Who was better? James Toney or Mike Mccallum

Not sure how that speaks to what Toney and McCallum did head-to-head. The point I guess I was trying to make when you played up Toney's performances against McCallum was that Mike, while still a factor was past his best while Toney was still in his prime, comparatively.

Besides, Holyfield was practically a corpse in there against Toney, talk about dilapidated. And Jirov never met a counterpunch he couldn't field with his face.

None of that takes away the level of inconsistency we saw with Toney compared to McCallum anyway.

 

Toney's prime was at super middleweight where he was more complete fighter.Mike was slightly past his prime but stilll very good when he faced Toney. The corpse was actually a 3.-1 favourite to beat. I am not even going into your comment about Jirov. That is because one can downplay anybody's resume. It is a popular tactic used by folks here on this board who have an agenda.

 

I'm dying to hear, what's my agenda?

 

I thought Toney won the griffin fights and Peter I fight. All 3 fights were controversial losses.In the Rahman, thje cdraw was a fair verdict.The Oquendo fight was a close win for James in my opinion.Toney cleanly beat Johnson and Jirov. Those were uncontroversial wins.The Tiberi fight, I need to rewatch. Tiberi may have won that one but I have never scored it.

 

Could it just be that you do not know how to score a fight?

-Both Griffin losses were highly controversial. HBO scored it twice for Toney. The 2nd fight was voted worst decision of the year by the Ring Magazine.
-The Johnnson fight was never controversial. Again the commentators (non HBO telecast) had Toney as a winner.
-The Jirov fght was not controversial. Although the scores may have been too wide, the press widely had Toney as the winner.Yes, Lederman had it a draw but he was litlle off that night giving rounds to Jrirov on ineffective aggressiveness.
- Peter I, the commentators scored it for Toney. So did the vast majority of the press.

- The Rahman and Oquendo fights were close fights. The commentators had it as a Toney loss. so you may have a point here.Personally, I thought Toney beat Oquendo as he was winning almost all of the early rounds. The Rahman fight was difficult to score, the Rock was busier but Toney landed the more tellng blows.Depends on what you like.

 

I like this thread. Some of the comparison threads are a little silly, in my opinion. But this is one that really makes me think. I saw both of them many times. I think I'd go with McCallum, who I think would fight at a more consistent pace. Toney would have his moments, but at the end he loses a close decision with people saying he just didn't do enough. McCallum's body punching is a big part of the difference.

 

You think beating Jeff Harding is similar to beating Jirov( an olympic gold medalist, undefeated record and recognized at the best cruiser weight at the time).and James Toney is definitely a Top10 super middleweight.

 

P4P McCallum was better than any of the other elite fighters at 168 except Ward, Calzaghe and Hopkins. Jones would have beaten a young McCallum if they could have met at 168 and maybe 160 but McCallum was special at 154.

 

On the cards, yes. I personally don't think it was that close, but Graham was tricky for him, no doubt. So, yeah, Mike also had some problems with good movers.

 

Harding wouldn`t have won an olympic gold but McCallum would have toyed with the guy Jirov beat for the gold in the pro`s at any weight.

 

My point was that beating Jirov was a bigger achievement than beating Jeff Harding.

 

So did Toney v Jones.

 

Toney didn`t look that good v Jirov, he looked far better v McCallum.