Tommy Burns v James Toney

Toney

 

Toney puts a merciless beating on the 5'7' Little Giant of Hanover Burns, then BBQ's him and eats him.

FFS there are videos to watch of Burns fighting. At anything over 168 he has not a chance in hell of beating
a decent modern LHW and up boxer. He could possibly beat a slow SMW because he certainly had a good
right hand, but anyone with movement beats him up. His movement diminishes as an asset as he goes up in weight.

 

Toney-Jirov is one of the most overrated fights in history. Toney's cult following is a curious phenomenon.
He'd probably beat Tommy Burns though, but I don't know.

 

Tommy Burns fought in an era of savagery in boxing with basically leather work gloves used in matches. Take Toney back to his era and I'd bet the farm on Burns.

 

Toney's cult following is not a curious phenomenon. Toney at his best produced some of the most eye catching, watchable and sweetest moments the sweet science has ever seen. A flat footed counter puncher is rare. A flat footed counter puncher who is willing to throw a ton of punches is even rarer. A flat footed counter puncher who has only decent power but rose through several weight classes but could hang with legit heavyweights as a fat, underpowered former middleweight getting by on nothing but skill and toughness against 240lb superheavyweights literally narrows it down to a category of one. Like him or not James Toney is utterly unique in the history of boxing. He is an ATG counter-puncher with an ATG Chin who eschewed everything we know about training for anything but BOXING. He sacraficed his brain at the altar of boxing. It showed. I for one appreciate the sacrafice.

Also TOney vs Jirov is like Gatti vs Ward with far superior skills at play from both men. If you don't enjoy that fight, maybe boxing isn't the sport for you.

 

My favorite fight of all time. My hilariously poor and drunken commentary of that fight here.

This content is protected

 

I thought it was a good fight.

 

I don't think there is a credible counter argument. Burns may have been a bigger hitter ,in fact I'd say he was ,but Toney has the skills to negate just about anything Burns can do.

 

I will give you a simple answer.

Burns defeated the current lineal heavyweight champion, and he also defeated the current lineal light heavyweight champion, while himself weighing under the light heavyweight limit.

He could have held the title at both weights, if only he had bothered to claim the light heavyweight title.

Objectively that makes his resume significantly better than Toney's, in the higher weight classes.

If we are going on resume, then we would probably say Toney if the fight was held at middleweight or super middleweight, and Burns if it was held at light heavyweight or cruiserweight.

 

Reznick is a good guy but his statements in this thread are outrageous. Burns reflexes too quick for toney?

I think you should rewatch the michael nunn fight. Not everyone is Roy Jones and even roy got caught with the counter right, it just wasnt enough.
14:45
17:31
17:50
21:44

This content is protected

Toney couldnt force finishes?
Toney had a disproportionately high number of late round stoppages and had alot of opponents on ***** street in the championship rounds after 10 tough rounds.
Ask mcCallum, jirov, michael nunn and prince charles williams

 

Maybe golf is better for you. Or tennis.

 

Marvin Hart was one of the weaker lineal heavyweight champions, but he was a legitimate lineal heavyweight champion.

He got his title shot by defeating an all time great, who had just cleaned out the heavyweight division.

I am very happy to call Burns the lineal heavyweight champion based on him beating Hart.

Your attempts to big up Toney's win over Holyfield are pure revisionism, because Holyfield was seen as an empty shell at the time, and the calls for his retirement became deafening after this fight.