James Toney v Bernard Hopkins at middleweight

[palooka]

I treated myself to watching James Toney v Mike McCallum 1 on YouTube yesterday. Over the years I had forgotten what a wonderful boxer and counterpuncher Toney was; he was also quick thinking and fast. I realised that Honey and Hopkins had not faced off and wonder who would have won if they had met at middleweight. I think a fit and focussed Toney would have been a step ahead of Bernard. Any takers?

[Woldemar]

Toney UD as well.

[palooka]

The recent Frankie Gavin v Skeets was called a 'chess match' but a Toney v Hopkins bout would have been like Deep Blue v Kasparov.

[Broomhall]

I would have to say Toney who with his mind on the job could have been a genuine great. But if he was not focused then Hopkins could steal it.

Such a tragedy to listen to Toney speak now.

[BoxBuzz]

I'd favor Toney, partly because I truly think he could under Bernard's skin and get Bhop off his game.

[observer1]

Hopkins UD imo.

Toney was good MW, but he did have some stinkers. Largely because he has ALWAYS had that lazy streak.

[BoxBuzz]

Hopkins UD imo.

Toney was good MW, but he did have some stinkers. Largely because he has ALWAYS had that lazy streak.

That's a fact. But I doubt don't think he'd show up to a Hopkins match lazy.

[klompton]

Hopkins, very bad style matchup for Toney.

[dempseyfire]

Hopkins by decision. Toney at 160 fought in spurts. Hopkins at his peak was fast and active, plus had the killer defensive and countering skills he'd live off of later in his career. Would be a technical fight fan's dream, of which I'm one.

[Seamus]

I think it would be close. But you have to remember, at 160, Hopkins kept a fight with a prime Roy Jones Jr, very close, at least I thought so. At MW, Hopkins has the speed advantage, and I think that would be the big difference.