GGG vs James Toney at 160.

George,

Are you aware Pinky had major problems with drugs, and quickly went south post Tyson? He wasn't ranked post 1987. After Tyson beat him, Thomas lost four of his next five. I think that's proof enough to say he was shot, and the drug addiction he had was prior to facing Tyson. Now who would not beat that version of Pinky again?

Prior to this I see a draw with Cotzee, and and loss to Berbick. Two contenders of the time who are not much better, if they were better than Peter. So your not exactly correct here.

 

I didn't.

No. You asked for the source and a link. What is wrong with you??

That's the end of it.

 

Men, I said Pinklon at his best. Pinklon at his best beat Witherspoon, and looked fantastic vs Weaver, and of all people, Mike Tyson.

They can't stop him, and they can't outbox him, they don't even have a higher workrate. So how do they win?

 

Toney W [wide] UD

 

He was still fast and well conditioned at 35. Do you deny it? Answer yes or no?

 

That is exactly right.In fact, Marvin Hagler himself made a positive comment about Mike’s handspeed during the fight.Regardless, Mike was an old school fighter who did a lot of subtle things.Like the feinting, parrying, slipping, rolling with punches, countering with the uppercut, subtle body shots..The fact that both fighters were standing in fighting distance most of the time is a testimony how skilled they were, constantly slipping and countering. You can’t expect both of these ignorant clowns to see any of this.Marvin Hagler highly appreciated this bout and the skill level of both operators.I guess he knows a thing or two about boxing.

 

Where's the rebuttal? I thought you'd reread the Jones post. That kinda implies you'll reply too.

 

Almost as many pages as votes lol keep it up guys never give in these fictional match up mean too much.

 

Pinky beat Witherpsoon who complained that Thomas was thumbing him via narrow margin. My point is Thomas who had a good left by very mediocre right, would be small by today's standards and lost his share. Peter could beat him, just a few others did. Like I mentioned others beat Pinky on points, some via KO, so your quote of " They can't stop him, and they can't outbox him, they don't even have a higher workrate. So how do they win? " does not make sense.

 

Well conditioned for age 35, okay? HOWEVER obviously not as fast, skilled or conditioned as he was in his prime or 20's?. Understand the difference?

My point rules. Now can you deny that McCallum was older and past his best for Toney? Answer yes or no?

Toney officially drew with an older middle. That does not increase his stock.

 

That's rich. Hagler and his fans will tell you he was past his best by age 34, and never fought at age 35.

Jones was the best Toney fought at 160-168, it was not close.

Nunn was likely the second best Toney beat at 160-168 he was well in the lead on the cards prior to a late round TKO. There was no rematch

McCallum was past his best at age 35, and probably the 3rd best middleweight Toney fought drew Toney in his prime. I think that places Toney. If McCallum were 29 and not 35, he wins here.

Point being Toney is an over rated boxer. He barely edged Johnson officially!

PS: Toney slipped next to no jabs, which fight were you watching?

 

It was clear as day, and he was only 'thumbing' Witherspoon if a jab to the eye counts.

Which was more than enough to beat Peter and Briggs. Especially the old versions that Vitali beat.

How?

Two men beat Pinky. Berbick and Tyson. Both better, and very different to Peter and Briggs. And both could actually get past a jab. What aren't you getting?

 

This will be my last post to you in this thread.

I’m willing to carry on debating with the others, but after this, me and you are done.

I’ve already told you that I’m not going to have a back and forth with you.

I’ll quickly humiliate you one last time using your own dumb logic, and then I’m out.


First off, I’ve literally no idea why you keep blabbering on about Roy Jones and Danny Green etc. I’ve already explained to you in detail why Roy and Mike McCallum were completely different. Everyone’s career plays out differently, depending on their styles and their circumstances.

End of discussion.


Now, according to you, you rate GG higher than both James Toney and Mike McCallum, and you think that he has a superior resume.

Now your reasons for that, are as follows:

He made more title defences than what they did
He didn’t have as many close fights where he struggled with his opponents like they did
He beat his opposition easier and was more dominant than what they were
He scored more knockouts than what they did
He didn’t lose as many fights as what they did
He didn’t lose to any low level opposition

That is the criteria that you have used.

You have not taken into account any of the following:

Their number of fights
Their schedules
The quality and level of the opponents that they fought
The stylistic match ups that they were faced with
Their age
The number of weight classes they fought in


No problem.

We’ll play it your way.


We’ll look at Muhammad Ali and Deontay Wilder, BUT using your specific logic and criteria:

Deontay Wilder has scored more knockouts
He’s only lost 1 fight
He’s been much more dominant
He hasn’t struggled with as many opponents
He’s never lost to a low level opponent

Ali had less knockouts
Ali lost 5 times
Ali wasn’t as dominant
Ali struggled with many more opponents, such as: Jones, Frazier x 3 and Norton x 3 etc
Ali lost to a low level, 6 fight novice in Spinks


So:

Using the RIDICULOUS casual fan logic and criteria that you have used:

Deontay Wilder is a better HW than what Ali was, with a superior resume.


It’s your logic and criteria, not mine.

If you’re not going to take into account than Nunn, Reggie and McCallum were better than Rubio, Macklin and Murray, then I’m not going to take into account that Frazier, Foreman and Norton were better than Breazeale, Stiverne and Scott.


What next?

Errol Spence is a better WW than what Ray Leonard was?


Now you only have 2 options to choose from:

1. You actually agree that Wilder is better than what Ali was.

2. You realise just how DUMB your criteria and logic is, when you DON’T APPLY THE RELEVANT CONTEXT.


I’ll now let the others read this and mock you, whilst I very much look forward to your great response.

Will it be:

“Opinion” ?
An Emoji?
TLDR?

Maybe something else?

I’ll count down the minutes until I get my exciting notification.


In closing, I’ll just say that in the 8 and a half years that I’ve been a member of this forum, that you are by far the STUPIDEST person that I’ve ever debated.

If you want the last word, be my guest.

Take care.

 

He was faster than Golovkin , that much is clear. Many guys retained their speed beyond the age of 35. . Adonis , Pacquaio , Calzaghe , Mayweather , Hopkins , Froch just to name a few.. McCallum was no different.

Facts rule. . GGG officially has a draw and a loss against a guy who had slow feet , poor stamina and fought in sporadic bursts.. This doesn't bode well for a guy going up against James Toney.
If you watch Toney you see he didn't need breathers and rounds off like Canelo did.

 

Let that be that mate. Its a waste of your time