Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by JohnThomas1, Sep 19, 2020.
This post is unbelievable after the biased bile that you have spewed over the last 70 pages.
I would have loved to have seen Jorge Castro fight GG.
Now get ready for Castro’s losses to be rolled out.
Was he not prime for Tiberi? You can still have an off night in your prime years. For proof, see James Toney. He had quite a few of them.
OK. I never said otherwise. In fact I specifically mentioned the word “performer” when I brought up consistency. Toney had poor performances from Middleweight to Heavyweight, from the 80s to the 2010s. Every stage. Every weight class.
Golovkin didn’t even start having close fights until his mid 30s. Admittedly, his opponents during this time (Canelo twice and Daniel Jacobs) were the best he’d faced in his career. So that muddies the waters a bit in regards to what caused the sudden drop in dominance, as well as how he’d have gotten on with fellow elites in his prime. The unfortunate decisions in the Alvarez fights only muddy things up further.
Agreed, although that could tighten up or be reversed altogether depending on how you scored their controversial fights.
Sure, I agree with that.
Definitely tested more. Fought in a much deeper era and wasn’t avoided in the same fashion. More proven? Tough to say.
He was proven to be more vulnerable, for sure. More inconsistent. I know, he fought far superior opposition, of course. However, the elites he faced weren’t the only ones he looked less than elite against.
His worst showing (and one of the most disgraceful robberies in modern boxing history) came against a guy who’d have been just another run of the mill title defense for Golovkin even in his lowly era.
Plus, he only managed to sneak away with a split decision over notoriously unskilled brawler (dangerous puncher, though) Merqui Sosa. There’s more. He was also fought to a 10 round draw by journeyman Sanderline Williams. Have only seen highlights myself, so I won’t go into depth on these two.
This is all disregarding his (continued) string of close, controversial, or come from behind fights when faced against the actual cream of the crop.
There’s a pattern. An underwhelming one.
Most often, yeah. Not always. Plenty of circumstances where that wouldn’t necessarily be true.
Anyways, it comes back to how you saw and/or scored their close fights. But on paper, yes. In fact I’ll go ahead and agree with you full stop on the matter of proof/wins, even though it’s not that black and white, in my opinion.
Despite agreeing on Toney being the more proven and accomplished fighter of the two, that still doesn’t make him the sure favorite in my eyes. Otherwise no former champ would lose to an up and comer, no reigning champ would lose to a title challenger, nobody moving up in weight would ever beat the opponent that’s naturally suited to said weight, etc.
I look at factors mostly unrelated to resume when analyzing how a matchup between two elites/greats would most likely play out.
This call is pretty easy for me, even if this fight isn’t for either fighter. We’ve got two men of similar stature and (presumably) quality facing off against each other. Neither holds any clear stylistic advantage that I can see. I try not to pigeonhole one or the other into a broader category as some in this thread have unfairly done.
What’s the factor that splits them? Only one of them always shows up on his A game.
James Toney never fought a middleweight that was a murderous body puncher like GGG, Dave Tiberi went to the body well and he won that fight but Dave was no 3 G as far as puncher power or technique - Dave had him hurt -GGG IMO would have finished him.
The reason Toney looked bad in that fight is because Tiberi went to the body HARD - Toney didn't like it
McCallum went to the body well but not the puncher of 3G and pressure important factor _ I like James Toney up in weight- Middleweights like 3G Hagler and Monzon & SRR too much
I think the OP's question should have specified the "version of Toney who fought Tiberi". It might have reduced the size of this thread by 70 pages.
Sure. But he wasn’t at his best was he?
GG fighting the version of Toney who fought Tiberi is a different debate altogether.
This is looking at the best versions of each fighter.
He didn’t have quite a few off nights at MW.
It muddies the water a lot.
He didn’t have any close fights. But not just because he was great, but also because he fought lesser opposition in a far less demanding schedule to what Toney had.
Even with the Canelo wins, Toney would have held the better overall wins.
I think he was definitely more proven.
Sure. Toney admits himself he should have lost. But he’d fought 5 fights in just 9 months, which included McCallum, Nunn and Reggie.
He fought Tiberi just 7 weeks after he’d fought McCallum where he was unmotivated and where he went to hospital afterwards due to being dehydrated.
Yes, Tiberi would have just been a run of the mill contender for GG. And I’ve no doubt that the best version of GG would easily have beaten Tiberi. But this is where you have to look at the circumstances.
Who knows how GG would have fared had he have fought Nunn, Reggie, McCallum and Tiberi, as well as an other opponent all in just a 9 month period.
Who knows how GG would have fared had he have fought Tiberi just 7 weeks after fighting McCallum, where he was unmotivated and not at his best.
He never fought under those circumstances.
Toney had fought 46 times before he fought Roy Jones in 1994, where he was just 26 years of age.
GG hasn’t fought that many times as it stands now where he’s currently 38.
They’re all relevant factors.
True. And they can’t be ignored. But then he was fighting literally once per month at that point.
Sure. I respect all of that. But this is looking at both fighters being at 100%, where they’d have fought to their full capabilities.
Sure, Toney wouldn’t have been a sure favourite. But at his best, he’d have to be favoured in my opinion, as again, he was more proven with the better wins.
Why would you bet on a guy who never fought or beat a great fighter in his prime?
Even at his best, he has question marks surrounding him.
Of course, you could bet if you favoured the odds etc, but I’m just looking hypothetically at if you had to bet a substantial amount on one of them.
If you did your homework and you weren’t worried about a Tiberi type performance from Toney because in this scenario he’d have been at his absolute best, then surely he’d have been the logical pick?
I greatly respect that.
IMHO, Toney had the better all around skills.
It’s not relevant. Because again, both fighters would have brought their A game in this scenario.
Again, you wouldn’t have had to have worried which version of James would have shown up.
It would have been the absolute best version of James who would have been in the ring on the night.
Re the points on stylistic advantage, I would just add that Toney didn't just have the overall superior armory; he had the ideal toolkit for a pressure-fighter, coming forward, behind the jab.
Toney had to work harder when he was having to look for his opponent, a la Nunn and Johnson. This would not be the case against Golovkin.
Toney fought Mike McCallum (The Body Snatcher) on 3 occasions, with 2 of them being at MW.
Yes, GG could have finished THAT version of Toney.
But nobody thinks that the version of Toney who fought Dave Tiberi was at his best.
Nobody knowledgeable believes that.
Toney had fought Mike McCallum just 7 weeks earlier and just went through the motions where he was unmotivated.
It was also reported that he went to hospital afterwards due to dehydration.
Sure, Tiberi deserves huge credit, and yes, he was robbed.
However, this thread is looking at the best versions of each fighter.
If the best version of James Toney lost to a C class fighter in Dave Tiberi, then how on earth did he beat Mike McCallum, Reggie Johnson, Michael Nunn, Iran Barkley, Tony Thornton, Tim Littles, Charles Williams and Vasilly Jirov etc?
If Tiberi had fought the best version of Toney, then irregardless of styles, Toney would not have been able to have beaten those fighters listed above.
It wouldn’t have been possible.
He wouldn’t have been good enough.
He’d also have been murdered up at CW and HW against any top 20 opponent.
Logic states that Tiberi was an off night due to his circumstances.
A rematch was set up, but Tiberi couldn’t agree to the terms so he retired.
Prime vs prime, GG knocking out Toney would have been the least likely thing to have happened out of all of the possible outcomes.
Toney wasn’t knocked out in 90 fights.
Choosing the Tiberi version of Toney here serves no purpose.
Mike McCallum was a better overall fighter than GG.
It’s getting ridiculous now.
GG would have gone and met him.
And as great as GG is, he had no advantages in skill, speed or size.
He has a short 70” reach, little head movement where he’s easy to hit, and he marks up easily.
It's a backhanded compliment to Toney, in a way.
Those favoring Golovkin seem only able to do so, if they envisage the match being against the worst Middleweight version of Toney.
Yet they then start moaning if you reference the Jacobs fight etc.
Apparently, that’s not fair as he wasn’t at his best.
That’s what Mendoza has done for 70 pages.
“Oh you can’t look at the Jacobs fight. He was past his best”
Two mins later:
“If Tiberi could beat Toney, then GG would easily have beaten him”
We’re dealing with a bunch of clowns.
It’s getting like the General on here.
Agreed. It happens all the time, when a currently active fan favorite is speculatively matched against a fighter from the past.
You can guarantee the ledger will be attacked and not just on the face of its adverse results, but even in regard to notable wins, which will be denigrated and misrepresented as worthless, by the mob.
At the same, the fan favorites' opposition magically develop superior skills.
I was particularly amused by the suggestion that Derevyanchenko possessed better footwork and use of angles than Toney. One of several gems, throughout this thread.