Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Mendoza, Oct 24, 2020.
That’s pretty much how I see it.
13-11-1 in favor of Hopkins. I have yet to read details on why some feel Toney would win. A come from begin stoppage for Toney is highly unlikely. Hopkins height and length would bother Toney, combined with his own defense and countering.
Up close Hopkins dirty fighting and body punching would probably edge Toney's in fighting.
Both at their best, I just think Toney is a bit more skilled and talented.
That's fair but why Toney? Out working him? Higher boxing IQ?
They could've fought twice - in 1993 and in 2003.
Bernard Hopkins was the #1 contender for Toney's IBF middleweight title. But Toney moved up to fight Barkley for the super middleweight title (one of Toney's best performances).
Hopkins fought for the vacant title against Roy Jones and Bernard lost a very clear-cut decision.
They were supposed to fight a second time in after Toney beat Jirov. Toney offered Hopkins a catchweight fight, but Bernard priced himself out. At the same time, Roy Jones was the WBA heavyweight champ and offered Holyfield a title fight, but Jones said Holyfield wanted too much money.
Since Hopkins and Jones were being difficult, Toney and Holyfield decided to fight each other instead. Again, it was one of the Toney's best performances, while Hopkins fought a ho-hum fight with Joppy and Jones nearly lost to Tarver.
I would've taken Toney over Hopkins either time.
Boxing IQ I think they are about even.Toney’s hand speed and superior counter punching abilities would charm the judges.Hopkins might land more punches but Toney the higher quality punches.In reality, there is not much to choose between the two.Judges did seem to likeToney at middleweight.Toney by close decision.But I would not argue much if one had it for Hopkins
Hopkins looked better vs Jones than Toney did and actually beat Jones at 175 many years a later.
Toney was the man who avoided the fight @160 pounds.
I see these Toney picks, but the explanation as to why is lacking.
For example I like Hopkins here. Why? He would be the better on the outside, fights smart, is hard to hit cleanly, and is not type the to be counted or hooked, which are Toney's forte's. In the clinches, Hopkins was a very skilled dirt fighter, not that it should count, but its a tactic he used in key fights before without getting docked points
Because Hopkins wasn't all that great in 1993. He lost to Jones. He tried to win the IBF belt a second time against Segundo Mercado and got dropped twice and drew. It took him three cracks at a VACANT IBF belt to win one. In 2003, he was coming off the Morrade Hakkar fight, one of the worst middleweight title fights in history. Hakkar was terrible, and Hopkins struggled to put him away.
Toney was operating on all cylinders in 1993 and in 2003. The Barkley, Jirov and Holyfield wins are among his three best performances in the ring. They all occurred around the same times fights with Hopkins were floated. I didn't see Hopkins being all that successful either time the fights were brought up those years.
All right, that's what I asked for. While the Boxing IQ may be close, Hopkins has the focus advantage and more versatility to his game. If the 35 year old Mike McCallum, who has lost some speed by the time he meet Toney lost his speed used his height and reach to out land Toney, Hopkins would do much the same , and mix in border line clinching.
If Hopkins lands more punches, he's going to be the winner here, as neither hits hard enough to bother the other.
Hopkins always picked the gameplan that gave him the best chance of winning. He would use his legs here and make Toney come to him. Hopkins 8-4.
Toney on points . Better fighter his attack is the difference.