James Toney. Under-rated?

My point still stands. Why not credit all short fat heavyweights then?
Willie Meehan started out as a flyweight and beat a prime Jack Dempsey. Even though a 4-rounder, that has to be one of the greatest p4p wins ever then, no? Tami Mauriello was short and fat. Like I said, do we need to calculate body fat, lean mass AND height, reach, and 'natural' frame-size in every fight to figure out how good a win is "p4p" ?
It's nonsense.
It's funny how these guys kind of get passes for being undisciplined and losing fights in lower weight classes for "weight making problems", then when they have the luxury of a comfortable weight division and not having to make weight they get given extra credit for any level of success.

I think I've reasoned my arguments quite well. I think you have too.

I think I called him "a strong intimidating brawler for much of the time." in the context of a discussion on how often he displayed "slickness" in his middleweight fights. Outside of the McCallum fights where he took a somewhat more consistent skillful approach, I stand by my observation.
Not that it matters.
If I ever said "Face-first brawler" that would be wrong. I'm not convinced I said it.

I like Toney but he's being overrated, that's all.

 

I don't care if they used PEDs, personally.
But if people are going to give so much weight to "amazing weight jumping feats" they have to realize that steroids can really help that.
Also, they need to realize that there are different levels of PED use, and high levels of use, or the use of strong PEDs, can provide dramatic advantages.

Therefore it doesn't make sense to compare a 'clean' fighter's attempts at moving up to a 'PED-enhanced' fighter, or even a moderate 'PED-enhanced' fighter to a full-on-juiced-to-the-gills 'PED' fighter.
But those things can only be speculated on.

 

If Meehan etc beat men with big advantages in height and reach and muscle mass, yes, I think they should be credited with that.

 

I do not agree.Rahman looked for a way out and quit.It was absolutely disgraceful for the fans who attended the fight.

As for the 1st fight Rahman fight, some thought Rahman deserved to win.But then again, Toney vs Peter I was more controversial.

 

Toney tested positive for 2 fights: Batchelder and Ruiz. There is no evidence to suggest he was juiced for any other fight at and should not then be inferred.The Batchelder fight was irrelevant.

 

Toney achieved HOF status by what he did from 1991 to 1993 alone. So many fights during such a short time, not all A-level opponents but wins over Michael Nunn, Mike Mc Callum, Reggie Johnson, Iran Barkley, plus a draw with Mc Callum, seal the deal. Not to forget wins over Doug DeWitt and Merqui Sosa, who were very solid contenders. Two good wins with Charles Williams and Tim Littles in 1994 again, before the Roy Jones disaster. Who else during the last 30 years has had such a run during 4 years only?

Toneys comeback with Roach, culminating in the Jirov and Holyfield wins, elevated his status from an HOFer to an ATG. His roller-coaster career at HW after that solidified his status in my eyes.

I think Toney would have lost to Jones regardless, even if he were in good shape. Jones just seemed unbeatable at that time, simply out of this world. But had that fight been more competitive... not as one-sided... it wouldn't have hurt Toneys reputation that much, and I believe 'the dark years' of his career would never have happened. B-HOP lost to Roy Jones too, but he was competitive - that loss never hurt his career much, though it did hurt his ego.

 

Yeah, losing to Jones wasn't so damaging as such, being clearly less competitive than even ancient McCallum is.

That and Tiberi are really black marks.

 

That's fair enough - I agree that, had Duran not ventured upwards of 147 he'd not have been considered as highly (though, I doubt he'd plummet to the top-80 mark). However, Duran's efforts from there are strongly underpinned by his Lightweight dominance and major wins at 147. Then it's up for debate as to how one values the Wins and the Losses against the likes of Luigi Minchillo, Wilfred Benitez, Pipino Cuevas, Davey Moore, Marvin Hagler , Thomas Hearns - and then, five years later, pull out a dramatic victory against Barkley.


Toney does not have, in my opinion, the type of 160/168 ledger that seals his place as a Great and neither do I personally think Toney's ring exploits, outside of 175, do as much for his legacy as you and some others do. However, I can see why people would argue a case for them being so. It's not outrageous to take that position - but it is one which leaves a fair bit up for debate (as this thread illustrates).

There's no doubt he's a shoo-in HOFer. Toney is a one-off character with a tumultuous and phenomenal story in Boxing. As far as an overall historical rating goes - well, that will be a subject of much discussion for the years to come, no doubt. Which is not necessarily a bad thing for us fans of Boxing and its history.

 

They should be credited with beating any men, I think.

 

There's no evidence that Holyfield juiced at all then.

 

I think you've gotten to the nub of the matter, in respect to Toney's rating. :good

It should put Toney's relative success at Heavyweight in a different perspective.

 

I agree. But there's no way Rahman can be regarded as a genuine contender at that point at all.

 

Chris Byrd had a far better heavyweight run than James Toney, and Byrd was probably a "natural" super-middleweight. He ate his way to heavyweight.
I think he would have beat Toney quite clearly if they'd met.
Roy Jones Jr. would have beat Toney at HW in 2003 too.

 

He was 169 lbs for his first fight before he rapidly went up to HW. But he had almost 4 inches on Toney and looked perfectly fit at 215 lbs.

 

I’ve maintained that I think Toney is overrated on forums and given my reasons why, from two simple positions:

1. Toney did not dominate in any division he fought in
2. His exploits at Cruiserweight and Heavyweight are given too much credence

Hardly a big bunch of angles there.

If, by “every angle you can”, you mean that I am putting forward details to support those positions and, in turn, addressing the specific points made as counter-arguments then - guilty as charged!

Case in point is your reference to Toney’s HW rankings, On their own, those numbers look impressive but wouldn’t you agree that they belie the actual success rate and other factors concerning Toney’s bouts through 2003 to 2006?

I’ve asked you before if you thought Holyfield still represented the level of being a quality Heavyweight, by the time Toney and he met? You didn’t answer that question and gave a generalized statement about his efforts at HW adding nicely to his resume.

The fact is: Holyfield had won only two bouts of his last seven, going into the Toney bout. Did the Real Deal really deserve his top-ten (at #4) ranking, based on these results?

Following the Holyfield win, Toney goes 2–1-1 (with 1 ND). Five bouts in three years. Both registered wins are against unranked opponents. Other than Holyfield, Toney doesn’t have a recorded win over any other ranked HW opponent, during that period.

Then Peter II more or less puts an end to Toney making any further impact.

That’s not slicing and dicing. Ex-Middleweight or No, that’s the basis upon which Toney’s HW ranking was built.