b-hop no question. james toney is some fat slob who ate himself into the heavyweight rankings. toney might have had a chance had he stayed in shape and had some respect for the great sport of boxing
This post might help where most rank Toney and Hopkins respectively. http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33094
Toney accomplished more. He had titles in four divisions and actually was the HW champion for a minute. Hopkins reigned as a MW for many years, but did not get any props until he beat up on smaller guys coming up (Tito and Oscar). Toney fought everyone and all styles. Toney was greater.
I just voted for RJJ, Toney and then Hopkins. I believe Hopkins is still in the view of the fans and Toney is nowhere to be found right now. Hopkins would not have beaten Toney. I've both from the beginning and Toney was much more talented. I don't understand all the disrespect. So what if he got fat later on, he was a dominate force in his early years, well, lighter years. He was excited to watch, where as Hopkins is very boring to watch when he was a MW champ.
Ummmm, how does holding one title at MW (the IBF for 7 title defenses...3 of which he arguably lost), one title at SMW (IBF again for 4 defenses...), one title at CW (the IBF again and never defending it once) and one dubious title win at HW (scratched for testing positive for steroids) measure up to being the undisputed MW champion, holding the record for consecutive defenses of said titles, being the ring and universally considered champ at LHW? And why do people bring up that he went to HW as a sign of him being better? That doesnt make much sense. His reign at HW (is it finnnnally over yet???) was lackluster aside from his win vs Holyfield....and is marred by the steroid test failure? All that shows is that Toney either held the weight better (which I dont feel) or didnt have the dedication Hopkins did (the correct answer). If anything, it detracts from his luster in all reality.
Again, so what about him gaining weight. While he was in shape, he gave us alot of good fights and won multitude of titles with good opposition. Hopkins title defenses were week compared to Toney's defenses from MW through HW. What more do you want from the guy after all of this on his resume. He even beat Peter, but you he got robbed and held the HW title like I said before for a minute.
There is no disrespect going on. Toney is a fine fighter...but didnt accomplish anything NEAR what Bernard did. And if anything, there is disrespect toward Hopkins in your above post. He was very boring to watch as the MW champ???? Be honest, you never saw a younger, prime Hopkins fight, have you? Never saw his domination of Glen Johnson or William Joppy or Felix Trinidad or Joe Lipsey or Antwun Echols (one of the more entertaining fights I have ever seen)...I could keep going. Hopkins was FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR from a boring fighter. You dont get the nickname "The Executioner" by putting fans to sleep. Hopkins became more defensive minded and "boring" (tho many fans enjoy cerebral, defensive boxing...boring is a perception and opinion) as he aged (Id say vs Eastman was the first real time he SLOOOOWED his attack and output and became the fighter he currently is) he started to rely on other things...mainly his impecable timing, defense, counterpunching and most importantly his ring intellect. And many, MANY people feel entirely different than you do about a prime Hopkins vs a prime Toney H2H BTW...
Well, you answered it with the word dedication, but what I mentioned that he has accomplished in the past is no small feet. I don't buy the LHW champ bit. Tarver? That was all politics and money. That is like Joe C. is the best LHW due to beating Hopkins. His consecutive title defenses also are marred by poor opposition. Not all, but some. Maybe not his fault due to who the fighters they through at him. Again, I just feel that Toney accomplished more and should be considered greater. Well, Hopkins could still fight at 168 through CW. I even heard he would have fought I believe the guy Peter beat for the belt. I forgot his name.
Okay, I will take back the my boring statement of Hopkins. I have seen all of those fights mentioned. For proof, I remember Echols dropping Hopkins on a break. Don't get me wrong, I am a Hopkins fan. I remember when he was the number #1 contender for all the sanctioning bodies and no one would give him a title shot. I thought by the time he did that he would not accomplish to much due to burning out waiting and fighting other contenders. Like Kevin Kelley. He proved to be a very good MW champ. I just believe that after Toney beat Nunn, which he was losing, exceled and became a great fight for all that I have mentioned he has done so far.
First, Tarver....regardless of how you feel about the fighter personally...was the universally considered MAN at LHW. He beat Jones and Johnson. He was the favorite going into the fight...and he got EMBARRASSED by Bernard. Spin it how you want....doesnt change the fact. And if Tarver was not the #1 LHW...then who was??? Second, you say Hopkins beat poor opposition during his reign at MW? Again proving you have recently started following Bernard's career (which is ok...not knocking you...just kinda obvious at this point). Johnson, Trinidad, Echols, Joppy, Holmes, Oscar, Eastman, Jackson, among countless other very good fighters (Vanderpool, Lipsey, Allen, etc.). Add to it that most feel he beat Taylor (majority of press row and the press, fans, other fighters, EMANUAL STEWARD, etc....I believe history will be kind to Bernard on these, much like they are to Hagler about his "loss" to SRL)...and his wins vs Winky and Tarver at LHW....and there is NO WAY NO HOW any human being can say his opposition was bad. Its a great resume in fact....very deep. He did mention Maskaev...tho I think it was more tongue in cheek, as he stated he didnt think he would beat Peter anyway.
And I am a fan of Toney's (I take back the new to Hopkins comment )...tho he is so frustrating due to the fact that his **** poor conditioning habits and dedication led him to being the most inconisistant TRUELY GREAT FIGHTER I can think of. Think about it...how many times did he keep it close vs a fighter how couldnt even hold his spit bucket (Dave Tiberi got ROBBED vs Toney...)? He was definately one of the great fighters of this era...but he was also the most inconsistant. One night he would look unbeatable...the next he would look like he shouldnt even be in the ring (or more accurately like he didnt WANT to be in the ring). His style tho was not suited to beat a fighter like a prime Hopkins in my opinion.
