GGG vs James Toney at 160.

Golovkin never had any chinks in his armour until he got old. Toney did.

 

Beat every champion that he was pitted against?

Proksa was highly rated when he got demolished.
Macklin is a world class operator who should have a win over Sturm.
Stevens is a very heavy handed puncher that boils down from higher weightclasses and put an end to Teixeira and Johnson's unbeaten runs
Geale was a fast world champion with wins over Mundine, Sturm and Sylvester.
Murray is a huge middleweight that arguably has wins over martinez and Sturm, as well as taking Abraham to the wire.

etc etc

 

Are people really claiming Jacobs was better or even equal to McCallum, seriously? As other have mentioned when you see GGG vs Canelo and Toney Vs McCallum it is very clear the latter two are demonstrating more skill.

 

But again how relevant is this when matching the best versions of Toney and GGG.This is head to head best versions!! Is your case so weak that have to match the Tiberi version of Toney to give GGG the win!!??? You get my point now???

 

The opponents you mention are not in the class of Nunn, Reggie or Mc Callum.Toney has beaten the better fighters for a fact.You are making a fool of yourself when arguing record.your points are so weak and meaningless.nearly Nobody agrees with you

 

I do not know why these fools keep arguing records when Toney obviously has beaten the better fighters.another disingenuous debate going on ESB oh boy, what a surprise.best thing would be to get rid of those few disingenuous posters, you know who I mean,Ruining objective and nice debates with their dishonesty

 

I respect what you’ve written. But it seems that you’re wanting to pit GG against those specific versions of James who wasn’t at his best.

What’s the point in that?

What’s the point in saying that prime for prime it would have been a really close fight, but then basing your opinion on 2 fights where James clearly wasn’t at his best?

That is selective evidence.

If you’re going to say that either GG would have had a real chance of winning or that you’d have favoured him over James, on the grounds that GG was clearly levels above the guys who he struggled/had tough fights against, then you could put a case forward for any world class MW of any era.

Now I’ve already said that IMHO, if GG had replaced Williams or Tiberi, then James would have had a rude awakening. But if you’re familiar with James’ career or you go and look back at his timeline, then honestly, the Tiberi performance isn’t a huge deal.

The Tiberi fight was LESS than 2 months after the draw with McCallum.

It was his 5th fight in a 9 month period.

He’d just recently beaten Michael Nunn and Reggie Johnson.

So he’d fought Nunn, Reggie and Mike in less than a year.

He’d given his all against Mike who he had huge respect for, and who was coming off of recent wins over Kalambay and Watson. But then Just 7 weeks later, he defended his title against Dave Tiberi, who’d never had a top level win in his career and who’d recently been stopped by Tony Thornton.

These guys are only human.

They can’t always be at their best.

Looking back, it’s not at all a shock that he was flat and that Tiberi should have gotten the nod.

He should have had a longer break after fighting 3 world class, top level fighters.

I’m honestly surprised that they weren’t more of these kinds of fights on his resume.

It’s also happened to many other great fighters throughout the years.

By the time he’d fought Roy at SMW in 1994, he’d already had 46 fights. And he was only 26. In contrast, GG hasn’t had that many fights now at 38.

Regarding the Sanderline Williams fight, he was fighting literally every month at that stage. It was in 1990, where he’d had 10 fights in under a year. It was classed as a draw, and then they fought a rematch 2 months later where the outcome couldn’t be disputed.

Instead of trying to compare statistics and looking at when he underperformed, look at him when he was motivated and sharp, and look at how they would have both matched up stylistically.

 

Exactly.

Tiberi wasn’t a tough match up stylistically.

It was that James was flat.

It happens.

 

It’s not about not being able to accept different opinions.

The TS - John Thomas, posed the question:

Who would have won at their prospective best?

Prime for prime.

The best versions of each fighter.

 

Pretty easy to look like you have no chinks in your armor when the best fighter you beat cleanly was david lemeiux

 

Look, you don't respect what I've said because you just go on making points that have all been gone over. Saying you respect what I've said is just a meaningless platitude. Everything I want to say about a hypothetical Golovkin-Toney bout has been said about it.

I believe Golovkin won the 1st fight against Canelo when he was perhaps leaving his prime. Golovkin's punch power, pressure and workrate in his prime give him a good chance vs Toney, Toney had good workrate in his prime, a great chin and a superior defense. It's going to be a close fight that likely goes to points. Then it's up to the judges.

I've seen a lot of Toney and GGG and it's getting tedious repeating all this now. No one's mind is going to be changed and it's all just opinions and conjecture who would have won anyway.

 

How many times do you have to be told?

 

And?

That’s your evidence that GG was a better fighter than Mike McCallum?

Title defences against mostly B and C level opposition?

You don’t debate on stats.

You analyse their skill sets and look at who they fought and at one point.

You analyse their ability and their resumes.

 

Actually quite a few people agree with me. And Golovkin would have taken care of business against those three as well.

 

Sure. Golovkin is too technically correct for McCallum. he's too strong, cuts off the ring too well and hits too hard. Particularly when we're talking about the old version that Toney fought. Mike's best wins are pretty much all old fighters.