What say you? I am going with James Toney. IMO he beat much better opoosition. His win over a prime Michael Nunn alone is arguably a better win than anything Crawford has. Crawford could switch stances but his effectiveness primarily came in the southpaw stance. Toney, on the other hand, defeated two of the best southpaws ever (Jirov and Nunn), which is a rare achievement for an orthodox fighter. He was competitive with a 240 lb Sam Peter. The same Peter who knocked down Wlad 3 times. Toney was more inconsistent and he lost more as he faced significantly better competition. But IMO Toney's counter punching skills, his defense vs bigger hitters, and his excellent record vs elite southpaws should give him the edge.
James Toney for me. Wasn't as consistent but was a far more talented and technically skilled fighter than Bud IMO. Faced better competition and looks more impressive when he's at his absolute best.
This is pretty similar to the Hagler–Moore comparison whether intentionally or unintentionally. Crawford is like Hagler in that he’s more versatile and well-rounded, he can switch stances, adjust mid-fight, and control distance, which makes him harder to deal with overall. Toney is more like Moore: less stylistically flexible, but a master within his domain. His inside fighting, defense, and counterpunching were more refined than almost anyone’s. His adjustments were more subtle and based on timing and positioning rather than changing styles. So Crawford is more complete across the board, while Toney is more specialized but more skilled in the areas that he was a master of.
Crawford and it's largely because Toney never trained the way he should of. Crawford is the best at boxing out of both stances of all time. He can knock you out in either stance. His defense is elite, his command of range and timing is elite, his footwork is elite, his jab is elite, elite counters, elite combinations, elite use of range and angles. Some of those things let Toney down because of his lack of stamina, like footwork and use of range for sure. But Crawford I can't see any weaknesses in. Toney has the best shoulder roll of all time for me. Floyd is better overall but for the fluidity of his shoulder roll Toney's better for me. Which makes you wonder good he could have been.
The Tiberi fight for sure. Toney may have blamed it on being weight drained at the time...I don't remember for sure...but I'd say Tiberi deserves credit for staying on him and wearing him out.
Well at heavyweight he was 15-20 lbs higher than ideal. Given his built, he should have never gone past 205 lbs. The dude was not as stocky as prime Joe Frazier, for example. And no way should he have weighed anything past 205. IMO he would have beaten Peter convincingly in the first fight if he was lighter.
I agree with that; he made a big mistake in trying to bulk up. In the 90s, when he first said that he was going to be heavyweight champion, he talked about how he would be too fast for the heavyweights and would fight at about 205. At some point he got it in his head that he needed to bulk up.
Crawford, and I say this as someone who loves James Toney and is usually pretty tepid towards Crawford. Crawford was just across the board a more versatile and more capable prize-fighter. Substantially better footwork, physical controls, and more creative with his counter-punching imo. Apart from inside-fighting, I can't think of any particular skill where Toney clearly beats Crawford, and even then Crawford's wrestling background means that he is himself a capable inside fighter even if he never really got the chance to show it.
Toney didn't get particularly tired but he did less than he should of done. Which meant he had far too many close fights. He should of been able to move around the ring constantly, he couldn't
Skill does not equate to strength, endurance or fitness. It is not necessarily even proven in one's record. Plenty of less skilled fighters have beaten superiorly skilled opponents, even at the highest level. Skill is but one component. And its got some blurry edges. Often times a fighter showing defensive responsibility, fighting seamlessly off the jab, using great punch selection, etc. is considered more skilled. But if his opponent who is a bruiser attrition guy knows how to drag the fight into the trenches, make things rough, and take his opponent off his more aesthetically pleasing game and gets a victory, then I consider that a skill, too. Even a higher skill than all the tricky moves and steps that many applaud.
But that means you're confusing stamina and workrate with skill though. Stamina and workrate are tangible abilities, but they aren't skills. Consider the best driver driving the slowest car and the worst driver (in the world class field) beats him in a much more powerful car.