GGG vs James Toney at 160.

I have answered ALL of your questions.

Struggling with Nunn showed his limitations as a boxer?

Ha! It was Michael Nunn, who was a great fighter, who was in his prime, and who presented him with an extremely difficult stylistic match up.

GG struggled with Danny Jacobs.

Did that fight show his limitations as a boxer?

Remember, if we’re not allowed to say that Toney wasn’t at his best for Tiberi and Williams, then you can’t say that GG wasn’t at his best for Jacobs.

 

So what if some of GG’s opponents hit as hard as Johnson?

Many of Roy’s other opponents hit as hard and HARDER than what Johnson did.

Look at how desperate you are man.

It beggars belief.

This is your logic:

“David Lemieux could have beaten Roy Jones, because Glen Johnson did, and Lemieux hit just as hard”

Haha!

It’s pathetic.

Pathetic, casual fan logic with zero context applied.

It’s just pure desperation on your part to try boost GG’s MEDIOCRE resume.

Take your own advice: Think before YOU type.

Roy Jones barely lost rounds in 15 years of domination, where he won titles in 4 divisions. He was declared the fighter of the decade for the 90’s.

He beat BETTER fighters than GG’s B and C level competition, fighters who hit as hard, but who couldn’t get near him.

Why didn’t Lemieux knock out Saunders, Rubio and Alcine?

Why didn’t John Ruiz, who was a 230 pound HW knock out Roy?

Do you think that Glen Johnson hit harder than John Ruiz?

I honestly don’t know how you have the audacity to come on here and rip into Mike and Toney’s resume, whilst at the same time, you’re trying to hype up an inferior one.

I don’t know how you have the nerve to not rate Toney’s win over McCallum, whilst at the same time, you’re rating GG’s wins over the likes of Rubio, Lemieux and Macklin, and telling us that that they could have beaten Roy Jones.

It’s both cringeworthy and embarrassing.

Any pre-HW version of Roy Jones would have toyed with ALL of GG’s mediocre opposition.

Enjoy your vacation, but give yourself a slapping for the ludicrous things that you have said.

When you come back, try and come back as a better, more objective poster.

 

Could you guys imagine if GG had beaten Mike, Nunn, Reggie, Kalambay and Watson etc?

These 2 guys would have said that it was an outstanding resume.


Could you guys imagine if Toney and Mike’s best wins had been against Murray, Macklin and Jacobs etc?

These 2 guys would have said that it was a garbage resume.


Shameful.

 

Sorry - it's too difficult to imagine.

 

Ha!

Imagine being that dumb, that you’d rate wins over lesser fighters, higher, based on the fact that they were easier?

A win over Matthew Macklin was better than a win over Mike McCallum, because the McCallum fight was close, whereas the Macklin one wasn’t.

That’s what we’re dealing with here.

A pair of absolute donuts.

 

With every post you make, the more you reveal your miniscule intellect.

Yep, I figured that much. You're welcome.

Nice save. Oh, wait, it's not. Did you look up "sarcasm" as well?

I guess we're getting somewhere .... ?

... opinion ^

Yes.

Yes.

Because you were huffing the fumes from Toney's used gym socks.

Clearly you aren't any good at this 'rating' business, then.

Yawn.

If you had any reading ability at all, you'd see that I already adressed the issue earlier, referring to both footage and resume. But, you go ahead and run into that wall again.

^opinion.

Here we go. The AMAZING Sanderline Williams, destroyer of champions and dasher of hopes!!! Well ... he sure managed to dash Toney's hopes.

This pathetic attempt to pump up a third rate fighter is quite amusing. I'd expect nothing less from a joke poster like Loudon.

^Opinion.

Opinion of an individual that is clearly drunk, a fool, ignorant, or all of those at once.

 

To help sad posters that don't have a grasp on reality.

Well that's a start.

Done that with style. You were obviously so busy drinking thinners from an old boot that you missed it.

 

What was the point in replying with the above?

You’d have been better not typing anything at all.

You have typed absolutely nothing.

You haven’t answered a single point.

Nobody has said that Williams was an amazing fighter.

How can it only be an opinion that Mike was still a great fighter at that point?

How can it only be an opinion when we have factual evidence?

 

What are you talking about?

EVERYBODY knows that Tiberi beat him.

Numerous people have noted that right from the outset.


Done that with style?

You have denigrated Toney’s resume, on the grounds that some of his best wins were close, hard fought ones.

 

RJJ / Calzaghe. Calzaghe had an EPIC WIN over prime RJJ.

He'd beaten Trinidad that VERY SAME YEAR. Thereby proving that, using Loudon logic, that he was a TOP FIGHTER. Zaggers destroyed him, kicked his ass, gave him a boxing lesson and sent him back to boxing pre-school. Calzaghe beat him like a frickin' bongo drum.

RJJ went and KO'd Omar Sheika shortly after Calzaghe drubbed, smashed and kicked his ass. Omar Sheika was 27-8, and by Loudon standards, clearly a magnificent win for RJJ. Well, certainly better than drawing with 24-11 Sanderline frickin Williams, which appears to be the gold standard for the sort of fighter you like.

Yes. I'd have had a good laugh at Floyd being stretchered out ....

.... but it would have meant absolutely nothing legacy wise for Golovkin since Floyd was a fossil at that point. Of course, Loudon standards dictate that the older the fighter, the better the win over them is

 

WTF???

Ha!

I despair.

To think that I used to respect you as a poster.

You are HOPELESS.

 

Confident start to what is doubtless going to be another pile of **** post.

The criteria are the same, genius.

Geez this moron has managed to plow through 44 pages of this garbage thread and missed it all. It truly takes a special individual to swim through a landfill and come out the other side denying he's seen any refuse at all. I guess that maybe gargling with weed killer isn't good for one's health. You ought to stop that.

The difference, dimwit, is that Golovkin utterly crushed Macklin. Golovkin had more trouble with a reporter's camera strap than Macklin, who was a top fighter at the time. Toney lost 6 to 7 rounds against Nunn, with his own corner imploring him repeatedly to step up his game because he was losing. That's the difference.

Your dim intellect is still trying to understand that struggling with opponents doesn't necessarily mean they are better, even though they may look better because Toney looked worse. And as we know, Toney was amazing. How? Well he beat all these great opponents, who proved they were great because he struggled with them

OMG. How many times did it take Loopy Loudon to get this? Maybe he's not a lost cause after all?

I'm not quite at that level, even though it may seem like it to you. Must be tough looking up the whole time, eh?

I'm guessing Dave Tiberi and Sanderline Williams were better fighters too

You're trying to debate while huffing paint, and its affecting your ability to accurately understand what is being said.

 

BCS8,


Why do you keep saying Loudon logic and Loudon standards?

It doesn’t matter how old a fighter is.

You don’t rate a win solely on age.

You rate it on the quality of the fighters and the level they’re operating at.

You can’t do like for like comparisons with other fighters.

A win over one 35 year old fighter isn’t the same as a win over another 35 year old fighter.

Guys like Calzaghe, McCallum and Hopkins, were still elite fighters at an advanced age. Whereas guys like Roy and Mike Tyson weren’t.

Your terrible attempt at sarcasm has failed massively.

Tito Trinidad was more shot than what Roy was. He hadn’t fought for 3 years, and he couldn’t even make their agreed CW of 170 pounds. The lowest he could get was 172. We’re talking about a former WW.

How is that the same as Mike beating Kalambay and Watson etc, who were 2 top level fighters?

What on earth are you talking about?

Roy could no longer compete at the highest level at that point, and Sheika was a punch bag.

That win wasn’t relevant to anybody.

I haven’t in any way said that the older the fighter, the better the win.

You’re that desperate, you’ve now resorted to quoting statements that have never been said.

 

Look there is no sense in carrying on a discussion with a guy who thinks the Macklin win is better than the Mc Callum or Nunn wins.None at all, it is like day and night. This guy clearly has a mental issue, maybe he is living in a mental hospital in Eastern Europe I do not know.As I said Mendoza and him might be the same poster.

I am looking to interesting debates with other posters in the future with reasonable points and some open mindness. Not possible with this poster.Time to move on.

 

You are an absolute IMBECILE.


Toney struggled with the likes of Nunn, because Nunn was an elite southpaw in his prime.

He was a GREAT FIGHTER.


GG beat a guy like Macklin easier, because HE WAS A LESSER FIGHTER than what Nunn was.

He was an EASIER OPPONENT.


Now apply the same logic to McCallum, Reggie, Rubio and Geale etc.


It’s much easier to fight a lesser fighter, than what it is to fight an elite level fighter.


If you don’t think that McCallum and Nunn were better than Matthew Macklin etc, you don’t even deserve to post on this board.


You are the DUMBEST poster I’ve ever had the misfortune of debating with.

Trying to debate on how easy the wins were INSTEAD of looking at the QUALITY of the opponents etc. SMH.


GG rolled guys over like Macklin, Rubio and Geale, because they were LOWER LEVEL GUYS.

When he fought Jacobs he struggled. And it wasn’t just because of his age.


Another shameful post.