I don't think it's that. I don't see that much adulation for him in Classic. It's simply far more of a case of people not thinking that highly of GGG. Rightfully so imo. The poll sits at 42-11 which is pretty rampant for Toney.
I think this is a straightforward case of the answer being plainly obvious, both on paper and via what is visually verifiable, if one is prepared to look and accept what they are seeing. If a person watches Golovkin vs Jacobs then immediately watches Toney vs McCallum II, for example, the difference in quality between the two bouts is clear. Toney and McCallum operated on an entirely different level to 'the other guys'. Better still perhaps is a compare and contrast between GGG/Canelo I&II and Toney/McCallum I&II - the same thing, just a starkly greater contrast. And, you don't have to be a fan to see this.
Mc Callum beats GGG. You know, GGG barely got by Jacobs who really is a poor man's Mc Callum. Actually some thought GGG even lost that fight.
No, you are confused now. GGG lost to the best in Canelo (by your debating standards). Not Mc Callum who has a proven track record. GGG's best win is Jacobs who is a poor man's Mc Callum.
GGG beat him by 80% of the media and drew with about 10%, leaving only the Mexican's and people linked to Canelo picking him as the winner. It was a robbery, plain and simple. GGG was already in decline by Jacobs, it's a pity that Cotto, Pacquiao, and, Mayweather and others didn't move up to fight him. They knew better. Martinez didn't want the match either. Since Dino in inept, can you tell me how many opens McCallum beat that were ativlay ring magazine ranked in the top 10?
Come on now. I love reading your posts in the classic, but this is silly. Mike wasn't known as just being a good opponent. Yes, he was better than GG. He had more overall ability. The man was an absolute technician. As of yet, GG hasn't proven himself to be a better fighter. I keep telling you, you can't debate on statistics. It isn't enough.
Hahahah you did not understand the sentence judging by your debating rules ! Well if you start like this we can then discount the Tiberi fight where Toney was not at his best. We can further discount the Mc Callum I draw fight because the majority view was Toney won that one. The same goes for the Sanderline Williams draw where Toney was green. But you and your fanclub have brought up those fights! But then you want me to do any favour when looking at GGG's record. Naha, not gonna happen with me. By the way, you must be the only poster to argue that Jacobs is better than Mc Callum. A blind man can see who is more skilled.
I respect what you have written, but if this is looking at the best version of James which was switched on and motivated, then in this hypothetical scenario, GG wouldn't have been fighting the versions who fought Tiberi and Williams. James and his great trainer, Bill Miller had huge respect for a guy like Mike McCallum. And because of the respect that James had for him, he fought to his full capabilities. He was motivated. He was fighting a fighter who he admired, who was coming off of recent wins against Kalambay and Watson. Guys like Williams and Tiberi were just other fights. Other fights in a schedule which saw him fight every 6-8 weeks. We've seen this with many other fighters over the years. Fighters sometimes just go through the motions. They underestimate their opponents. I don't think that Williams and Tiberi were bad match ups stylistically. They just didn't fight the versions of Toney who fought Mike and Nunn. If you think otherwise, you'd have to ask yourself how James was able to beat those guys. IMHO, if GG had turned up that night instead of Tiberi, James would have had a rude awakening. But if it's prime for prime, where each guy fought to their full capapbilities, then James would have to have been favoured.
Stop. Stop being silly. How are we going to debate when you type this sort of nonsense? The only really good name there is Curry? He beat Sumbu Kalambay. Are you familiar with Kalambay's career? He went to the UK and beat Herol Graham and Micheal Watson. Watson had beaten Benn who went to the U.S. the following year and beat Barkley and DeWitt. And Watson was beating a prime version of Chris Eubank up at SMW, until that fateful uppercut ended his career. Benn, Eubank and Watson were all at the same level as a guy like Jacobs, and I'm sure that many people would rank them even higher. Mike was undoubtedly a level above Jacobs. You talk about Toney's ceiling, but what's GG's? Yes, Mike lost 5 times. But in 55 fights, across 4 divisions, where he fought until he was approaching his 41st year. GG has had 42 fights in one weight class, against much lesser opposition. If you want to hold Mike's losses against him, that's cool. But then ask yourself how a fighter who struggled with Jacobs and Canelo, could even have imagined beating guys like Roy and Toney at his current age, 2-3 weight classes higher? Once again, comparing stats without applying context is useless. GG is a fine fighter. But if he'd have followed MIke's timeline, he might have had even more than 5 losses on his resume.
It is a shame that GG wasn't able to get better fights earlier. It's also a shame that we couldn't see him in a different era. But I don't know why you've mentioned Manny Pac though. That's ridiculous. Again, all of Mike's best opponents were rated in the Ring's top 10 at the time.
Nobody knowledgeable of both fighters would even think of rating Danny Jacobs higher than Mike McCalum.