GGG vs James Toney at 160.

the only fanboy here is you along with Mendoza who fortunately has disappeared

 

They're relevant because :

1) They date to the time period in question
2) They highlight his inconsistency
3) They highlight his favourable judging (including Johnson)
4) They highlight his stylistic weaknesses to fighters with high outputs
5) Johnson highlights his iffy chin at the lighter weights when he sat Toney on his ass. Golovkin landing a shot like that would have put him in the infirmary.

oh and 6)

McCallum was already old when he took Toney to hell and arguably beat him.

 

What are you talking about, I've been active. Toney is not the master boxer his fans make him out to be. I forget the opponent but he once had a really bad cut and needed the KO, and got it. Nunn showed he could be out boxed. Jones easily out boxed him. Even Sam Peter out boxed him. Toney is best vs a non power punching opponent who lacks speed. Check out GGG in his prime sometime.

Dave Tiberi says hello.

 

Double

 

Actually I like GGG but I do not like you

 

They're relevant because :

1) They date to the time period in question
2) They highlight his inconsistency
3) They highlight his favourable judging (including Johnson)
4) They highlight his stylistic weaknesses to fighters with high outputs
5) Johnson highlights his iffy chin at the lighter weights when he sat Toney on his ass. Golovkin landing a shot like that would have put him in the infirmary.

oh and 6) - BCS8

McCallum was already old when he took Toney to hell and arguably beat him.- BCS8

This content is protected

 

Sure, sure. You seek every opportunity to degrade him. I don't care who you like, but if you were better poster you know who's active and " try " for one to disprove my points. You trouble is they are facts.

 

Actually no, because this head to head best version matchup.But I doubt you will be able to process this.
Ok then jacobs arguably beat GGG.Canelo beat GGG twice.Fact is James never lost at middleweight. I am back to your level of discussion.Really interesting debates one can have with you.Pages and pages of the same nonsense.You must be ******ed I am sure.

 

your points are irrelevant.you are in the wrong thread.Do a thread prime GGG vs Toney version (Tiberi).Chances are you get the outcome you desire.

 

Okay. But you won’t let posters look at a past prime GG will you.

So how can points 1 and 2 be relevant?

Regarding those points, look at the circumstances.

Why was putting in a flat performance against a C level Tiberi which happened just 7 weeks after facing McCallum such a huge deal?

Why was a draw against Sanderline Williams when he was fighting literally once per month back then such a huge deal?

He didn’t suffer due to styles.

He just put in subpar performances because that’s what happens from time to time under those sorts of circumstances.

You know that many greats of the past have had fights like that all throughout history.

This thread is looking at the best versions of each fighter. That is the criteria which was set out by the TS.

Regarding point 5, we all know that he didn’t have an iffy chin. Sure, GG has great power. And if he could have landed a shot like that, then yes, he could have dropped him. But Reggie had more upper body movement and quicker hand speed than GG. He also had a bigger reach and he dropped him by whipping in a southpaw left hand. So we don’t know if GG would have had that same opportunity that Reggie had. Because they were completely different fighters. They would have been completely different stylistic match ups. Show me where GG landed a shot like what Reggie did on a top level fighter, with the same speed, from the same angle etc.

Regarding point 6, Mike was still a great fighter at that point. He’d recently beaten Watson and Kalambay. There’s no shame in any MW drawing or losing to that version of Mike McCallum. Mike was a GREAT fighter.

 

If we're comparing body of work at MW, Toney's poor performance against Tiberi is definitely relevant.

If we're comparing the best versions of both at the weight it clearly isn't.

And while it's true that GGG had no close fights until he was nearing his mid 30's, it's also true that he started having close fights when he met a higher level of competition. It will always be hard to know which one of these statements is the most relevant.

 

Michael Nunn was a 6’1 southpaw with a 77” reach, with fast hand speed and great athleticism.

A prime Roy Jones was a phenom.

GG is a great fighter, but he’s slower, smaller and much more hittable than what they were, with a completely different style.

Why do you keep mentioning Dave Tiberi?

You guys are obsessed with him.

Look, how do we know how GG would have fared against Tiberi, had he have fought him just 7 weeks after he’d fought Canelo or Jacobs?

You’re really clinging on to that flat performance aren’t you.

Out of 40 odd fights, you are focusing on 2 fights to help build your argument. But it doesn’t. It just smacks of desperation. If Toney had been at his best and struggled, they’d have been relevant. If Toney had have suffered due to their specific styles, along with GG possessing a similar one, they’d be relevant. But that’s not the case. They were just 2 flat performances against 2 low level guys from a hectic schedule. Again, I’m only surprised that they weren’t more of those kinds of results on his resume. His fight against Roy was his 47th fight. And that’s 5 more than GG has now at 38 years of age. Think about that for a moment.

 

"Is GGG "better" than Toney at 160 with both at their prospective best?" was the question in the OP?

Do you believe that Toney was at his best at MW against Williams?

 

JohnThomas asks "Is GGG "better" than Toney at 160 with both at their prospective best?" in the OP.

So those that continually bring up Toney's performances against Williams and Tiberi need to answer the simple question if they think these were the best versions of Toney at MW?