Was James Toney MORE talented than Floyd Mayweather?

James toney i loved to watch him fight. he did not have the longevity or fame because as others have said he lacked discepline. His skill level is comprable to mayweather and better inside. I think winky wright deserves a mention here and if he had a hammer would a legend. He was robbed more than costellano

 

I would have to say Floyd. Talent has to be honed and many athletes (any sport) are very meticulous and obsessive about preparation. That is how they get, and remain talented. Floyd demonstrated it over a longer period. Toney was inconsistent. You could argue that Toney had more potential, but not that he was more talented.

I'm no hockey fan but I read an article once about Jaromir Jagr and in the offseason he would walk around his house with a plastic hockey stick and stickhandle while just walking around. His obsession is why he gained and remained talented.

 

I like these hypotheticals as such as the next guy, but "talent" is hard to define.

From comments on this thread we know we're supposed to separate "talent" from "achievement".

Talent roughly could then be equivalent to what people sometimes call "God-given ability".

And what is God-given ability? Modern science tell us us that it is none other than DNA.

So the question in this thread is, effectively: who had better boxing DNA, Mayweather or Toney?

Floyd, like Lomachenko, the Williams sisters and Andre Agassi (in tennis), Tiger Woods and others were essentially raised from birth to be professional athletes. It seems possible that a sufficient amount of talent + intense training starting at a young age is sufficient to produce what appears to be virtuoso God-Given talent. In fact, it is more likely a combination of very good to excellent "talent"/DNA plus thousands of hours of training starting at a very young age.

But what if someone did *not* have an overbearing parent planning their professional future for them out of the crib? In this case, "talent" probably plays a bigger role in success. Since I don't think Toney had any such parental figure, I conclude on this basis that he probably had the greater natural talent/DNA than Floyd, since he achieved similar *skill level* without the benefit of out-of-the-crib lifelong grooming.

 

Both incredibly talented in their own way.

 

I love Toney, without doubt right up there with my all-time favourites. But I think Mayweather had more all-round talent.

Toney could make it look more natural and effortless - but only when he was facing someone who couldn't stop him fighting the way he wanted to, or who suited his style. That's the difference, for me. Try and rush him, come square-on, throw wide shots: he'd make you look a fool without breaking a sweat. In those particular circumstances, he looked an unequalled talent.

But he was nowhere near as adaptable as Floyd, nowhere near as good when faced with a slick mover who was trying to keep things long. It's one of the reasons I'd have picked Kalambay to be a nightmare for Toney had they met in the early 90s.

Floyd might not quite have had that effortless-looking flow that Toney was capable of, but he could always be relied on to deliver an exemplary performance against any style. Some of Toney's problems were self-inflicted, but I do believe he was also hampered by a couple of physical / technical deficiencies that Mayweather never was.

 

Toney possessed the same tools, physically, I think. Mayweather a more natural talent between the ears though. As much as you can nurture hard-work and motivation, I don't think you can gain the ring IQ Mayweather has across even 10 careers, that's just a complete gift.

 

an in shape & on point Toney standing flat footed in the pocket ...I could watch that all day !!!