Best technician: Hopkins or Toney?

Can't believe you of all people asked this.

 

As a fan of both, James Toney of 1991-1994 showed me more from a technical perspective than Bernard has. McCallum 1 and Nunn were proof of high-level skills as I see it. Bernard Hopkins of 1996-2002 was a tremendous fighter too, but I don't see the same intuitive abilities that Toney had. JMHO. Two greats.

 

I never said Toney looked unbeatable against McCallum and Nunn. I never actually said anything like that. Obviously he didn't look unbeatable, considering McCallum 1 was a close fight which was scored a draw, and Toney was behind on the cards at the time of the Nunn stoppage.

However, my point had nothing to do with 'unbeatability', it had to do with technical excellence, which in my opinion Toney showed at points in both fights. It's too difficult to look unbeatable against elite opposition.

I would be very interested to see your card for Toney-McCallum 1 if you think McCallum bested James. I had it as a clear win for JT, I think the draw was a bad call.

 

Mcallum at 35 still wipes the floor with Allen and Echols. Toney was a very inconsistent fighter but for the purpose of this thread we are comparing the best versions of each fighter. Toney looked dreadful in a few fights, but the focused well conditioned Toney was a hell of a fighter. Hopkins certainly "bests" him in that department, he always came prepared.

 

Mcallum and Nunn were excellent fighters. I cant think of too many guys Hopkins beat on their level. Can you?

 

I've seen Toney fight live twice. Ringside for the Jirov fight and great seats for Adolfo Washington, and I think he's a better technician the Hops. He sits in the pocket and makes his guy miss punches by a fraction of an inch and than counters with pinpoint accuracy. His footwork is very subtle, moving his man where he wants him with small steps. Everything seems so smooth.

Hopkins is also great, but it seems to stem more from his having studied an opponent to a T rather than the natural ability Toney has. That's not a swipe at Hops, greatness is greatness no matter how it acquired, but I'll stick with Toney.

 

Its simply to point out stylistic deficiencies. We all know Hopkins was more of a consummate pro and Toney had two very bad periods in his life where boxing was not a priority in his life.

 

Kind of how I see it. :good

 

You should re-watch the first fight mate. Toney deserved the decision, had Mike in serious trouble at the final bell, and was the better man on the night, technically superior IMO, he did the more effective work.

 

It's close. I am a fan of Hopkins and like to see Toney do his thing when he's on though Hopkins was on much more in his career than Toney. Both have questionable losses(Toney's win over Tiberi was a gift BTW) and both are very skilled fighters. Their deep knowledge of fundamentals is what helped them fight on for so long.