You only ever focus on his worst performances and his defeats. His best wins are just tossed away because they were close fights or because he was behind on the cards etc. You also do the same thing regarding McCallum. You only focus on McCallum’s worst performances and his defeats, even if they were when he was old and up at higher weights, which has no relevance on a discussion regarding the MW division. You say that Toney couldn’t have beaten GG because he lost x amount of times. You say that McCallum couldn’t have beaten GG because he also lost x amount of times. Yet on another thread, you have Hopkins beating GG, despite the fact that he accumulated almost the same amount of losses as what Toney did, and even more than what McCallum did. So where’s the logic in that? Explain it to me.
Tiberi beat Toney. Oh, boy, permission! Gee, thanks You could miss the point on a sea urchin. and here they are: Official Judging Bob Watson 99 - 91 Dalby Shirley 98 - 92 Gary Merritt 97 - 93 These are the official cards: Official Judging Bob Watson 99 - 91 Dalby Shirley 98 - 92 Gary Merritt 97 - 93 Notice the "Official Judging" headline. ^Opinion. The problem is that you rehash points over and over. You don't seem to 'get' things when you're told once. It appears that you have a great problem in grasping concepts. Yes. here are the official scores, to prove it: Official Judging Bob Watson 99 - 91 Dalby Shirley 98 - 92 Gary Merritt 97 - 93 He kept getting hit over and over like a dummy. Have you even watched the fight? Here we go again. Loudon repeating the same stuff that I posted. It's like he has to make sure he himself grasps it before repeating another point YOU never watched the fight. Have you posted the official scores yet? No. No you have not. You have just admitted that you never watched the fight. Here are the official scores: Official Judging Bob Watson 99 - 91 Dalby Shirley 98 - 92 Gary Merritt 97 - 93 I think I have proved my point here Your points are as pointy as a blunt pencil. I suspect that you are incapable of debating. I've been discussing the specifics all the time. I've compared Toney getting beaten to a drum AND a tambourine. I shall now add a third instrument: he got beaten like a xylophone. Does this help you at all? I've given him credit for hanging in there until Nunn gassed himself out. What more do you want? A statue to his memory? I know what the official scores are. Want to see them again? After all your hysterics, you post this? Nice smokescreen. You were caught and apprehended trying to flog off a novice as a guy that could beat a MW with 20 title defences. He's either a novice or a force, which one is it? Why won't you answer my points? OMG I give Toney credit for getting beaten like a pinata until his opponent gassed. That's four similes now. I'm guessing we're not done yet.
I focus on ALL of his performance at 160-168 and see some suspect things. McCallum was 35 when he faced a prime Toney and I think edged it. Who is best opponent that Toney beat cleanly, meaning he was way behind on the score cards, and not counting Split Decisions ( as they were close ) , and what was the age of that fighter? Can you answer that? I have Hopkins over Toney base don how they match up, and Hopkins was a far more consistent fighter at 160-168. Meanwhile GGG In his prime ripped though many ring magazine ranked opponents with out issues, only to be robbed past his prime vs Canelo. GGG has no bad performances because he was that good. On McCallum in his prime he was a good one for sure. He also lost to the best fight five fought. No need to prop him up on some mountain to make Toney look better. Your logic needs work, don't mix apples with oranges, and say oh that result was a pair.
Oh dear me. WTF is this supposed to be? You’d have been better not replying at all. There’s literally nothing here to debate. Pathetic.
No you are the fan boy. You're such a fanboy that I suspect you were responsible for weather phenomena like the Gulf Stream. Yes it does. If Johnson, Tiberi and McCallum had gotten the nods we wouldn't even be having this conversation. At best you'd be railing on about how Toney was underrated and that he ran those three really close. I might even agree with you, who knows. And many favourable decisions. I've already explained this. And yet again, that's your opinion. Everybody seems to be creaming their pants over Watson, who does not nearly look to be on the level of Murray. He never made a name on the world stage and here he's built up like some superhero I'm not even going to bother posting a list of names because you will simply say that the fighters in question suck. That will be ... guess what ... your opinion, again. Bigger, younger, harder hitting. Jacobs is a rehydration specialist and should probably be in a higher weightclass. The version of McCallum we are talking about is visibly slower and stiffer than he was in his prime. But you knew this. Gee thanks boss. Maybe let us know when you change the rules again. Oh boy. Here we go again. The meds have worn off. Bigger, younger, harder hitting. Jacobs is a rehydration specialist and should probably be in a higher weightclass. The version of McCallum we are talking about is visibly slower and stiffer than he was in his prime. But you knew this. Bigger, younger, harder hitting. Jacobs is a rehydration specialist and should probably be in a higher weightclass. The version of McCallum we are talking about is visibly slower and stiffer than he was in his prime. But you knew this. Bigger, younger, harder hitting. Jacobs is a rehydration specialist and should probably be in a higher weightclass. The version of McCallum we are talking about is visibly slower and stiffer than he was in his prime. But you knew this. At least I watch the fights. You comment on fights you haven't even seen. Fighters can age overnight. Loudon "the scores don't matter" Cool story bro. Why do you keep bringing other weights into it? We are talking about 160. I'll take Canelo over Sumbu, Jacobs over Toney and Derevyanchenko over Graham. You may commence your blathering and raging. You've been losing the entire debate. Nah I disagree.
Mendoza, You don’t. You’ve been exposed numerous times. Again, I have no issue with you thinking that McCallum won. That is YOUR OWN BS criteria. He KNOCKED OUT a prime version of Michael Nunn, who was a top 3 P4P fighter at the time. Answer my question. Why don’t you give him credit for the win? That’s fine. I’ve no problem with that. But then choose GG over both Mike and Toney based on styles, instead of just noting how many losses they both had. Yes, Hopkins was very consistent. He was far more professional than Toney. But he spent 13 years at MW where he fought lesser opponents than Toney’s best. He did rip through them. But you have already admitted that they were lesser opponents than Nunn and McCallum. Hopkins lost EIGHT TIMES. Again, if you think that GG would have beaten Mike and Toney, then base it on styles. Can you not see what you have done?? You have said that Mike wouldn’t have beaten GG, because he lost on 5 occasions. Yet you have also said that Hopkins would have beaten GG, despite the fact that he lost on 8 occasions. And if you’re going to note that Hopkins didn’t lose 8 times at MW, then I will note that McCallum didn’t lose all of his fights at MW either. You are all over the place here. It’s one rule for some fighters and another rule for the others. Mike McCallum losing 5 times in his career, has no bearing on a fantasy fight against GG at MW. And that’s because 3 of those losses came at LHW and CW when he was older and at the end of his career. Do you understand that? You can’t say that McCallum couldn’t have beaten GG at MW when he was 35, on the grounds that he lost to a prime Roy Jones when he was 40 at LHW. Either use the SAME criteria for all of the fighters, or don’t bother debating at all. Take your own advice. You have an 8 loss Hopkins beating GG, but then say that a 5 loss McCallum wouldn’t have been able to. Have a word with yourself. Sort yourself out.
You've just admitted that you can't handle my arguments with your non-answer. You're clearly befuddled and have lost your way. You can't reply to any of my points. Maybe you need to eat another packet of raisins and try again.
I am happy to debate with anyone. I will respond to your second post as there’s something to work with. But your initial post had nothing for me at all. Surely you can see that. You posted the same score cards FOUR TIMES. If you want to debate, here I am. Give me something to debate.
Here are the official scorecards: Official Judging Bob Watson 99 - 91 Dalby Shirley 98 - 92 Gary Merritt 97 - 93
Home town judging, the fight was in Iowa, Michael’s hometown.By the way, as you always agree with the official card, you agree that Toney won against Tiberi then?
Lies. Kell Brook showed how easy he was to hit with speed , timing and counter punching. Danny Jacobs who was also fast compounded that realty even further. You have an excuse for these fights because you are the biggest excuse maker on the forum. What happened when Golovkin fought Brook , Jacobs and Canelo?? He stopped fighting guys who were slow Murray - Slow Geale - Slow Macklin- Slow Rubio - Slow Munroe and Wade - Slow Lemiuex - A hooker with no range Brook - Fast with a good jab Jacobs - Fast and rangy Canelo - Very fast with elite level skills There's a pattern here , can you see it? Doesn't matter, its there whether you like it or not. Furthermore , never had a bad performance?? The footage is about to prove you wrong , again. Watch this D- level 154lb nobody pelt Golovkins head in every direction. Watch him fumble around the ring as he gets the sweat uppercutted off his head. Put Toney in there and GGG goes to sleep. . GGG is lucky he was in there with a feather fisted junior middle. This content is protected Go on , post your excuses and make everybody laugh
Man, GGG looks terrible in that fight. Let’s then match than that version of GGG against an in shape Toney.They like to pick the Tiberi version of Toney so why not.
