a laugh if you think that the Jones who struggled first time with Tarver, got wiped out by him in the return and then looked abysmal before getting flattened again by Johnson in late 2003 / 2004 was the same fighter as the one who was pound for pound top dog a few years before. You might have your own reasons for why exactly he declined and became washed up so quickly, but washed up he was - all you need is a working pair of eyes to see that. And all you need is a working pair of eyes to see that McCallum was just better equipped to hang with better fighters aged 35 onwards than Jones was, as his showings against Toney and Harding demonstrated.

So no, I don't think there's any hypocrisy in praising Toney's performance against McCallum in 1991 and pointing out that Jones was going way over the hill by 2004 purely on the basis that they were both 35 at the time. Using that kind of gauge is just ridiculous, the same as the dullards who claim that Tyson couldn't have been shot against Lewis, or that the timing of the fight actually favoured him more than Lennox because it was Lewis who was actually older etc.

Are we pretending that McCallum wasn't vastly more experienced than Toney in 1991 now or something? Apologies, may have misinterpreted your second point but I'm struggling to see the relevance of it. Toney was taking on top-quality opponents in a short space of time which would seem alien to most today.

Ah, so you're taking umbrage to me stating that 1993 / 1994 Toney, at 168 and dominating his opponents rather than squeaking past them, was the best Toney ever had been or has been since. Well, either tell me when he was in better form or his stock was higher or keep quiet on that point, otherwise it just looks as if you're disagreeing for the sake of it because it doesn't fit your agenda. When was Toney ever performing better than he had been in the eighteen months prior to fighting Jones?

I'm well aware of the weight-making excuse on Toney's part. It's interesting, though - he went up to 175 to fight Griffin immediately after the Jones fight, lost a contentious decision, and guess what the excuse was. Yep, weight-making again. The way you're talking, you'd think the Jones fight was the only time Toney had ever had issues boiling down to his weight class (most of which were his own fault anyway) and Jones had made up some evil scheme to time his assault perfectly and basically cheat Toney out of his title.

Do you refuse to give Leonard credit for the 'No Mas' fight as well? Or for the Hearns win in 1981? After all, Leonard himself says in his autobiography, "When Tommy took off his robe and stepped on the scale at Caesers for the weigh in on the morning of the fight, I was stunned. He looked like a famine victim from Africa. Offically, he came in at 145, a full two pounds under the Welterweight limit. I'd felt the difference in Montreal against Duran, and I was convinced the lesser weight would make Tommy weaker as well. 'I am going to kick his ass', I thought. I glanced at Angelo and Janks. I could tell they felt the same way."

If you try hard enough you can make an excuse for any defeat of a fighter you like, or find a way to downplay a victory for a fighter you don't like. Weight, problems in camp, couldn't focus, location got to them, lost motivation etc. Unless a fighter is just washed up and can't perform to any kind of level anymore (so in short, if it's not their fault, ala Holyfield losing to some of the dross he did in his latter years etc) then those kind of excuses should be left outside the ropes once you step through them.

As for saying that people are building up McCallum or Jones to Robinson or Ali levels - you sound like a pre-menstrual tart. Talk about stupid and childish over exaggeration.
Click to expand...

:good

Mind Reader · Feb 20, 2015

88Chris05 said: ↑

A few things, Foxy....

Having read a few of your posts in the past and usually finding them pretty interesting, you should know better than to start off the way you have above. McCallum was 35 in 1991, but he clearly aged better (or at least held off the ravages of father time) better than Jones did. Just because one fighter (McCallum) was still a good fighter at 35 it doesn't automatically mean that another fighter (Jones) can't have been finished at that age. Fighters peak and decline, sometimes very suddenly, at different ages. It's entirely possible for a speed and reflexes-reliant fighter like Jones to be done in his mid thirties and hit a steep decline while a less speedy but more savvy, ring-craft based guy like McCallum can produce the goods at such an age.

Do you actually watch fights or just judge off what BoxRec and the fighter's date of birth says? You're having a laugh if you think that the Jones who struggled first time with Tarver, got wiped out by him in the return and then looked abysmal before getting flattened again by Johnson in late 2003 / 2004 was the same fighter as the one who was pound for pound top dog a few years before. You might have your own reasons for why exactly he declined and became washed up so quickly, but washed up he was - all you need is a working pair of eyes to see that. And all you need is a working pair of eyes to see that McCallum was just better equipped to hang with better fighters aged 35 onwards than Jones was, as his showings against Toney and Harding demonstrated.

So no, I don't think there's any hypocrisy in praising Toney's performance against McCallum in 1991 and pointing out that Jones was going way over the hill by 2004 purely on the basis that they were both 35 at the time. Using that kind of gauge is just ridiculous, the same as the dullards who claim that Tyson couldn't have been shot against Lewis, or that the timing of the fight actually favoured him more than Lennox because it was Lewis who was actually older etc.

Are we pretending that McCallum wasn't vastly more experienced than Toney in 1991 now or something? Apologies, may have misinterpreted your second point but I'm struggling to see the relevance of it. Toney was taking on top-quality opponents in a short space of time which would seem alien to most today.

Ah, so you're taking umbrage to me stating that 1993 / 1994 Toney, at 168 and dominating his opponents rather than squeaking past them, was the best Toney ever had been or has been since. Well, either tell me when he was in better form or his stock was higher or keep quiet on that point, otherwise it just looks as if you're disagreeing for the sake of it because it doesn't fit your agenda. When was Toney ever performing better than he had been in the eighteen months prior to fighting Jones?

I'm well aware of the weight-making excuse on Toney's part. It's interesting, though - he went up to 175 to fight Griffin immediately after the Jones fight, lost a contentious decision, and guess what the excuse was. Yep, weight-making again. The way you're talking, you'd think the Jones fight was the only time Toney had ever had issues boiling down to his weight class (most of which were his own fault anyway) and Jones had made up some evil scheme to time his assault perfectly and basically cheat Toney out of his title.

Do you refuse to give Leonard credit for the 'No Mas' fight as well? Or for the Hearns win in 1981? After all, Leonard himself says in his autobiography, "When Tommy took off his robe and stepped on the scale at Caesers for the weigh in on the morning of the fight, I was stunned. He looked like a famine victim from Africa. Offically, he came in at 145, a full two pounds under the Welterweight limit. I'd felt the difference in Montreal against Duran, and I was convinced the lesser weight would make Tommy weaker as well. 'I am going to kick his ass', I thought. I glanced at Angelo and Janks. I could tell they felt the same way."

If you try hard enough you can make an excuse for any defeat of a fighter you like, or find a way to downplay a victory for a fighter you don't like. Weight, problems in camp, couldn't focus, location got to them, lost motivation etc. Unless a fighter is just washed up and can't perform to any kind of level anymore (so in short, if it's not their fault, ala Holyfield losing to some of the dross he did in his latter years etc) then those kind of excuses should be left outside the ropes once you step through them.

As for saying that people are building up McCallum or Jones to Robinson or Ali levels - you sound like a pre-menstrual tart. Talk about stupid and childish over exaggeration.
Click to expand...

Ouch...

Foxy down.:rofl:deal

bailey · Feb 20, 2015

Sweet Jones said: ↑

This.

Other than Tiberi, there is nothing wrong with being in tough fights against any of the guys listed. Not really sure how listing those names proves whatever point the OP is trying to make.
Click to expand...

When a fighter has been involved in so many give and take battles, you often find that there is something found which can be exposed.
Opponents can see weaknesses and style problems, in this case with opponents like Tiberi

bailey · Feb 20, 2015

iceman71 said: ↑

failey fails again

i guess its ok when you build up your HEROES resumes by beating no names who would later win some paper title .
basing on what they "went on on to do"
fits your agenda better i know
Click to expand...

:huh Havent a clue what you are on about or what you think is a fail about a certain question, but it obviously bothers you, whatever it is?

bailey · Feb 20, 2015

iceman71 said: ↑

If Toney was a win on Joe C resume as would be described by BAILEY

- drawn with Top CONTENDER S Williams
- Win over NABF Champion M Sosa
- KO'd UNDEFEATED M Nunn before the finish
- WIN over future middleweight and light heavyweight champ R Johnson
- draw with 3 division champ and future hall of fame M McCallum
- had a SD with #1 ranked Tiberi
- WON REMATCH 3 division champ and future hall of fame M McCallum

see how great toney would look had Joe BEAT him?
Click to expand...

Dont forget the close fight with Thadzi

bailey · Feb 20, 2015

Loudon said: ↑

A few things to consider:

Nunn and Mike were elite fighters.

Yes, he under performed in some keep busy fights.

Reggie was a very good fighter.

Merqui was a good fighter.

Going into the fight with Roy, he'd recently knocked out Tim Littles in four rounds, who was a good fighter.

Roy beat him easier than anyone else.

:good
Click to expand...

Roy did beat him easier than anyone else, but was he not exposed previously? In his very fight before Jones he was going to the wire with C Williams

Dubblechin · Feb 20, 2015

The year Toney lost to Jones, he started off by fighting light heavyweight contender and former U.S. Olympian Anthony Hembrick, who was coming off a title challenge to Henry Maske. Toney stopped Hembrick.

Then Toney defended his title against undefeated Tim Littles, a top contender and another guy who was a stellar amateur. Toney brutally stopped him after Toney sustained a bad cut from a headbutt.

Then he showed up in Chicago and stopped a journeyman in an off-TV fight just to keep busy.

Then he fought the former longtime light heavyweight champ Prince Charles Williams - who'd recently lost his title to Maske - to "tune up" for the Jones fight. And Toney scored a highlight-reel KO over Williams.

That was just the first seven months of the year. Who does that?

Then he fought the undefeated phenom Roy Jones ... who was entering his prime ... to cap off the year.

Can you imagine Floyd Mayweather fighting FOUR TIMES this year before a showdown with Pac?

Can you imagine Floyd moving up and stopping Curtis Stevens to start this year, and then defending his WBC Super Welter title against Vanes Martirosyan and knocking him out, and then fighting so no-name off TV, then KOing former middleweight champ Sergio Martinez as a "tuneup" to Pac?

People would go badsh*t crazy if something like that occurred.

That's why Toney was so popular.

bailey · Feb 20, 2015

Loudon said: ↑

Why are you obsessed with the Tiberi fight? It happens.

Click to expand...

The Tiberi fight was just one fight mentioned out of several

Roy wasn't always on his A game.

Neither was Joe or Eubank.

Look at fights against Starie and Thornberry?

Look at fights against Close and Schommer etc?

Click to expand...

We are talking about Toney in the lead up to his loss with Jones. Please stay on subject.
It is like how many predicted for Ward to beat Froch, based on a tough fight with Adamu, Pascal, Taylor a SD that some feel he lost to Dirrell, a loss to Kessler a Mdec to old boiled down SMW journeyman Johnson. Before that fight, what Froch is good and not good at, had been found out, which is what I think about the Toney/Jones fight.

Toney proved himself to be a great fighter, with wins against Nunn, McCallum, Reggie, Sosa and Littles etc.

Click to expand...

So did Froch against Bute, but that doesnt mean that style problems hadnt been seen against fighters like Dirrell, Kessler, Adamu, Taylor, Johnson etc. Later Groves.
Do you understand?

And before you start, I don't care if he was behind, or they were close fights etc.

He proved he was a world class fighter

Click to expand...

Thats not in question and maybe you misunderstand the thread? Hopefully above helps explain.

This doesnt mean Toney wasnt talented or world class, but when a fighter, like Toney, or Froch (different styles, but same point), have shown weaknesses to certain styles, top talented fighters can expose that, when it has been revealed by others previously. If both had never had those tough debateable fights, then it would be different, but both did have
Click to expand...

bailey · Feb 20, 2015

tennis said: ↑

Toney was mayweather but he had an offense unlike Floyd ( no *****s not his **** gut jab, I mean offense that could ko you or actually cause damage)

In that way he was everything broner wishes he could be

It was no lucky win either, Roy just dominated him
Click to expand...

Not sure how you can compare the 2 when Floyd has been amazing for the best part of his career

bailey · Feb 20, 2015

BlizzyBlizz said: ↑

Yeah, it was the 0. If you weren't watching boxing back then, then you would write what you wrote.
Click to expand...

I would say its the other way around, because it is now when people who were not familier back then use the 0 as an arguement today

Ahurath · Feb 20, 2015

True fans really shouldn't have to explain why the Toney win is really really good one.

bailey · Feb 20, 2015

BlizzyBlizz said: ↑

The man fought Johnson, McCallum*2, Nunn, Barkley, Prince C. Williams, Sosa, Johnson, Littles, and throw in the post man Thornton-all before his super fight with Jones.
Click to expand...

You obviously dont understand the thread. Nobody is questioning who he fought. Here is a post to another poster who needed further explaining -
Toney although having good performances also had some performances where style problems were revealed. Another example is with Froch like how many predicted for Ward to beat Froch, based on a tough fight with Adamu, Pascal, Taylor a SD that some feel he lost to Dirrell, a loss to Kessler a Mdec to old boiled down SMW journeyman Johnson. Before that fight, what Froch is good and not good at, had been found out, which is what I think about the Toney/Jones fight.
Toney had been in a tough fight with C Williams in the very fight before he fought Jones, had been troubled by pressure from Tiberi etc. With Jones, he hadnt really had many problems from opponents that Toney could site, but Toney had, had several. If the M Griffin fight for Jones, had of happened, it may have given him something he could have looked at for example

bailey · Feb 20, 2015

Brighton bomber said: ↑

I do think Toney is an amazing fighter, his exploits at higher weights against far bigger and more powerful men proved that he was an incredibly skilled fighter, even with the PED use it was remarkable that he could outbox Ruiz and go the distance with Peter.

But Bailey does bring up a valid point. Toney was horribly inconsistent, when he was bad, he was very bad, his resume is littered with losses to inferior fighters and controversial decisions like the Tiberi fight where he looks far from being the P4P fighter he was made out to be. In all honesty at the time I really didn't see what Toney had done to really separate himself from the other title holders like Eubank and Benn.

So which Toney did Jones Jr beat? The one that beat Nunn and McCallum or the one that struggled with Tiberi or lost to Thadzi? We all know Toney struggled to make weight like in the Tiberi fight, the fact is Jones Jr very likely beat a version of Toney that was far from elite. But of course that's not Jones Jr's fault he can only beat the man that showed up but the quality of the win has to be taken in context.
Click to expand...

Thats a good post.
I was really asking if Toney had of lost by SD to Johnson, lost by SD to Sosa, lost by SD to Tiberi etc, would the Jones win have been considered as big? I would guess not as people are looking at his boxrec

bailey · Feb 20, 2015

STB said: ↑

McCallum is a HOF fighter
Reggie Johnson was an elite MW at the time.
Nunn was arguably the top guy at MW when Toney KO'd him

What exactly is your point?

Because he didnt KO McCallum,Johnson and Nunn in the first round, he wasnt a top fighter?
Click to expand...

No my point was if Toney had of lost by SD to Johnson, lost by SD to Sosa, lost by SD to Tiberi etc, would the Jones win have been considered as big? I would guess not as people are looking at his boxrec.
Nobody is questioning who he fought. Here is a post to another poster who needed further explaining -
Toney although having good performances also had some performances where style problems were revealed. Another example is with Froch like how many predicted for Ward to beat Froch, based on a tough fight with Adamu, Pascal, Taylor a SD that some feel he lost to Dirrell, a loss to Kessler a Mdec to old boiled down SMW journeyman Johnson. Before that fight, what Froch is good and not good at, had been found out, which is what I think about the Toney/Jones fight.
Toney had been in a tough fight with C Williams in the very fight before he fought Jones, had been troubled by pressure from Tiberi etc. With Jones, he hadnt really had many problems from opponents that Toney could site, but Toney had, had several. If the M Griffin fight for Jones, had of happened, it may have given him something he could have looked at for example

BlizzyBlizz · Feb 20, 2015

bailey said: ↑

You obviously dont understand the thread. Nobody is questioning who he fought. Here is a post to another poster who needed further explaining -
Toney although having good performances also had some performances where style problems were revealed. Another example is with Froch like how many predicted for Ward to beat Froch, based on a tough fight with Adamu, Pascal, Taylor a SD that some feel he lost to Dirrell, a loss to Kessler a Mdec to old boiled down SMW journeyman Johnson. Before that fight, what Froch is good and not good at, had been found out, which is what I think about the Toney/Jones fight.
Toney had been in a tough fight with C Williams in the very fight before he fought Jones, had been troubled by pressure from Tiberi etc. With Jones, he hadnt really had many problems from opponents that Toney could site, but Toney had, had several. If the M Griffin fight for Jones, had of happened, it may have given him something he could have looked at for example
Click to expand...

please just shut up. Not everyone is going to ride with the Brit theory and outlooks on American fighters. I like Calzaghe, Toney, and Jones. Cal fought a shot Roy and that's it. Cal gives prime Roy a good fight. I don't question anyone on any of these guys resume. Toney has only himself to blame for the jones loss. And while what happened between Toney and Tiberi, Tiberi still couldn't hit Toney and Toney was totally dehydrated and undertrained not taking that fight seriously. the OPs question is a simpleton question and you know it. When are you going to keep it real, damn!

I obviously don't understand :rofl

Log in or Sign up

A question to Roy Jones Jnr fans about his win over J Toney

BlizzyBlizz Loyal Member Full Member

Mind Reader J-U-ICE Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

Ahurath Boxing Addict Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

BlizzyBlizz Loyal Member Full Member

Log in or Sign up

Forums

A question to Roy Jones Jnr fans about his win over J Toney

BlizzyBlizz Loyal Member Full Member

Mind Reader J-U-ICE Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

Dubblechin Obsessed with Boxing Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

Ahurath Boxing Addict Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

bailey Loyal Member Full Member

BlizzyBlizz Loyal Member Full Member