Here's something a little different: James Toney vs. Ezzard Charles at (1) 168, (2) 175, (3) 190, (4) unlimited. Both boxers fought for significant periods at about 168 lbs; 175 lbs; 190 lbs; and in Toney's case at WAY over 190 lbs and in Ezzard's case against boxers heavier than 190 lbs. Toney at heavyweight is the Toney who was 217 against Evander Holyfield. Toney's stamina and pacing has always been exceptional, even at 217 lbs, so let's make it over 15 rounds. Who wins a majority of fights if they fight four times in each weight category? Does Charles win at 175, but Toney win as they move up? Or would Toney at 168 beat Charles, who was still before his prime when he was fighting around that weight? The importance of this match-up is to see how moving up in weight can affect different boxers in different ways.
Charles all the way in every weight class. Toney was great but Charles was in another class and has a style advantage.
If Charles could beat Archie Moore 3x(who was basically a more powerful version of toney), you better believe he will beat any version of Toney emphatically.
Which of these weights is Toney meant to be best at? 168 drained him pretty horribly, whilst Charles boxed at that weight when taking on light-heavyweights. His peak performance (as far as we are concerned) is at 169...Charles would ****ing kill Toney at 168 or 175. At 190, maybe, Toney has his best chance against a Charles beginning to limp a bit, but really, how can anyone with his punching ability and feet lose to a fighter like Toney, the guy who twice beat Walcott? Walcott is a better, bigger defensive cutie than Toney is, with snapier punching and a generally trickier style...he's like Toney on steroids (...wait a minute). Toney gets the **** punched out of him here too. And unlimited? A fat version of Toney getting pasted by a fighting machine weighingaround 180. Could have picked better fighters than these to make your point my handsome friend and also - you've left out the one weight division where Toney has a smidge of a chance, 160.
I don't see how Toney had "exceptional" stamina and pacing??? I guess he had the stamina to last 12 rds, if that is the qualifying factor...but from what I have seen of him even in his earlier fights as far back as Mccallum I Toney had a tendenacy to rely on his solid defense and take parts of rounds off and sometimes entire rounds. For me this got more pronounced as he moved up in weight, and I don't see how that suits him well against Ezzard at any weight class. Get out the broom as Ezzard sweeps him!
If James Toney could take Sam Peter's , Evander Holyfield's , Vassily Jirov's , Roy Jones' (when Toney was severely drained) and Hassim Rahman's punches you better believe he will not lose like Archie Moore did.
At 175 history tells Toney would lose , but by decision as I already explained. In the rest of the weights , he might be in a slight disadvantage but still had a realistic chance. Remember : Walcott did get the better of Charles . I think the drained Toney who fought Jones at 168 , could have been good at 175 .
