Toney always has a chance, but it is hard to bet against Moore. Both of these guys were absolute wizards, but Toney was an underachiever, and Moore was an over achiever.
Moore was just so much more well rounded than Toney. Toney was at his best with guys who came at him but could do it all and he had that super long reach and jab. I just think hed keep the fight in the middle of the ring and keep Toney on the end of the jab. Hed set the pace and control the distance and that would be murder for Toney. Both guys could show up out of shape but both were so relaxed that it usually didnt matter unless a high work rate was involved. I dont see that here as both guys fought at a measured pace. This fight goes the distance in an unsatisfying fight with Moore taking the decision.
Moore would win handily, however James was pretty durable and rugged and may last the 10 rounds or the 12 but he would fight defensively to do so - Archie Moore was incredible at 175lbs and above - 15 rounds and Archie would stop James.
It is just that folks are so nostalgic around here thinking that boxers from 40s are some kind of super humans. If you look at it objectively, Toney had a clear edge in hand speed and technique. It is just a reality. Nobody even mentions that. That said, I have no problem with somebody picking Archie but some of the comments go clearly overboard.
In my opinion, it is quite obvious on both counts. Just look at the way Toney put those punches together. Head to Head I would still slightly favour Archie Archie Moore vs Yvon Durelle I (Full fight) - YouTube James Toney vs Freddie Delgado 6/18/1995 Fight #51 - YouTube
Fair enouh: Archie Moore vs Joey Maxim I 1/2 - YouTube It is less obvious but I still favour the hand speed and technique of Toney. I am trying to look at this objectively
But what exactly gives Toney the edge in technique? I can't see anyone with clearly better punching technique than Moore.