Why isn't RJJ's victory over James Toney more highly rated

I'd probably say because JMM isn't as great as MAB.

 

in reality it was.

 

I agree, but many others don't. Regardless, I do think Whitaker deserved the victory, but it was not as dominant as RJJ victory over Toney. which was my original point. Granted, Whitaker got the win (or rather should have) and that's first and foremost. But if we are determining the greatest wins of the greatest wins, then, in that instance, the manner of victory is absolutely relevant to consider.

 

Tbh at this stage its a bit like getting a bunch of a cats pubes and seeing which ones are longer.

 

Styles make fights.

 

Lol. What? Nothing revisionist about it. If there ever was a robbery this is it. Even the pro-Chavez crowd couldn't co-sign that horrible decision.

 

Behave yourself.

 

Ha!

That’s not what Jackie Kallen says.

 

Yeah but Jones was always a little too quick. Toney would have been tougher for him as time went on, but that is because Jones diminished. But in 1994 and a few years after it would have been the same result. Roy just too quick in his counters, and that leaping in left hook.

 

I give him plenty of credit for it. Toney probably wasn’t at his best, but Roy would’ve always been a nightmare for him.

 

People still think that?

 

Nah. Roy wasn’t a beefed-up welterweight giving away 5-15 pounds like most of Jake’s ‘big wins.’

Notice how often Jake has a big weight advantage over someone moving up, yet you never see him giving away weight and fighting in the mid-160s against light heavyweights (except that Fox guy where LaMotta disgraced the sport by throwing a fight) — probably would have lost that one anyway.

 

Jake was small, very easy to hit and had lots of scar tissue.

He’d also never have coped with Roy’s speed and unorthodox style.