I never understood why so many people believe a focused Toney would have been the best of all time or unbeatable.
I say Toney. Toney had the natural skills other fighters would envy. But I will always wonder how much better Toney could have been if he truly dedicated himself to get in proper condition.
Toney being able to fight heavyweights and bigger fighters when he started out at 160 has to be worth something when it comes to p4p. Toney shoudl be rated higher than Hopkins because he beat better or at least as good opposition while taking on all comers. Hopkins didn't take on all comers and test himself like Toney. In fact Hopkins himself backed out of a fight with James Toney and instead of taking roughly 2.5 or 3 million i believe it was he fought for 100,000 grand against Hakker.
I don't have a problem with anybody ranking Toney higher P4P than Hopkins as he beat better opposition in a greater stretch of weight classes. But the poster I quoted used the fact that Toney competed against and beat heavyweights to support his claim that Toney was the better overall fighter (in terms of skill). I think that's a flawed argument and really doesn't support his opinion all that well.
I agree that Hopkins reached his full potential while Toney didn't. STILL, Toney is the better fighter imho. People claim that Hopkins was the overall better fighter since he had better offensive skills while Toney was only good counterpunching fighters that came to him. That is not true, Toney could fight aggressive, and very effective at that. Proved that in numerous fights, especially early in his career. Of course, when he could stick to counterpunching, he did it, since that was where he was best at, but he was also able to attack effectively. Toney fought 79 pro fights in his career, he fought a lot of great opposition, in 5 different divisions. Fought at the top in every division. Even his HW resume is decent. In these 79 fights he was knocked down once by Reggie Johnson. Knockdowns were also scored against him by Samuel Peter and RJJ, these where half punches half pushes and Toney was off-balance. His record speaks for himself, all in all it's better than Hopkins, who stayed at MW for much of his career and fought fewer greats than Toney. Hopkins did better against RJJ tho, but they both lost. Also, during his last years, Hopkins fought more and more dirty, and he clinches a lot. I understand that since he is 43 years old and has to compensate with that for his diminished physical abilities (he still is in very good shape for a man his age), and it's effective, but it's not really good boxing. Toney don't fight dirty, he always had a great, exciting AND effective style.. Like someone else said here, if Toney had the discipline of Hopkins, we would have had the perfect fighter.
Do we really have to make things up to make points here? Hopkins fought Hakkar in 2003.... Any idea who Toney was fighting in 2003 (dont worry, I can wait while you boxrec it)? Jirov at CW and Holyfield at HW. So by your assessment, the undisputed MW champion of the world, who was approaching the record for consecutive title defenses, was going to forget about all that, throw his belts in the trash ala Riddick Bowe (Hakkar was a mandatory, meaning if they didnt fight, Hopkins gets stripped and bye bye record) and move up to HW for 2.5 to 3m???? WHERE THE **** DO YOU PEOPLE GET THIS ****???? atsch
Toney have fight tougher competition and would have probably win head to head match up. So I would say Toney was greater fighter overall. Hopkins resume is nothing to be shamed about tough
Toney should be remembered as one of those rare ol fighters had all the ol moves & used it effectively in the new era of boxing
2 of my favourite fighters of all time so I hate to pick one over the other. Toney while a great fighter isn't the invincible fighter some make him out to be. Have people forgotten how Nunn was out boxing him until he was stopped, how Griffin beat him twice and not to mention a few other fights which were closer than they should have been. Yes some of this was due to conditioning and motivation but some of it also comes down to the style. Toney at his best sat in the pocket while fighters came to him and made them miss and then countered them silly. This was why he was so effective at heavyweight even though he was much smaller. Every heavyweight he fought went straight for him a played into hands and fought the way he wanted to fight. Fighters that used movement and tried to counter him rather than falling into the role of aggressor gave him trouble. The same thing can be said about Hopkins in that he prefers to counter but he was more versatile than Toney and could use movement as well as fight on the inside. Combine that with a height advantage and a good jab and I'd give Hopkins the slight edge. Hopkins by split decision. I only wish Don King had paid Hopkins what he had agreed to and them they would have fought in August 2003 and we would know for sure.
