Bernard Hopkins or James Toney...who ranks higher All-Time???

Your avoiding my point...I already said, you can argue his competition...but the rest you just CANNOT! Its impossible.

 

No most feel taylor won those fights and hopkins screwed his chances.

Toney defended his lineal middleweight belt against the likes of nunn, mccallum, johnson, etc. B-hop fought scrub a, scrub b, the firefighter, then 6 years later finally beats trinidad, a blown up welterweight.

So in your opinion, the guy that fought the small fighters is better than the one that fought the big fighters, what great logic.

 

Agreed!

 

NO, go look at any poll done on either fight...the majority of votes go to Hopkins for both (I had Hopkins 1-0-1 in them FYI). Then go check out pressrow scoring and see that most of them also had him winning both.

The truth is YOU feel Taylor won those fights. Not most people...

Learn the difference.

Another bull**** biased post from you.

And wrong to boot.

Toney WON THE TITLE vs Nunn...he never defended it vs him. Then defended it vs the likes of Mccallum and Johnson...and should have lost the title to Dave Tiberi in between those great wins.

Hopkins on the other hand defended his title against the likes of Glen Johnson, John David Jackson, Keith Holmes, Tito, Oscar, Eastman, Joppy, etc.

Again, Toney's resume is very top heavy, as he has some SPECTACULAR wins...but some very lackluster performances vs much lesser competition filtered in as well.

And by your logic, the guy who lost vs much lesser competition....never unified a division....never held more than one major belt at a time....got caught using steriods not once but twice...didnt perform consistantly from one fight to the next...never had the dedication to max out his potential...is better.

Yeah, great logic there.

atsch

 

No its not my opinion, a poll on this forum does not mean everything. There are many people that feel taylor won both clearly.

Lets not forget that hopkins looked poor vs mercado and lost his first pro fight to a nobody and then cut down to 160.

Toney may have wasted 1995-2003, but guess what, no one even cared about hopkins till 2001.

If you combine the 3 best fighters that either beat, all 3 top wins go to toney.

Hopkins would struggle with jirov, nunn,johnson. mccallum, etc. They would be close fights and he would most likely lose to one or two of them. Toney would make a fool out of oscar and tito, and winky is basically a smaller, litter hitting version of toney, yeah not a hard fight for james at all.

 

Why do I even waste my time arguing boxing with people with obvious agendas.
atsch

 

YOu seem to have an obvious agenda too.

Hopkins only unified in 2001 after 5 years defending the IBF strap. There's nothing wrong being a diehard Hop fan but it's clear that Toney's resume is far better that Hopkins'.

True that Hopkins had been more consistent...but his comp level count against him.

 

The McCallum win alone is better than any win on Hopkins' resume.

People give **** to Toney for having close decisions, but they were close decisions to great fighters. If Toney fought all of Hopkins opposition you'd likely not see many " MD " or " SD " listed as a result on boxrec. And vice versa.. if Hopkins fought some of the opposition that Toney fought.. you damn well know Hopkins would have a couple close-calls here and there.

As for title belts.. Hopkins became undisputed by beating Trinidad, someone who Toney would've absolutely annihilated. :good

 

See you just touched on one of the biggest things that knocks Toney down so far.

You say if Toney had fought Hopkins resume, he would have beaten them all.....or at least you inferred that...well, with James, you just never knew. Would you get the Mccallum Toney or the Tiberi one. So to say that he would have beaten everyone on Hopkins resume is a joke...because history doesnt support it. He just NEVER put it together night in and night out.

And talk all you want about resume...but there are other factors that come into a decision on who is better....and not ONE of those support James.

:thumbsup

 

Even the version of Toney that fought Tiberi would beat Trinidad easier than Hopkins did. :yep

Sure you have to factor other things, but wins over strong opposition are the most important, imo. Calzaghe has claim to a better resume than Hopkins on the Kessler win alone.

 

check out this old school thread

http://www.eastsideboxing.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33094

 

So your saying Tiberi would have beaten Trinidad??? Cause that my friend is LAUGHABLE.

But, again, noone wants to talk about the other things...because they dont support James...and therefor dont support your arguements.

Toney never held more than one belt...and in turn, never unified a division (and Hopkins unified by beating Holmes AND Trinidad...not just Tito...). Toney was one of the most inconsistant fighters in recent history. Toney as another person stated "wasted 8 years" of his career (that was someone PICKING JAMES!!!). Toney lost many, MANY fights that he should have WALKED THROUGH...due to either lack of focus or lack of conditioning. Toney also has not one, but TWO steriods clouds over his head for his career.

Resume is all well and good and you can argue that. Head to head as well. And tho I feel most are far overlooking Bernard in these two areas (what else is new)....there are just more to it than that. Yet noone picking James want to acknowledge these things...

Wonder why???

:huh

 

Hopkins no doubt..

 

:good

 

Don't be ridiculous.

What other things? More crap about belts?..

He never unified because he wasn't given the opportunity. Yes, Toney has losses he shouldn't have but his wins overshadow any wins OR losses on Hopkins' record. And as long as we're going to split hairs.. could Hopkins have ever even dreamed about moving up to CW and beating a fighter like Jirov?

I acknowledged everything you've just said, and even with less Ls on his record Hopkins record STILL isn't as impressive as Toney's.

And as I said before.. I'd favor Hopkins over Toney, H2H.