Your Hottest Takes:

Funny how every one of Toney’s wins gets dissected to death. Let’s actually lay the facts out:

Nunn: Reigning lineal champ, multiple defenses, beat legit names like Kalambay, Curry, Barkley, Starling himself. And let’s not forget: Nunn was ranked #3 pound-for-pound in the world when Toney beat him. Toney didn’t just win he knocked him out in his own backyard. That’s not comparable to Starling beating Honeyghan. Honeyghan was never rated that highly, and Starling had everything his way in that fight. Toney had to figure Nunn out in real time, take risks, and then knock him out. That’s what an elite wins look like.

Johnson: A stylistic nightmare for almost anyone—awkward, defensive, hard to look good against. You admit it's probably Toney’s most impressive win, but still try to chalk it up as “not clear.” Doesn’t matter. Tough fight, but Toney closed strong and got the win. Starling beat Breland, sure—but Breland was still green and vulnerable. Johnson was tested, tricky, and dangerous.

McCallum: This gets underrated constantly. McCallum was 35, yes but still a top-tier fighter. The first fight was close and brilliant but Toney should have won it. The second, more tactical but Toney edged it. McCallum was still good enough to win a championship at light heavyweight and then give Roy Jones a competitive fight years later. These weren’t “old man” wins. These were high-level chess matches against a master. If a 23-year-old holds his own with and arguably beats a guy like McCallum twice, that adds to his resume it doesn’t subtract.

Barkley: Weight-drained? He made the weight and didn’t complain pre-fight. He was coming off a win over Hearns and was always dangerous. Toney dominated him in humiliating fashion beating him from pillar to post. That’s not just a name on the ledger that’s a statement win. And you're really trying to say Simon Brown is more impressive? Be serious.

Jirov: You're rewriting history here. Jirov was an undefeated Olympic gold medalist, reigning IBF champ, known for nonstop pressure and body attack. Toney, a former middleweight, met him head-on and beat him at his own game in an all-out war. That fight was Ring Magazine’s 2003 Fight of the Year. Jirov was never the same afterward for a reason. He was legit. He just ran into James Toney.

Ruiz: The PED angle doesn’t change the fact that in the ring, Toney outboxed a legitimate, seasoned heavyweight titlist. Ruiz had wins over Holyfield, Rahman, and was notorious for making everyone look bad except Toney, who made him look ordinary. That win doesn’t get erased by a failed test.

The real issue? Toney was always fighting killers, from middleweight to heavyweight. He didn’t pad his record, didn’t duck, didn’t play it safe. That’s why some fights were close because he took risks Starling never dreamed of. Starling was a good technician with solid wins, but he never beat a top-3 P4P fighter, never tangled with future Hall of Famers across five weight classes, and never touched Toney’s level of ambition or success.

Trying to compare them is like trying to compare a regional chess champ to someone who’s battled grandmasters around the globe. The scale is different. The stakes were different. So were the results.

 

Wlad had athleticism that very few elites have. It wouldn't be easy to replicate his style at all.

 

More wouldn't have hurt him. He had passed the Rubicon.

 

I don't give Toney extra credit for getting outboxed early on against Nunn, nor do I take any away from Starling for dominating Honeyghan from the opening bell. He had to figure out Honeyghan in real time, too, and it took him a lot less time. If a boxing magazine had Nunn rated #3 in the world, that's great. I see it as Toney knocking out an undefeated fighter who was viewed as the best in his division. Starling beat a fighter who was viewed as the best in his division and had suffered just one chintzy loss to that point. The guy had dethroned Donald Curry.

It was a controversial decision, but it was still a really good effort from both guys. Not sure how 1991 Reggie Johnson was "tested," though. His best win to that point was who, Bumblebee Long?

They were high-level chess matches in which one fighter was able to impose himself physically and the other was no longer able to. Toney deserves credit, sure. Jeff Harding had physical advantages against McCallum too, and he still lost. Roy Jones, um, I suppose I could be generous and call it the most competitive 120-107 fight ever contested.

When rating wins I don't usually account for how much one of the fighters complains. I didn't think Brown > Barkley was a hot take on my part. Seemed fairly self-evident.

I'm not rewriting history. I'm repeating what I've read in the history books. This is the first time I've seen someone praise Jirov's accomplishments, divorced from the context of his loss to Toney. Wait. Scratch that last part.

I might be mistaken here, but I believe that was exactly what happened. What had been a win got erased when it was discovered that Toney had cheated.

Of course he didn't. The Ring didn't make its first pound-for-pound list until his career was nearly over.

I don't know much about chess, but I'm not sure how the results were all that different. One guy won 85% of his fights and the other won 84%.

 

God Almighty

 

Problem?

 

The one where you don't count losses seems open to challenge.

 

I think the most consistent way to evaluate a fighter’s greatness is to not put much weight on their losses. Too many people are inconsistent they’ll treat certain losses as major strikes against some fighters, but completely ignore or excuse others. That kind of selective logic leads to biased rankings. If we’re being fair, it makes more sense to focus on what a fighter accomplished specifically: who they beat, how dominant they were, and what they accomplished. Losses only become meaningful if you're going to apply the same standard across the board, and most people don’t.

 

You’re missing the key distinction here: Nunn wasn’t just the top guy in his division—he was a prime, reigning, pound-for-pound ranked fighter, sitting at #3 in the world. There’s levels to this. He had multiple title defenses, beat elite names like Kalambay (who outboxed McCallum), Curry, Starling, and Barkley. He was dominant, skilled, and seen as a potential heir to the P4P throne. That’s why Toney knocking him out mattered so much because Nunn was viewed as not just the best at middleweight, but one of the best in the entire sport.

Honeyghan? He had a great win over Curry, no doubt. But that was his one truly elite performance. After that, his résumé drops off fast he beat fighters like Gianfranco Rosi and Jorge Vaca, solid names but not elite-level. He wasn’t dominant he wasn’t universally feared he wasn’t considered a top P4P fighter That’s why his peak was shorter and shallower than Nunn’s.

So no, it’s not the same thing. Toney beat a multi-defense, top-3 ranked P4P southpaw technician on the road with a late-round KO. Starling beat a reckless, aggressive welterweight whose one great moment was already behind him.

Calling it “controversial” doesn’t really hold up. It was a close, competitive fight but most fans and observers had Toney winning it clearly. He adjusted mid-fight, finished strong, and outboxed a tricky, defensive southpaw who made everyone look bad.

As for Reggie Johnson being “untested” sure, at that point he hadn’t notched a great win. But he was clearly talented, fundamentally sound, and awkward as hell. He’d go on to beat Steve Collins, dominate William Guthrie, give Antonio Tarver a tough fight, and even go the distance with Roy Jones Jr. when most couldn’t survive six. That shows you the level he was at.

Toney didn’t beat McCallum by “imposing himself physically” he beat him by matching him technically. Toney proved he could go toe-to-toe with one of the most complete technicians in boxing history. He outboxed McCallum in stretches, adjusted in real time, and made a future Hall of Famer work for every inch.

Comparing that to Jeff Harding is nonsense Harding was a volume guy with limited nuance. Toney, on the other hand, fought McCallum at his own game, in the pocket, exchanging clean counters, and showed he was a match for McCallum skill wise. That’s a whole different level.

The fact that a 23-year-old Toney fought him to a draw and then edged him in the rematch isn’t just “credit-worthy” it’s elite. Honestly, those two McCallum fights plus the Nunn win and Reggie Johnson win alone are better than Starling’s entire résumé and that's not even getting into Toney's other wins.

The idea that Brown > Barkley is only “self-evident” if you ignore context. Barkley was erratic, sure but he had higher peaks and beat better fighters than Brown ever did. Two wins over Hearns, a war with Nunn, solid win over Van Horn. Dangerous across multiple weight classes. When he was on, he could beat anyone. That’s a level Simon Brown never reached.

Brown had one elite moment, the KO over Norris, but even that came after Norris got careless trading. And he got destroyed in the rematch. Before that? He was still developing, and that’s the version Starling beat a younger, unproven Brown who hadn’t hit his stride yet. So if we’re judging wins by how complete the opponent was, Starling doesn’t even get full value for that one.

So no, it’s not “self-evident.” Barkley was the more proven, more dangerous fighter especially when they fought. And Toney didn’t just beat him he destroyed him.

You are rewriting history you’re just doing it with sarcasm instead of facts.

Jirov wasn’t some nobody conjured into relevance by losing to Toney. He was an Olympic gold medalist, a dominant amateur, and the reigning, undefeated IBF cruiserweight champion when they fought. He had defended his title multiple times, broke down seasoned pros with body punching and relentless pressure, and was seen as the next real threat at 190. And Toney? He was a fat middleweight jumping up to cruiser for the first time, after years of bouncing around inactive and undisciplined. He wasn’t even expected to go the distance.
Instead, he walked into a war and beat Jirov at his own game nearly stopped him late.

People don’t talk about Jirov’s accomplishments not because they didn’t exist but because Toney shattered him. That’s what great fighters do. They erase threats so thoroughly, history forgets how dangerous they were in the first place.

Sure, the result was overturned on paper but we saw what happened in the ring. Toney, a former middleweight, stepped up and outclassed a legit heavyweight titleholder in Ruiz. Not just edged him but dominated him. That wasn’t some fluke or razor-thin decision it was a clinic and should be taken into account when considering his legacy

That’s not the point, though. The truth is he was never seriously discussed among the elite handful of fighters in the sport

Meanwhile, Toney was a staple on those lists and was fighting guys who were on those lists like Nunn. Starling never had a moment like that. He never beat a guy who was seen as one of the sport’s elite

Toney fought from 160 to heavyweight, took on Hall of Famers, future champs, and pound-for-pound elites. He beat Michael Nunn, Mike McCallum, Reggie Johnson, Jirov, and Holyfield. He dared to go up in weight again and again, and still won at the world-class level over a span of decades.

Starling stayed in his lane welterweight and a little above. Solid wins, great fundamentals, no question. But he never moved through weight classes, never beat an ATG, never cracked the P4P elite.

So yeah, if you flatten everything down to "percentages," sure—they look similar on paper. But the second you factor in opposition, ambition, longevity, and impact? One guy played it safe and got good results. The other walked through fire and carved out a legacy.

And that’s the difference between a good fighter and a great one.

 

I agree that people should try to be consistent. But only rating wins, and not losses, leads to some unusual results. For example, Darroll Wilson would have a case for being greater than Shannon Briggs (since Briggs doesn't have any scalps on his record better than himself).

 

I want see how much further Inoue can go. He is only 31 and has won 26 world title fights regardless of whatever we think about competition that's insane.