Is James Toney an ATG?

Now why on earth would you have posted this, when I have informed you now on TWO separate occasions, that you misinterpreted what I had said??

That is just pure ignorance on your part.

Now kindly explain to us all why you have criticised him for fighting an unproven Griffin, yet you’ve also criticised him for not having fought an unproven Hopkins.

 

Think about it and apply context.

Most of the HW’s he fought were career HW’s.

They were big powerful guys.

Toney fought almost 50 fights between MW-SMW, before fighting those guys in his late 30’s, after he’d fought 70 odd times.

He fought those guys and got by on pure ability.

Yes, many HW’s are out of shape. But there’s a huge difference between a natural HW being out of shape, and a guy who should have been a career level MW-SMW, fighting as a HW just due to being out of shape.

James Toney was 5’10, with a 72” reach.

Sam Peter was 6’2, with a 77” reach.

Hasim Rahman was 6’2, with an 82” reach.

Don’t you think those measurements were significant?

They were natural HW’s.

Toney weighing around what they did didn’t even things out.

There’s not many former MW’s and SMW’s who could have hung with those guys under the same circumstances.

Toney had no business being at that weight. He was only there due to the life that he’d lived.

 

To me an all time great is a guy you could drop into almost any era and they’d be a champion in it.

Toney is an atg.

 

As far as I remember Toney was No1 and would have faced Maskaev anyway. Maybe he would have to wait for 1 year. But he did not have face Peter, he would have gotten his shot against Maskaev anyway who was probably an easier opponent. Now the Peter eliminator would have forced the deadline for the Masakev fight given that it was an eliminator.

But Toney was never mandatory in the IBF. Byrd never gave him a shot. Toney called him out after the Jirov fight. The fight was supposed to happen after the Guinn where Byrd fought on the same card ( a poor showing by Byrd it was). Byrd never gave him that **** but he could have. He chose to fight easier opponents.

 

Your posts are quite strange in the sense that you seem to be quite knowledgable about Toney's history but you are not putting things in context like they were at the time. Maybe, you were not around at that time and just followed boxing later, which could be an explanation.

Hopkins at that time was pretty much a nobody. Barkley was the bigger name fighter and was seen as the more difficult fight. Nobody was saying at the time that Toney ducked Hopkins.
Now, in case you do not know, Toney was willing to fight Hopkins in 2003 just after the Jirov fight. The fight was in serious talks but then Hopkins pulled out with some kind of money excuse.Toney then went to face Holyfield at heavyweight which was a big challenge.

 

The guy is a strange poster. Because he obviously does possess a lot of knowledge of his career. But then he’s criticised parts of it which aren’t justified.

Like you have said, nobody had an issue with him not fighting Hopkins in 1993, to instead fight Barkley at SMW. As we know, Hopkins was somewhat unknown and pretty much unproven at the time. And what makes his criticism so strange, is that after he criticised him for not having fought Hopkins, he then also criticised him for when he moved up and fought an unproven Griffin at LHW.

Regarding talks between Hopkins-Toney in 2003, Hopkins had absolutely no intention whatsoever of taking that fight. He was all talk.

 

- The thing with the Griffin fight, it just happened 3 months after the Jones fight! It was also Toney's first fight as a light heavy and he came back after his first loss. Sure nobody expected Toney to lose that fight, I concede that. But I am not sure Toney deserves much crticism for fighting the undefeated Griffin under those circumstances. Had he he won against Griffin, he would probably have directly fought one of the titlist

- Regarding the Hopkins fight in 2003, yeah it sure was a publicity of Hopkins who was fighting up to that point exclusively at 160. Hopkins went to easier fights against Allen and Dela Hoya while Toney took on a considerable challenge while going up to heavyweight. You do the maths who took the easier route

 

Can you imagine if he would have been disciplined in his career what he could have achieved?

 

What if Drake Thadzi is on the other side of that time machine?

 

I’d laugh my ass off.

 

I love Toney and he had the skills to be, but he does not make it in my mind and neither does McCallum for that matter. When they came up against top guys they struggled and would lose, and that lack of dominance at that level to me makes the difference.

 

The thing I loved about James is that after beating Nunn in a tough fight, he makes his first defence against Reggie Johnson, a very capable, smart fighter. Then two fights later he's in with McCallum.
Not an easy start for a young Champion. James was hungry back then, pun unintended.

 

A guy like that would be on anybody’s resume if they’d fought over 90 times.

 

Mike is definitely an ATG. Most of his losses were when he was in his late 30’s, where he fought prime greats, 3 divisions north of his prime weight class.

How many former JMW’s and MW’s would beat a prime version of Roy Jones when they were 39 and 3 divisions up?

Mike had great ability, he won titles in 3 weight classes, and his resume is great, with great wins over very good-great fighters whilst they were prime.

 

right, the Johnson happened just 6 weeks after the Nunn fight!