GGG vs James Toney at 160.

After reading this, we may as well all pack up our things and go home.

This thread is now finished.

Ha!

 

The only point in sticking around after that post would just be for the sheer fun of it.

 

Please stop with this line of thinking.

It's casual fan logic.

Are you seriously telling us that GG is a better MW than ANY MW who can't replicate his stats?

Do you not understand that had he have fought Toney or Mike's opposition, that the liklihood is, he WOULDN'T have been able to have made those same number of defences?

I asked you the last time we debated this topic to swap their timelines over just for fun.

Now if you did that and you looked objectively at all of the available evidence, there is absolutely no reason why Mike McCallum couldn't also have replicated those same number of defences.

There is no reason why Mike couldn't have followed GG's exact timeline and produced the same results. Okay, as he was a very different fighter, he may not have beaten some of them as quick etc. But the results would have been the same.

None of GG's opponents during his reign would have been favoured to have beaten Mike.

Many MW's of the past could also have beaten the guys who GG did and made those same number of defences.

Many could have followed that same timeline.

No knowledgeable fan thinks that Sven Ottke was a better SMW than Andre Ward, Roy Jones and James Toney, based on the fact that he had many more title defences than what they did.

It's not the numbers that are important, it's the quality of the opposition and the ability of the fighters.

Do you seriously think that GG would have made the same number of defences had he have fought against the division's top 10 in the 90's?

Debating on statistics is a weak argument.

 

I see that Ra's Al-Ghul has voted for GG by stoppage.

Ha!

You've got to love that guy.

 

Sorry, just clicked the 'move to first unread button', and saw this. Would've gotten back sooner.

So you'll give me Fitz & Jackson, but not Ketchel, McClellan, Valdez & Lausse? I'd say with certainty, that McClellan hit harder than in a physical sense (he is speculated to be 30lbs bigger, although I think it's closer to 20) than Jackson.

If Fitz was a LHW, because it was speculated on his day (when he was older, mind you, much less of these quotes from when he was actually competing at middleweight), then so is GGG, who routinely steps in the ring at 170+.

Anyway, Valdez dropping Monzon and being the only man to coldcock KO Briscoe, when guys like Hart & Hagler could hardly dent him, is definitely more credible than GGG's record as a puncher. Sure, his KO% isn't as high, but there's three likely explanations for that. #1: you can't KO everyone. #2: Valdez wasn't an all-out aggression fighter like GGG, he's a counter-puncher similar to Canelo. #3: Valdez wasn't all too consistent. Anyway, Lausse has a better record too. So does Benn. And so does Ketchel.

That's arguable.

Jones KOed Sosa with one punch. The same guy who wouldn't budge while fighting toe to toe with the best of his era. Sugar Boy Malinga took the best Benn, Eubank, Reid, Rocchigiani & Jarvis could dish out. Jones iced him with one punch. Thomas Tate is the only man to finish twelve rounds with Julian Jackson, and in it he took hellacious full blown punches from a man you imply is top three with GGG, and Jones leveled him, again, with one punch. Virgil Hill, a guy who took the best from Tiozzo, Ashely, Mormeck, Michalczewski &c; before Jones took him out with a single body punch. Don't get me wrong, none of the aforementioned are great fighters, but they're all big Punchers and men much bigger than Jones. They couldn't do what he could.

Enough? There's more. Reggie Johnson, a middleweight who went twelve with Tarver, was dropped twice by Jones. Even a guy like Mike McCallum, with his granite chin which went to war, unscathed, with Julian Jackson. Jones dropped him. Undefeated Griffin who took big shots of Jones himself, and while shot went 12 with Antonio Tarver, was KOed in one, by one punch. The icing on the cake is that a shot Jones, devoid of his blazing hand-speed was hurting a genuinely granite chinned cruiserweight, Denis Lebedev, with straight rights. And he did it multiple times. Even in their primes (let's say, for argument's sake, before their losses), both had KO% of above 85%.

Jones' power > GGG's.

Yeah, they were. Although Jackson being chinny is overstated. He was shot for three of his losses, two were against a guy who's arguably the hardest punching middleweight ever, and the third was to Mike McCallum. Where he was gassed and Mike was a massive puncher at 154.

Either way, it's still evident based of film that McClellan was the more explosive, harder puncher. Plus, GGG hasn't KOed anyone better than Jackson anyway.

For both? No, it's not. GGG might have the best power/chin combination of any middleweight ever, although you could argue for Hagler.

 

Even if that was true, you and Mendoza won't allow for the fact that the Tiberi fight wasn't how Toney typically fought.

 

Okay. So how do you think a young version of Mike would have done against GG?

 

I do not want to get too personal but my impression is that Mendoza is of limited intelligence.He can't comprehend easy points and seems to be able to look at things only from one perspective,

 

Your questions have already been answered.


1. All of Toney's best opponents were top 10 ranked.

2. GG might have fought more ranked opponents, but James fought far more often, where he was literally fighting every month at one stage.

3. He lost badly to Roy, because Roy was a phenom in his prime.

4. He lost to Tiberi because he wasn't at his best and just went through the motions.

5. He drew to a past his peak Mike Mcallum, because Mike was a GREAT fighter, as evidenced by his other fights around that same period.


Now let me ask you a question:

Why are you using casual fan logic and trying to win an argument based upon statistics?

 

It's just a shame there's this thing called a '10-Point Must System' that even the biggest hitters have to work with, at times... ... ...

 

This content is protected

This content is protected

Fixed it.

 

Despite it being pointed out several times.

 

Except for of course:

 

Explain the concept of age? The likes of this Mendoz guy don't obey their own standards on age when it comes to old Lennox Lewis. They don't give the likes of Mayweather any extra credit for having top level wins past 35.
The age excuse in relation to GGG is used to blow smoke up his ass and to make excuses for his loss to Canelo.
Age was never an issue going into those two fights when all his fans were certain he was going to win. .
And GGG went back to looking prime again when he blew away Vanes and Rolls.

 

Not really. He still seemed slow and stiff to me in those.