Toney v Golovkin At Middleweight

I don't know if I would say better, just different. GGG was certainly more powerful and worked behind his jab more. McCallum had more versatility and was better defensively. I still would favor Toney at his best over GGG but GGG does some things really well and has always performed well against counterpunchers. I thought he cleanly beat Canelo twice by simply not giving Canelo those counter punching opportunities. With that said, I think Toney is superior to Canelo which is why I like James in this this mythical fight with GGG. I just don't think it's a slam dunk.

 

Toney got mugged by Couture thats for sure.

 

You do it with Hopkins every time you post about him. The utmost importance is given to fights when he was 45 or older

Because you have an agenda

 

Oh yeah, Sanderline Williams was sublime,majestic, even. He had that "mugger strength" alright.

 

Counterpoint: no, he's not.

 

So your excuse for Golovkin beating Toney amounts to: "Toney was tired"?

Loudon studiously ignoring 350 amateur bouts that Golovkin had.

Ooooh southpaws. Scary proposition for most boxers, whereas Golovkin turned Proksa and Monroe inside out. Meanwhile Toney got beaten like a drum by Nunn until Nunn gassed. Funny how inconsistent Toney was at 160, though. Every other fight he was labouring to a razor thin draw with some random scrub, or he was "underperforming".

1) I saw him beat Canelo twice and Canelo > McCallum.
2) McCallum was already an old fighter when Toney scraped a win over him by the skin of his teeth.

Nope.

No he was not, and their actual fighting records prove it.

 

Bro named a C+ level and a record padded southpaws as good showings and then clowned on James Toney for getting outpointed by an (arguably) All-Time-Great middleweight in his FIRST title fight (which ended in a TKO) the bias is real

 

This would have been a great fight.

I would say that Toney was also a bad stylistic match up for GGG too, for obvious reasons.

This is also a hypothetical prime for prime fight.

So it's the best versions of each fighter.

Not unless you want a match up against an inconsistent version, which would serve no purpose.

Also, how was he inexperienced??

He fought better quality fighters.

 

That's because he was sometimes fighting EVERY month, genius.

 

The guy's a clown.

He doesn't even give him credit for beating Nunn, as he claims that Nunn just simply gassed out, which enabled Toney to beat him.

Pathetic.

 

Or, because he simply wasn't as sublime as the glazers around here seem to think. Great boxers have managed those sorts of schedules before.

 

Wow there are some serious levels of butthurt around here. People freaking out like their heads are on fire

 

BCS8,

Why is it so difficult for you to have an objective debate?

I think that you mean Tiberi, not Golovkin.


On any Toney debate, your fingers can't wait to type in the names of Dave Tiberi and Sanderline Williams.

Very poor from you.


James Toney wasn't at his best for that fight.

It was less than 2 months after he'd fought Mike McCallum.

He'd also fought McCallum, Reggie and Nunn, all within a period of around 9 months. Something was completely alien to GGG.

It was an unmotivated, not fully fit version of James, vs a guy who was fighting his Superbowl.

A rematch never happened, as Tiberi couldnt agree terms. He then retired.


Now fights like that were all common from any guy who had a hectic schedule like that.

There's numerous examples to give.

You're comparing 3 round amateur bouts with head gear, vs fighting world level fighters every few months??

Back in the real world, those guys weren't as good as Nunn and Reggie, and James broke down Nunn with body shots. He didn't just gas out.

To not give James credit for that win, is utterly pathetic.


If GGG had beaten a guy like Nunn, there'd be tissues all over your bedroom floor, after you'd watched the fight over and over.

You would be posting clips on here, and we'd probably never hear the end of it. But because James beat him, you have to try and devalue the win. And if that wasn't bad enough, you have also hype up a guy like Monroe at the same time.

Canelo wasn't as good as McCallum.

A few years before Canelo fought GGG, he couldn't win a round off of a 36 year old WW, and he could barely beat Austin Trout.

Mike was a veteran, but he'd recently taken apart Michael Watson. He was still an elite level fighter, who was at the top of his game.


Yes, James had close fights with him.

So what?

He was a great fighter.


Also, GGG scraped wins over Derev and Jacobs by the skin of his teeth.

The majority of fans would have favoured Toney.

The last major thread on here looking at this fight, reached 100 pages.

And over 70% of our members voted for James to have won.

You're a stat man.

An old school Boxrec warrior.


You rate GGG higher due to his MW title reign.

You rate him higher because he didn't lose as much.


You haven't got the capacity to apply context.


James was the more skilled fighter.

He fought and beat better fighters at the weight.


And overall?

There's no comparison.


If you rank overall on a P4P basis, and not just specifically at MW, James will always rank higher.


More ability

Better overall resume

Better group of wins

More achievements

More longevity

Took more risks and challenges


James was just the better overall fighter.


No, wait.

Discount the above.

He lost to Tiberi.

 

We can use this thing amazing thing called EVIDENCE.

If Tiberi was his ceiling, he couldn't have beaten elite level guys at the weight, and then moved up and beaten other world level guys up at higher weights.

I can also show you where other world level fighters lost, when they had hectic schedules and/or weren't motivated.

 

Nobody is freaking out.

It's just disappointing to find that a guy who's been here for almost 13 years, is still unable to have a serious, objective debate.