James Toney vs Evander Holyfield Thoughts

This was one of Toney's best performances. Holyfield looked like he still had it in this fight, but Toney has so much skill that he won every round.

 

Miles better than Lineal Undefeated Spinks? Oh Tyson knocked him out in a round, so he must have been **** though, right? ATG top10 Holmes? Ok Holmes was old but still

Nunn as a head to head in the divisions MW history rates highly, although he's gone done somewhat in my estimation recently, he's just too sloppy at times

 

One of those fights that was so sad.

 

True, but this total domination that people speak of was never shown by Toney.

Who cares about best single wins? Tyson cleaned out a division. Toney could barely clean out a single fight without needing a SD, let alone a division.

Make all the excuses you want, but fact is that he had a shitload of close fights and struggled with mediocre opposition.

To me, his extreme toughness and durability set him apart. He has very good skills, but also takes a lot of shots when those fancy moves don't work. Hence all the close fights.

 

i have not watched the tony-nunn fight but in what context are you comparing it to tyson's best win? in terms of defensive skills, heart, adversary, what? without a context, your comparison doesn't make sense. it's comparing apples and oranges. now if you say that toney showed greater defensive skills, maybe i could agree. even then i think it's comparing apples and oranges. i'm not a big fan of p4p comparisons. my crushing of an ant this morning was a far greater victory than toney's best win :roll:

 

Toney at age 35 and 217 pounds back in '03 was the best he's ever looked as a heavy........... Toney was serious for Holyfield......... Toney whooped some ass there........ Once Toney ballooned past 220 pounds, he was still good, yet somewhat outta his element....... WORD!

Holy was also in great shape in 2003, but he used his hurt shoulders excuse once again for the TKO loss.........

MR.BILL:deal

 

It was a shame Toney snapped his achiles that put him out for a year

 

I thought Toney fought well in '04 against Rydell Booker, but I hated to see Toney at 229 pounds.........

MR.BILL:scaredas:

 

Evander Holyfield was suffering from a shoulder injury, and hormonal problems like some middle aged men.

He was fighting fatigued....!!!!

 

In other words he was old and shot right? Typical of a fighter his age.

 

I think that fight, along with the Larry Donald one, was about the worst Holyfield I've ever seen. He was 40 years old already, and I believe he was suffering from a bad shoulder that wasn't fixed until 2006.
I haven't seen any performance since then where he's looked worse. He seemed stiff and lacked any snap whatsoever in his left hand.

But James Toney was excellent in that fight, in the best shape he ever was as a heavyweight (roids ?), and he took Holyfield apart in style.

 

Toney's win over Nunn was a far, far better win than Tyson's over Spinks. Holmes?! **** sake man, sober up!

 

atsch Crumbs. It's not often you see posts like this on the Classic.

So, you are incapable of grasping that Joe Frazier's win over Muhammad Ali in the Fight Of The Century was a better win than William Joppy's win over Roberto Duran?

You cannot fathom that Fighting Harada's first win over Eder Jofre was a better win than Floyd Mayweather's victory over Carlos Baldomir?

It does not make any sense to you that Shane Mosley's first triumph over Oscar De La Hoya was a better win than Muhammad Ali's stoppage of Bob Foster?

This probably isn't the sport for you then!

The value of any win can be quite easily determined by looking at the quality and condition of the opponent, and the quality of the performance. This can be done easily irrespective of weight class and era. I find it utterly bizarre that this presents a problem for you! It's extremely simple: for example, Frazier's win over Ali is a better win than Manny Pacquiao's second win over Barrera because (a) Ali in 1971 at hw was a far, far tougher opponent than Barrera was at sfw in 2007, and (b) Frazier was forced to dig deep and produce one of the all-time great heavyweight boxing performances to win an epic fight, whereas Pacquiao did not produce a great performance but boxed to a dull decision where neither man came close to their peak performance.

If you don't understand this concept, I'd suggest you watch Wimbledon and give the boxing a miss.

 

Why do you think this?

 

Michael Nunn was 36-0, p4p ranked for his performances at mw, and I personally thought he was an excellent fighter.

The fight was in Nunn's hometown, he was the heavy favourite, and he boasted some significant physical advantages over Toney.

Toney not only took that zero, but stopped him, to take his 1st world title. Not only that, but the manner of the win was special. By the mid-rounds, he was behind on points, being outboxed by a bigger, faster, and seemingly better man.

Through sheer heart, toughness, and good old-fashioned boxing skill, Toney turned the fight around. The partisan crowd could only look on as JT started forcing the fight, and he won the last three rounds leading to the stoppage as I remember. It was a titanic effort of will and skills.

And the punch that downed Nunn and effectively ended his resistance was a thing of beauty.


Compare this to Tyson's win over Spinks - Spinks was a light-heavyweight who was scared stiff and capitulated immediately in the face of Tyson's huge advantages in power, strength and explosive physicality.

For me, there's no comparison. Tyson's win over Spinks is a good win, Toney's win over Nunn is one of the wins of the 90s. JMHO.