GGG vs James Toney at 160.

He's hopeless.

One cringeworthy post after another.

 

The reason why I post "opinion" is that you write a ton of subjective crap that is, indeed, your opinion.

The reason I type emojis is because if I have to respond in kind to your hysterical panties-up-the-crack screechings, it's all going to end in tears.

^opinion.

 

Mendoza,

I haven't put any words in your mouth.

Failed to apologise?

Ha!

You think I'm going to apologise for something that never happened, to a guy who argued for pages and pages about fights that he hadn't even SEEN?

No.

I think you'll find that I have answered EVERY ONE of your points.

It's YOU who still hasn't answered all of my posts.

I haven't ducked anything.

I've already told you that Roy took great shots off of Toney, Del Valle and Ruiz.

Personally, I'd say it was decent.

So probably C level.

If you want, I can say it was made of GLASS.

It wouldn't help you.

The guy barely lost rounds in over 15 years, where he faced much bigger, better and more dangerous opponents than David Lemieux.

The guy is a B-C class fighter who was embarrassed by Billy Joe Saunders.

Yeah, after 50 fights in his THIRD weight class.

All of which means that Lemieux's chances against a PRIME version of Roy would have been miniscule.

Who has Lemieux ever beaten in his career in order for you to have given him even a remote chance of beating a prime version of Roy Jones?

Roy embarrassed Toney.

He blew out Griffin.

He blew out Hill.

He blew out Tate.

He knocked out Malinga.

He toyed with Reggie.

He easily beat Ruiz.

Yet Lemieux could have beaten him, because Tarver and Johnson knocked him out at 35, 2 weights up?

No.

Ha!

I respected you before this thread. But you have made a complete fool of yourself. It's been disappointing to see.

You DO NOT rate McCallum's resume.

You DO NOT rate Toney's resume.

Yet you highly rate GG's resume, despite the fact that it's significantly weaker.

Out of absolute pure desperation, you're now trying to convince us that GG's B and C class opposition could have beaten a prime Roy Jones.

It's absolutely cringeworthy nonsense.

You should be embarrassed.

I think you'll find that I've debated for hours on end with GG's irrational haters on this board.

I think you'll also find that on this thread alone, I've repeatedly said that he's a great fighter.

I don't even have an issue with you thinking that he'd have beaten Toney.

The issue, is your biased and disrespectful views of Toney and McCallum, as well as their opponents.

Regarding Tiberi, GG and any other top fighter today could possibly have lost to Tiberi, if they were fighting every 6-8 weeks for a prolonged period of time.

Now I keep telling you and agreeing with you that it would be laughable to think that Tiberi could have beaten GG at his best. BUT I've also told you that we also don't know what would have happened, IF GG had fought Tiberi just 7 weeks after Canelo or Jacobs, where he wasn't motivated.

I lost all respect for you a few days ago on this topic.

I agree that Mike could have beaten Toney in his prime. But that doesn't mean that Toney wasn't a great fighter. Because Mike was a great fighter himself.

You are trying to say that Mike wasn't great, just so you can push the agenda that Toney either lost or struggled with a non great, old fighter, in order for you to try and rate GG higher.

That's what your agenda is.

Anybody else would just give credit to Toney for beating an elite fighter in his early 20's.

Sure, Mike was 35. But again, Floyd was 36 when he fought Canelo. Hopkins was 36 when he beat Tito.

So even though Mike was 35 and past prime, Toney still deserves huge credit for beating him, because Mike was still a GREAT fighter, who'd recently beaten Collins, Kalambay and Watson, BEFORE then going on to win a title at LHW, where he hung in there with a peak Roy Jones at almost 40 years old.

The fact is:

Toney has a GREAT win over Mike, because despite his age, Mike was still GREAT himself at that point.

That's how simple it is.

Both Toney and Mike have better resumes than GG.

Both were tested more.

Same old, same old.

Just more predicable, repetitive nonsense with zero context.


You hang on to the Tiberi defeat like a drowning man clinging onto a lifeboat.

Yet we all know that the Tiberi version of Toney COULD NEVER have beaten, Reggie, Nunn or Mike at MW, and neither Thornton, Barkley or Littles etc, at SMW.

We know that that wasn't him at his best.


Yes, he was outlassed by Roy, and everyone knows that GG wouldn't have lived with Roy at his peak at SMW.


None of what you've written above can be used as any sort of evidence that GG would definitely have beaten Toney.


Who fought the better competition?

Toney.


Who has the better wins?

Toney.


Who was tested more, against more styles in more divisions?

Toney.


Hopelessly whining on about Dave Tiberi isn't going to change any of the above.

Your arguments are so weak, you have now developed an absolute obsession with that man.

You've probably mentioned Tiberi's name more in this last week than what his wife has over the last year.

 

Even stating he was behind on the cards is a bit misleading imo. Yes he was down by a round or two but at the time of the stoppage toney had broken Nunn down and completely had taken control of the momentum. It was not a case where a lucky knockout saved him . It was a truely great performance for a young fighter facing an elite opponent for the first time in his career

 

You are the fan boy FFS.

And you’re now criticising Toney for not fighting Wlad, when GG hasn’t even left the MW division.

You’re too much.

 

So what if he needed a come from behind knockout to beat Nunn?

Who cares?

What, does it not count?

Was it not a great win, because he was losing?

It was a peak version of Michael Nunn.

Seriously, what is wrong with you?

Why are you asking your dumb questions AGAIN, when I personally have answered you THREE times already?

 

More horse manure.

An end of the road Kalambay who beat Graham and Collins?

Watson’s career was tragically cut short you fool.

So what if Mike was 35 when he fought Toney?

What, that means that it wasn’t a great win?

Please tell us about the great Marco Antonio Rubio and Matthew Macklin.

Tell us about Daniel Geale.

 

Let’s for arguments sake say that a younger version of Mike had beaten Toney.

Then what?

What would this have meant to you?

 

He cannot be viewed as being objective?

He?

Ha!

 

Unbelievable.

How have you got the nerve to post this after the horse manure that you’ve posted?

Trying to portray Mike as an OAP.

Trying to claim that C class fighters could have beaten Roy in his prime because he was knocked out 2 divisions higher when he was 35?

 

Who on this thread has argued against this?

Nobody.

 

That old guy who was still elite.

Like you wouldn’t have creamed your pants if GG had beaten Floyd or someone at 35.

 

You really are something else aren’t you.

Mike beat:

Curry
Jackson
Kalambay
Graham
Watson
Collins

You don’t respect or rate those wins.


Toney beat:

Mike
Reggie
Nunn
Littles
Barkley
Thornton

You don’t respect or rate those wins.


Yet here you are hyping wins over Daniel Geale and Marco Antonio Rubio etc

Ha!

You are an absolute joke.

 

It’s EMBARRASSING!

But you know that if that resume belonged to Mike or Toney, that he’d have shredded it.

Man, these clowns are too much.

Just when you think they couldn’t get any dumber, one of them pops up and says that David Lemieux could have beaten a prime Roy Jones.

 

Look at you.

You’ve even had to try and make a joke of it, because you simply CANNOT refute what he’s said.