James Toney. Under-rated?

absolutely underrated,he would have beaten jones at hw hands down,i bet for toney at cruiser as well,easily top 3 best chins of all times,one of the best move of head ever, great counter puncher, cute style fast hands... a real great

 

Think you're forgetting the natural ability of Jones to throw shots quicker than you say Blueberry Pie.

 

His title reign middlweight-supermiddleweight was 4 years.On paper, he never unified but he did beat WBA champ Mc Callum who chose not to fight his mandatory but rather the best

You may not call him dominant but he was recognized as the best or 2nd best pound for pound fighter by the time he beat Barkley.

He can be compared to Duran in many ways such as longevity, skills, willingness to fight the best. What Duran did to Moore, Barkley and Hagler is comparable to what Toney did to Jirov, Holyfield, Rahman, Peter, Ruiz etc

 

If you want to add Toney's time at 168, as well - fair enough. We will also consider Duran's tenure at 147 in play then - two steps up from Lightweight with wins over Palomino and Leonard to add to his legacy. Toney has nothing to compare with that.

Regarding his dominance over either of those divisions and regardless of unification, it's not simply a case of me not calling him dominant, he just wasn't.

Multiple cases of Toney either rescuing fights he was behind in; razor thin decisions or gift decisions do not add up to dominance

At 168, he fought few opponents of consequence, other than Barkley, Jones Jr and perhaps Littles. Barkley was a good win, albeit that his best days were done. Littles was one of Toney's ' Wins from the Brink' contests (excellent recovery, mind) and Jones Jr outclassed him.

Notably, after the loss to Jones Jr, Toney's P4P status was more or less revoked. Deservedly so, in my opinion, since it had been grossly inflated, over the course of '92/'93/'94.

Longevity does not in itself underpin greatness; neither does willingness.

A vague similarity of patterns in their career paths does not equate them, in terms of Greatness. For example, there is no comparison between them in terms of skill-levels.

Just to be clear, Duran absolutely pasted Davey Moore. Jirov is nowhere near Hagler's level. It's debatable as to whether or not Jirov could even be classed on the same level as Barkley, to be honest.

Holyfield was an absolute shell. Rahman was 43 and 45 years old respectively and Toney failed a test in there second bout. I could go on but I think you take my point - no meaningful comparison.

 

There is no doubt that Duran is the greater fighter.But your effort to constantly degrate Toney and misstate the facts is obvious.

First of all you make a big deal out of Toney's close wins, yet you completely ignore the close decisions Toney lost (Griffin I, Griffin II, Peter I). All 3 fights were cross roads fights and the decisions are debatable to say the least.So a more balanced view seems appropriate here.

You inlcude Palomino in Duran'reign but if I remember correctly that was not a title fighter.So in reality, Duran never defended the title at 147 pounds.

Then you are comparing Jirov with Hagler yet Duran never beat Hagler.It is absolutely fair to compare Barkley with Jirov in my opinion.

You are ignoring that Toney beat Prince Williams at 168 poinds which was a very good win.

You are saying that Holyfield was a shell.Yet you are ignoring that he was ranked mong the top heavyweights by the Ring and that Toney was a middleweight moving up.Rahman was not 43 but more like 33 when he fought Toney.Toney also fought Peter who weighed 100 pounds more when Toney started his boxing career.He did beat some fringe contenders like Oquendo and Guinn.I haven't seen that from a middleweight, competing regularly in that weight class

 

It's fair to say that Toney never dominated any division (he didn't), but to dismiss what he did at HW is ridiculous. No more, no less.

If what he did at HW wasn't such a big deal there must have been loads others that started at 154 and went on to beat HW contenders. I'm waiting for names. (There is one quite unexpected one that almost qualifies, though).

And Jirov is an absolutely top quality win as well for someone who peaked several division down.

He isn't above Duran p4p, but has anyone claimed that?

 

His heavyweight campaign was decent.

But firstly, let's face it, he was absolutely juiced to the gills.
I've heard Holyfield disparaged as being the 'poster boy' for PEDs and roid-bulking, but I think Holyfield gets the brunt of that because he actually looked good, whereas Toney didn't have an enviable look at all. But Holyfield was 6'2 and was always going to be around 200 pounds anyway.
Toney was such a juicer he couldn't even pass the tests, failed twice. Even though it was obscured by fat, surely anyone can see how much he transformed his body with the drugs.

But I'm quite forgiving of drugs cheats, so I won't hold it against him.

He beat some heavyweight contenders. Ruiz, Peter. Drew with Rahman before Rahman lost to Maskaev again, I think.

Yes, i can think of some middleweights who went on to become heavyweight contenders. They were all very good fighters at least, so it puts Toney in good company.

 

No. You have suggest that Duran's and Toney's respective careers are comparable and implied that, whilst you don't rate him as highly as Duran, this nevertheless makes Toney an All-Time Great.

You have also implied that Toney was "dominant" at Middleweight (and later added Super Middleweight, as example).

I have disputed your view by means of questioning Toney's dominance, during both his Middleweight and Super Middleweight title runs. I'll state again: I do not believe Toney was dominant at either Middleweight or Super Middleweight; unlike Duran, who was the dominant Lightweight during his reign there.

I have neither criticized Toney unreasonably and I only got Rahman's age(s) wrong at the time Toney fought him. (My mistake - but hardly a keynote component of the points I was making, anyway.).

No. I have highlighted that there were fights, during his time in the 160 and 168 divisions (known to anyone who has followed Toney's career) which were close bouts and/or bouts, which resulted in controversial decisions.

Neither the Griffin bouts nor the first Peter bout were contested at either 160 or 168 and have no bearing over whether or not Toney was dominant there.

Even if we were to include his time at 175 into Toney's alleged period of dominance, the Griffin bouts would be another example of very close bouts; not indicative of dominance. And, even if we declared them robberies, the initial point would still stand.

That's right. Duran didn't successfully defend the Welterweight Title. He just defeated two HOFers; one of which happened to be an All-Time Great in his prime, winning the Welterweight Title in the process. I think they're better wins than anything Toney achieved at 168 (or 175; or ever). You might disagree.

No. You compared Jirov to Hagler, when you stated the following:

If you want to compare Jirov's level of competition with Barkley's, be my guest. Personally, I think Barkley was that much more of a competitor, fighting and both losing and winning against the top-flight competition of the time, than Jirov ever was.

Toney didn't manage to get the W over Rahman and bringing up the Ruiz bout, after which he tested positive for a banned substance doesn't really help.

I don't know why this win gets hailed as a "very good win". Williams was a very good Light Heavyweight, but competing at 168 against Toney. Williams, coming to the end of his career, having lost his 175 strap, hadn't weighed in under 170, in almost 15 years. The fight was a good one but does it help make a case for Toney's dominance at 168, when Williams wasn't anywhere near the Super Middleweight Top-10?

I think Toney does receive credit for his venture up the weight divisions - regardless of anything else, these should still be considered extraordinary achievements. But you are trying to make out that Toney deserves some sort of All-Time Great Status because his career seems to have followed a similar path to Duran's. The problem is that the gap between them is significant, which I have attempted to illustrate.

On the matter of Holyfield; he had only won two bouts out of his last seven, spanning the previous four years, prior to facing Toney. Did he really deserve to be rated by Ring Magazine?

Holyfield was 40 years old, approaching his 41st birthday, the month of the fight. He was coming off a loss to Chris Byrd - himself a blown-up smaller man. Holyfield looked awful in both those bouts and subsequently lost to Donald. He was done.

You can big that win up if you must, but it still doesn't compare to Duran who, at two days short of his 46th Birthday, was still able to eke out a decision win against Locomotora Castro, 16/17 years his junior.

 

How so?

 

I'm not sure whether or not you are referring to the discussion involving 'THE BLADE 2' and I but no one has claimed that Toney is above Duran and no one has dismissed his achievements at Heavyweight, as far as I am aware. These are not points I have seen being contested.

The implication made was that since Duran and Toney had commonly dominated their respective starting divisions and then moved up a similar number of weight divisions, Toney could be considered an ATG (albeit, not as highly ranked). I disagree that Duran and Tony share that level of commonality and I don't consider Toney to be an ATG.

Jirov is a quality win but does it compare to some of Duran's efforts upwards of 147? I don't think so.

 

To give you a short answer: Yes I do believe Toney is an ATG.It seems that you are trying to degrate Toney's resume, but keep in my mind that it is easy to degrate anybpdy's record. I could easily do the same for some of Duran's opponents.

By objective standards, Toney has a very good resume.His problem has rather been consistency.Duran was more consistent as a lightweight.

It seems that you are offended, when I compared Duran with Toney.Yet, both had a high number of fights, similarities in fighting style (Duran's 2nd career), willingness to face the best, fought well above their weight and at a late age, were out of shape for big fights etc

 

Well, people talk about his "skills" and "natural ability", rate him as one of the ATGs of the 1990s - 2000s and make excuses for all his losses and horrible performances, and can't really explain why he never proved himself good enough to prove himself the #1 fighter in any division for long.
He was the #1 middleweight for a year or 18 months, and needed a gift against Tiberi in that time to hang on to the title.
He was arguably #1 at super-middle, but it's debatable, some even had him in the top 2 pound-for-pound at the time, but he was schooled by Roy Jones Jr., totally outclassed.
At light-heavy he was barely a contender.
He had one good win at cruiserweight.
He was just a contender at heavyweight.

In total, it all adds up to a nice career. And he fought some other big names. He was a very good fighter and a character.
But his achievements aren't at the legendary level.

 

Definitely not underrated, though your posts in that Hagler thread Unforgiven about him being a come forward brawler at 160 that tucked his chin and took shots on the top of the head were as bad as any i've ever seen from the contingent that make excuses for every time he was less than dominant.

A shocking drop in posting quality from what i remember when i was a regular tbh.

 

When I can see a fighter doing something on film I say what I see. When I've seen those fight plenty of times over 25 years I know what I know.
I don't come here to check what other people are writing first. Most people on here just follow what everyone else is saying. (Unless they find out in originated with Nat Fleischer or Bert Sugar, then they shun it)

Maybe if someone else had pointed it out earlier, Toney wouldn't be so punch drunk.

Toney's one of those guys who everyone loves for being "impossible to hit", but at the same time they marvel at how often he proved his "granite chin".

 

I don't. Therefore, it might seem to you that I am denigrating Toney's record when all I have highlighted is that he did not dominate in any division and that his Cruiserweight and Heavyweight bouts, while remarkable from the standpoint of him going up from 160, need some perspective. I have done so by directly querying some of your specific points, such as those made on Duran's and Toney's respective opposition at the higher weights.

I do not consider anything I have said in these cases to be unfair. But, again, where you are drawing comparisons, I am highlighting the contrasts and so it will seem to you that I have. This is just a difference in perspective

Yes it easy to unfairly dump on a Boxer's record and you could attempt to denigrate Duran's record. But, that would defeat the object of making the comparison or the contrast you were trying to make. In order for it to hold any credibility it would need to look like an opinion with at least some basis in fact, which articulated the criticism into it's appropriate context. That would be difficult to pull off, where Duran's career is concerned.

Whose standards? The standards set by fans or standards set by protagonists and pastmasters of the sport? Toney does have a good Ledger. I don't think I have categorically stated otherwise and, had his been an obviously poor ledger, I very much doubt we would be having this debate.

In my first post on this thread, I wrote:

I think that, though I do not consider Toney to be an ATG, the above is a very brief but otherwise fair appraisal of him.

I am not offended by it. As I pointed out in my first post on this thread, Toney appears to get due respect from Boxing/Sports Writers but seems to be overrated on Forums - sometimes to extremes. Whilst the comparison with Duran is fascinating, using the broad similarities between their careers to somehow make a case a for Toney being an All-Time Great is flawed.

As I have stated before, longevity does not by itself provide a case for being a Great. Neither does willingness. I’m sure if I were to look for examples of Fighters going up in weight, over time, I’d find lots of them. Would all of their records show them as having made a massive impact on the divisions they had moved up to? Some might; most, probably not. Are they all greats on account of having gone up in weight? No.

What you seem to overlook is that Duran at Lightweight and Welterweight puts Toney’s Middle/Super Middleweight exploits in the shade. Duran had already achieved ascendancy, before moving up to LMW then MW. In my opinion, everything after Welterweight was just a bonus for Duran and nothing he did after that, even his good showing against Hagler and his win over Barkley, were absolutely necessary for him to be considered a Great, despite there perhaps being a need for him to redeem ’No mas’ (which I think he probably achieved).

The same could not be said of Toney, in all seriousness - who has received as much, if not more acclaim for his achievements at CW and HW than he did at MW/SMW/LHW. In this respect, each of their careers is very much different.