Mayweather-Corrales. Jones-Toney. Why are 2 of the best wins of our era criticized?

No because neither fighter pushed the action. Jones/Hopkins was even worse.

 

Putting on 17 lbs in 32-36 hours isn't all that uncommon in this era.

Toney put on like 20 lbs a year later against Mateen and looked fine when he wasn't getting hit with 900 rabbit punches.

Toney may not have been 100%, but it's the exception rather than the norm when Toney is in top shape.

Jones was just an awful style matchup.

 

I agree with the first part of your post, Toney failed at that one.

 

He controlled his weight for the Williams and Littles fight. If that version of Toney would have showed up, the fight would have been more competitive.I do not pretent Toney would have won as Jones presented a very difficult style for him. In fact Jones would have won a close decision in my opinion.

 

He put on 20 pounds but was waering shoes etc...It was about the same amount he put on for the Jones fight. Plus, the Mateen fight was at lightheavy where Toney was litle bit more comfortable. And Mateen is not Roy Jones.

 

Guys put on 15-17 lbs pretty frequently under these new rules.

I think Toney is just lazy in general when it comes to training and eating habits. He had some fights where he was in great shape (McCallum I), but it was probably the exception rather than the norm.

It just showed more against not only a ridiculously talented fighter in Jones, but also a fighter who stylistically was hell for Toney.

 

I agree, Jones is a stylistical difficult fight for Toney who was oftentimes lazy during his career.

But when in shape, Toney does put on less weight after the weigh in. Two examples, Jirov and Griifin II where only add 9 pounds and 6 pounds weighing 184 and 196.

 

:rofl ...still laughing at the title of the thread.

The best wins of our era..

Toney-Jones wasn't even a good fight.

If the fight is not even good, how can the win be the best...???

...must be considering the fighters resumes (which I thought this had nothing to do with) to make it seem better than it is, because it sure as hell wan't the fight.

 

sometimes you look at a fighter and you see that he is not the same as usual. Then you think is it more because his opponent is so much better than him or is there some outside factor influencing him on this night.

For example when I saw Chad Dawson vs Adamek, Dawson won that fight handily, but Adamek looked like complete crap. He didn't look like himself.

When Tito lost to Hopkins, that was a totally different story. Hopkins was timing Tito all night and Tito was actually trying hard and in good shape but just couldn't do anything. I think Tito could have beaten quite a few MW on that night. Hopkins figured him out and broke him down in the ring.

Sometimes excuses are valid, sometimes they aren't.

 

He didnt say best fights he said best wins...And to some degree I think that he is right...When you look back at those fights at the time both Jones and Floyd were huge dogs, and very few thought that they would win...Now it seems as if people think that it was the other way around, like somehow that Jones and Floyd were the fave and they did what they were suppose to do. That isnt the case.

 

I agree 100% excellent post!:good

 

Let's not exaggerate. Both fights were close to pick-ems.

 

Somtimes its the fighter on the other side of the ring that makes the guy look bad...I think that excuses are rarely valid. One that comes to mind is Chavez putting some makeup over a cut before his fight with Oscar then the fight being stopped on cuts. that was an excuse for a lost, fight should have been postponed, or Mitchell fighting Tsyzu with a torn ACL...Most other excuses are just that EXCUSES and bull****.