James Toney - Modern Day Proof...

We do not know how long Toney had been on the steroids, so what ever credit you want to give him has to be with a *; and I suppose the same goes for Jones...

Walker was clean we he achieved what he did, thus he must be rated higher than a couple of drug cheats. But then this is still an American dominated sport and the USA and this sport (world wide) is very slack when it comes drug abuses in sports.

 

How do you think toney would have done against b-hop's comp?

de la hoya
trinidad
joppy
holmes
wright
tarver

Personally i think he beats them all, except maybe tarver.

 

His record against ranked heavyweights:

Holyfield: win, Holyfield was pretty much shot though.
Rahman: draw (Toney should've lost)
Peter I: Lost a close decision, Peter overweight
Peter II: Lost every round
Ruiz: No contest because he used steroids.

So that's a record of 1-1-1-1. Hardly what i'd call "extremely succesful". And Toney didn't do it at 160lbs. He was a natural light heavyweight and bulked up using steroids. And fat. But i think that improves the ability to take a punch (at a high cost of stamina and speed of course).

 

In a sense, yes. He proves that he can hang with some of the big guys.

I felt that the draw with Rahman was appropriate. Rahman could have won, but did not do enough to deserve a victory. Toney was a bit out of shape, and did not deserve the nod either. I bet on Rahman that time, but I didn't feel as though I was robbed when the draw was announced. That was how I scored it.

All Jones did at heavy was beat Ruiz. Toney did that and Holyfield. If you throw out the steroids, he beats Roy's resume at Heavyweight.

I've always felt that Wlad is way too big for him. I think you might have seen Toney's first loss by stoppage had that fight happened.

 

James Toney is modern day proof that:

1. Steroids help
2. The heavyweight division is in a shambles

 

hey tbooze.
the steds he was accused of taking were fat burners. they wernt performance enhancing drugs. also them steriods didnt keep him up against peters shots.
i think theres alot of politics in boxing. what are the chances of two men being charged with the same drug, and they fighting each other???

also he admitted to taking a drug against ruiz but that was for the WELL KNOWN injury to his bicep, to speed recovery.

i think toney is an amazing fighter, and the stuff he does in the ring doesnt come from taking steriods. i hate it when people bring steriods into it and try to belittle other ppls accomplishments. i hate smelly jealous ppl.

 

When i read "James Toney" and "proof" in the subject, i was 99% sure it was about steroid proof. Three times.

 

That is my point about boxing not taking drugs seriously; it does not matter why it was taken; if it is illegal you should be banned... period.

In the Winter Olympics of 2002 Scotsman Alain Baxter lost his Olympic medal when he tested positive for methamphetamine. His reason: he had a cold and took a Vicks inhaler. His mistake: Not realising an American Vicks inhaler had slightly different ingredients to that of this British inhaler.

Baxter was stripped of his Olympic medal, banned from the sport for six months and banned for life from the Olympics. But the man had class, admitted his mistake and fully accepted his punishment.

Boxing needs to sort its drugs policy out. And start throwing out at least 2 year bans increasing to life for a second offence, for drug offenders.

Toney should of been made an example of. And this is comming from formly one of his biggest supporters, I had a lot of time for Toney when I thought he was clean.

 

To spin it the other way you could argue that he beat Ruiz, Ramhan and Peter first time round.

You do realize that if he won the Ruiz and Ramhan fights he effectivley unified the two most important heavyweight title belts.

And he is no Harry Greb.

 

I'm not spinning anything.

He used illegal performance enhancing drugs against Ruiz, probably against others as well as he was caught in his fight vs Batchelder too.
Rahman outworked him.

You could argue he beat Peter, i thought Peter took it by one point. Still, that was a seriously overweight Peter; an inshape Peter in the rematch dominated him to a lopsided decision.

Be that as it may, his record is still 1-1-1-1 with the only win coming against a shot Holyfield.

 

:good

There's also the fact that Sam Peter is just barely on the verge of being a respectable champ.

 

The point is that neither Ruiz, Ramhan nor Peter first time round beat him convincingly. Any of these fights could have theoreticaly gone to Toney.

You are right to criticise him for using steroids but I will wager that a few of his opponents used them too. Would it shock you for example if Holyfield was using steroids when he fought Toney?

Bottom line is that the results offer little vindication for either party but they are more damaging to those who argue for a new generation of superheavyweights. Personaly I think Ramhan and Peter were damn lucky they wernt fighting Ezzard Charles instead.

 

Ruiz, Rahman and Peter aren't superheavyweights. None of them are over 6'2.

He was offered fights by both Klitschko's when he needed them and turned both of them down.