archie moore vs james toney.....

Any examples?

 

I already posted them

 

When? Did I miss something?

 

page 3 of thread

 

You posted full fight, not specific examples.

 

Stop it already. You hate me picking Hopkins because you can't stand him.....Toney is the exact opposite for you.

Toney the better technician LOL

 

I had an issue of you picking Hopkins in pretty much every matchup, yes. When Hopkins is not involved, I think your posts are generally of good quality.

 

And i explained at length why i pick Hopkins and rate him H2H how i do. Much much better posters than myself pick Hopkins in the very same matches.

I'm more than happy with the supposed quality of my Hopkins posts, thanks.

Oh, and Toney is most certainly not a better technician than Moore. I mean holy smokes.

 

You are biased towards Hopkins and your posts show this. I think the clips I sent show that Toney is the better technician on the inside, with shorter punches, combinations wit pin point accuracy. Holy smokes, if you are familiar with Archie, you would anyway know that he tends to cover up and play the defensive role on the inside, let the other guys wear himself out.

 

You are biased against Hopkins and your posts show this.

And it's just your opinion. Fantasy matches don't prove sweet FA.

Moore is an absolute boxing encyclopedia. You can try micro managing but overall Moore is undoubtedly the better technician without a doubt. If Toney was the technician Moore was he would have beat guys like Tiberi a lot cleaner. Prime Moore also wouldn't have chased RJJ around for 12 rounds with absolutely nothing to show for it.

 

Granted, I may have been biased against Hopkins in a few threads. But the origin is really your bias towards him which I found to be quite annoying. I really liked to watch Hopkins as a fighter. Although his resume at 160 is a bit thin, he is a Top 10 great middleweight in my book nevertheless

I maintain that Toney is the better technician on the insight with the better hand speed. I can agree that at long range Archie was a bit more versatile but it is not a landslide. Really the origin of this is some of the posts saying well Archie is better at everything, Archie will beat him easily. I think there is a tendancy sometimes here to over glorify old timers losing objectivity in the process.

 

Well the flipside is that your incessant picking against him unless he's matched with someone you like less, like a Euro fighter is annoying not that i ever let it worry me because i couldn't care less who you picked quite frankly.

Attempting to call out bias via fantasy fight picks with a fighter as great as Hopkins, is, quite frankly, absurd. Ridiculous in the extreme.

 

That is true but I already explained why. I do not see why that is ridiculous, given that your picks sometimes bordered on the unreasonable.
I hold no grudge against you. On the contrary I think generally your posts are valuable . I will leave it at that

 

It's all good, what's forum life without a bit of friction!!!

In my defence i don't think picking Hopkins oever anyone at 160, excepting Roy Jones (with the caveat Hopkins would have been more dangerous as he improved far more from that period but Jones is still the favorite for sure), is unreasonable at all. There's no unreasonable at his level. I mean picking him over, say, Michael Spinks would be unreasonable. Taking him in tight fights over Hagler and Monzon is not, at all, unreasonable.

But all good we will leave it at that.