Who was the better fighter: James Toney or Floyd Mayweather

I can see how you can say Floyd might be the better fighter ..but that's in the fights that he chose to take in his career... Don't agree with you at that his resume is better than Toney's(RJJ, Evander, Rahmen, Peter, McCallam, Ruiz, and many others) .... But I Totally 100% agree with you about as you say " mayweathers insistence on maintaining a safety first approach " ... and that's exactly what he always did even before he entered the ring to protect his marketability and that " no loss" .. He was never the I'll fight anyone anytime anywhere type of boxer .. I hope at least you can see that..

 

Even in those fight he was more effective than Toney was against Tiberi, if we're going to highlight worst performances.

For me, neither Mayweather or Toney has a clear edge in this apartment. Both were masters.

 

give me a good example of tony cherrypicking.

 

As an answer to the thread it is Mayweather in both departments. His legacy is well above Toney's and his skills more versatile and consistent.

 

It smells of an agenda to compare Toney's best with Floyd's worst (Maidana, Castillo).

Floyd showed as much quality as anyone in close against guys like Canelo and Cotto. Both more skilled than Barkley, Williams and Jirov.

 

Another way of putting it is that Floyd was more multi-dimensional and didn't need to stay in the pocket the whole fight. But when he did, he was very effective.

And Canelo "green" after 40+ pro fights, several against world class opp? Come on. Almost as ridicolus as you seeing a case for Castillo in the rematch against Floyd.

Your bias is painfully obvious.

 

Believe so if it works for you.

And believe that shopworn, drained Barkley was a better infighter than undefeated Canelo with over 40 fights. Hell, even believe that Floyd-Castillo 2 was a toss-up, if you want to. But be prepared to be laughed at.

 

Disagree on toneys resume being better. Yes he fought some of the best of his era but he also missed out on some oppprtunities. For example, despite the bad blood between them he never managed to get a fight with Hopkins. He repeatedly called out the klitschkos but kept losing to mediocre fighters like rahman and peter and was unable to generate interest in said fights.

Jones beat him fair and square but he gets credit for facing a prime champion and doing his best. The Ruiz win was brilliant and an grear example of counterpunching on display but it has an asterisk* due to the anabaolic steroid episode and being stripped. Evander was another brilliant heavyweight performance but evander was no longer the real deal at this point.

Then he had that weird phase where he went back down to cruiserweight and had knee problems and was losing to guys nearly half his age. This again, kept him from being relevant in the two divisions he campaigned in. Floyd was ALWAYS relevant and only had 2 or 3 dodgy performances and never lost. He was always in shape and consistently elite level, there is simply no comparison career wise. Toney wins in terms of sheer quantity and daring to be great but inconsiste t while mayweather had quality while being cautious and consistent. Apples and oranges i guess.

Now what i totally agree with is mayweather wasnt a "take on all comers" fighter. Pretty boy floyd was more daring, called dangerous fighters out, and let his hands go but after he beat oscar he was a complete control freak to the point of OCD and possinly even psychotic. He absolutely HAD to be the A side and dictate everything or his opponent could kick rocks. It was always the "other guys fault" if a fight didnt happen because they were being too greedy, disrespectful, brought nothing to the table, etc.

Mayweather also had weird tendencies and contradicted himself. Criticized pacquiao for catchweights but demanded one against canelo. Offered a poll to fight khan or maidana and he chose maidana even tho khan won and he went as far as having khan on the undercard but it never happened. Somehow avoided several strong young black fighters like porter, brooke, etc and frequently tapped into the latino market with a clear stylistic advantage. Ignored keith thurman despite him being his mandatory then tells him he'll only fight him if he beats spence...and the wbc i believe simply elevated him to "super champ" and let him avoid thurman. Barely defended the 154 title and let it collect dust, etc.

Toney never did diva stuff like that but he also didnt make nearly as much as floyd. So yes, floyd was brilliant inside the ring and in marketing himself but his legacy slightly suffers as a result of his control freak safety approach method. Few of his fights are "classics"--partially not his fault because he was so much more talented and had higher ring iq than anyone else, but he also has to take part of the blame in not jumping on big fights when the money is there and A level names are in their prime (pacquiao, cotto, kosta tzyu, paul williams, winky wright, etc).

 

I would call slugging it out with Peter more than mediocre.. I guess time will tell but I see FM resume coming up against harsh scrutiny , if it hasn't already. I guess when I look at Boxer's legacy, I look at his complete body of work.. From a pure boxing standpoint, I think FM legacy actually strengthens he if goes 64-2 or 3, taking on more fights and more risks. Just wasn't Floyd... I think he hurt his on Legacy. I believe that there are 13 - 15 fighters in all who have retired with the " no loss " .. As you see as well, on p4p all time boxing lists they all have multiple losses, maybe 1 if their career got shut down early. I think it's pretty simple to me from a pure boxing standpoint, FM made his bed now he has to lay in it .. Although it is a 500 million dollar money bed .. He was "the master" at that..

 

And what's Toney done above 168 apart from stopped an ancient Holyfield ?

 

Badly hurting and dropping the iron chinned Jirov up at cruiserweight?