GGG vs James Toney at 160.

One really good win?

Come on now.

He had more than one really good win.

Yes, he lost 5 times. But to who, and at what stage of his career?

You can’t rate GG ahead based on stats.

At 35 years of age, GG struggled with Jacobs and Canelo. So on what planet could he have beaten prime versions of Roy and Toney at an even older age?

Mike lost to a 27 year old version of Roy Jones, when he was 39 years old and in his 3rd weight class.

He lost to Toney at CW, which was his 4th weight class when he was 40 years old.

GG barely beat Jacobs and he’s never even fought above MW.

The stats that you have put forward are absolutely useless without context.

GG wasn’t better than Mike, on the grounds that Mike lost more fights.

Mike fought better competition, above his best weight.

To me, even with the 5 losses, Mike proved to be the better fighter with a superior resume.

If they were to have swapped timelines, there’s absolutely no reason why Mike couldn’t have replicated GG’s timeline. Because Mike would have been favoured to have beaten every one of GG’s opponents. But if GG had tried to have replicated Mike’s timeline, you could bet your house that he’d have lost a fair few fights.

You’re denigrating Mike for doing things that GG wouldn’t and couldn’t have done himself.

To me, the thought of GG fighting a peak version of Roy Jones at 39 is laughable. He wouldn’t even have had a chance of winning a fight like that, which would have made his stats look much less impressive than what they currently are. Again, context is needed.

GG is a great fighter. But he has done nothing to prove that he was better than Mike McCallum.

Title defences against mostly B and C level fighters isn’t enough.

 

The best Toney busts up the best GGG. Toney squeezed by mediocre competition on occasion but when he was on form, his best performances against top opposition easily surpassed GGG's. What non objective GGG fans choose to ignore is the very simple fact that he failed to look good against B+ opponents. Toney has those kind of wins under his belt. Style wise, I see as beating. Toney was blazing fast, a good puncher, durable and slick at MW.

 

What you write makes sense of course.But I advice you to not waste your time on this Mendoza guy.He just comes out with a minority view to stir some controversy.Poor guy just seeks attention.

 

Here is Golovkin vs Dirrell when he was 22:

This content is protected

He's easily as fast as Toney was. GGG looks like he's in slow motion nowadays compared to this version.

Again: people are taking an ancient version of GGG for this matchup and calling it prime.

 

Prime GGG is not an easy fight for anybody, including Toney. But the style plays into Toney's hands. Power and pressure that is something Toney always handled quite well. A reasonable prediction would be Toney by competitive decision. But as a huge GGG fan, I guess you see this different of course.

 

I do indeed see it differently.

 

Not suprising as you pick GGG in pretty much any fantasy matchup, irrelevant of the stylistic ingredients of the matchup. In a way, these preconceived agendas is exactly what make the discussions here less interesting.

 

Voted GGG by mistake (obviously).

 

It's simple. I don't see how Toney beats Golovkin.

Toney doesn't do anything that Golovkin has not already seen.

Toney's jab is inferior, his power is inferior, his toughness - omg, gasp - is inferior and his speed is not something like RJJ level. I have shown that a younger GGG is every bit as fast as Toney. Toney contrived to look bad against bums and imho lost to a (good) guy in Reggie Johnson that despite his talent never really went anywhere notable in a historic boxing sense.

Golovkin has taken punches, flush, from guys that are bigger hitters than Toney, and has kept on trucking.

In the sense of footwork and angles Derevyanchenko is better than Toney and one of the oldest, slowest, stiffest versions of GGG sat him on his ass and made him look like he was in a car crash.

I'll go one further:

Canelo has a better defence than Toney and Golovkin tamed him.

OMG, gasp.

Yet you can watch side by side defence highlights videos of Toney and Canelo and something becomes apparent. While Toney has the flashier highlights, Canelo is more efficient. He uses a little less body sway and head movement, and counters faster off his slips. He is a more efficient counterpuncher. Secondly, when you look at their actual fights, it becomes apparent that Canelo has integrated his defence as a seamless part of his boxing. Toney rolls out his flashy moves as a kind of sugar sprinkle on top of what he does; it's not a constant part of his arsenal. Against Reggie, Toney clammed up on the ropes and essentially let Johnson tee off on him.

OMFG, can you imagine playing rope a dope with Golovkin?

That's why I pick Golovkin, amongst other reasons.

In the Vitali / Holyfield debate people hammered on Holyfield's resume as something above the eyetest. Well here I think Golovkin has the resume (at 160, since that is what is relevant) and the eye test.

You basically have to pick the best 160 version - McCallum verion - of Toney (who was the young man against the older man, let's not forget) and the oldest, slowest version of Golovkin, for Toney to have a reasonable argument made for him.

 

What the **** have I just read?

 

Golovkin was more consistently dependable at 160. I'll take prime GGG to take a close, possibly disputed, decision on points.

 

And I call bull on this as you pick GGG in pretty much any fantasy matchup!! Out goes all you credibility then. It became hillarous as you when you implied that Canelo was better than Toney or that GGG has a better resume than Toney. I am looking at GGG's record and I do not see quality wins like Nunn, Mc Callum or Reggie. At the end, you can't take anybody with these claims too serious really, I guess. Well Toney is the superior infighter so yes not only can I imagine Toney laying on the ropes but he would get the better of GGG in doing so. Now, have a good time, I am not going to waste more time with a GGG fanboy like you. Objective debates are what makes this forum interesting but it is just not possible with you when either GGG or Klitschko is involved.,

 

Irrelevant this is about the best version of both fighters,

 

Prime for prime (for GGG, I think that's probably around the Macklin fight), Toney UD.

Look the fact we have to specify it's Toney at his best is a compliment to Golokin. I think style wise it favors Toney. I also do not think it's an easy fight for him either and he certainly won't be stopping Golovkin. There will be rounds where Toney is outworked and hustled, there will be rounds where Golovkin is countered excellently. If you get a Toney of the more mediocre peformances, then GGG will jab his head off, but that isn't what this question is about.

I consider GGG elite. Was always a big fan and I don't think anyone deals with him easily. But just looking at how they fight, I think it favors Toney.

 

Ok, Golovkin still beats him!