How good was James Toney at middleweight

DoinDamage
Super Welterweight
Posts: 11
Joined: 06 Mar 2015, 22:52

Re: How good was James Toney at middleweight

Post by DoinDamage »

fergusg wrote:
Counter-puncher wrote:Fergus- you calling toneys ko of nunn a lucky punch reminds me more than ever that you simply don't understand a lot of what you see in the ring.

don't worry you're far from being alone there, Nunn-Toney is a widely-misunderstood fight.
Are you saying that James Toney made a premeditated decision to lose round-after-round, because his entire strategy was reliant on catching Michael Nunn with a one-off wonder punch? :-? :??
That fight was close. I bet you haven't even seen the fight lol. Toney haters go off three things to hate, his weight, the Nunn/Jones fights, and every fight that ever went to decision. Cry harder and quit trying to sound like a boxing enthusiasts.
tiny_acres
Middleweight
Posts: 9468
Joined: 17 Feb 2014, 14:43

Re: How good was James Toney at middleweight

Post by tiny_acres »

DoinDamage wrote:
fergusg wrote:
Counter-puncher wrote:Fergus- you calling toneys ko of nunn a lucky punch reminds me more than ever that you simply don't understand a lot of what you see in the ring.

don't worry you're far from being alone there, Nunn-Toney is a widely-misunderstood fight.
Are you saying that James Toney made a premeditated decision to lose round-after-round, because his entire strategy was reliant on catching Michael Nunn with a one-off wonder punch? :-? :??
That fight was close. I bet you haven't even seen the fight lol. Toney haters go off three things to hate, his weight, the Nunn/Jones fights, and every fight that ever went to decision. Cry harder and quit trying to sound like a boxing enthusiasts.
I was at the fight.I had Nunn winning the first 7 rounds easily.
Toney made it competitive in the 8th 9th and 10th.
Toney came back and I give him credit.But Nunn dominated the 1st 7 rounds
Chepppaaa
Super Middleweight
Posts: 2626
Joined: 01 Jun 2013, 19:32

Re: How good was James Toney at middleweight

Post by Chepppaaa »

ikorolev wrote:
Chepppaaa wrote: i said it often enough, yesterday for example somebody made a thread about darnell broone being the best journeyman in boxing and i was downplaying broone by answering "who", like i didnt knew broone, basicly, that broone was a bad journeyman. but than the other told me what broone achieved as a journeyman and i pretty much admitted that i was wrong and that broone wasnt that bad as i thought and answered, that broone might be one or if not the best journeyman. one, of many examples.
You just accepted your INCOMPETENCE which you underscored again by misspelling BOONE multiple times. Give me an example where you changed your OPINION.

i gave you an example already with boone. me missspelling his name doesnt make no difference to the subject.
hurricanemitch14
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 828
Joined: 13 Apr 2004, 02:35

Re: How good was James Toney at middleweight

Post by hurricanemitch14 »

U guys r ate the fornicate up.......move on.

James Toney was an amazing fighter, middle to heavy. No matter what weight he has had problems with movers in all weight classes. Hell even Sam Peter was moving around in the rematch. He likes to fight guys that come foward. Case solved.
jas80s
Cruiserweight
Posts: 572
Joined: 15 Oct 2010, 20:55

Re: How good was James Toney at middleweight

Post by jas80s »

Just one quick note about the Nunn-Toney fight, I don't put a ton of stock in the scorecards in a fight in which one of the fighters was fighting in his hometown. Again, Nunn was ahead, but acting like the cards were evidence of some kind of domination is not a convincing argument to me.

It's funny to me that we are focusing on Nunn as evidence of Toney not being particularly special, when it could be argued that his ability to adjust and begin to reach a supremely talented boxer who was stopped ONCE in 60+ fights is perhaps evidence of how great he might have been at 160 had he stayed.

If it were me and I wanted to dump on James Toney, I wouldn't talk about Nunn...I'd lay into him (metaphorically) on really losing to Tiberi, looking pretty listless and never doing a whole lot with Reggie Johnson (not as good as Nunn, IMO) and the reality that he probably never could have done much of anything with the the speed of a guy like Roy Jones, would that fight have been decidedly different at 160? Doubtful. To me, all more damning arguments against him.
jas80s
Cruiserweight
Posts: 572
Joined: 15 Oct 2010, 20:55

Re: How good was James Toney at middleweight

Post by jas80s »

fergusg wrote:
jas80s wrote:It's funny to me that we are focusing on Nunn as evidence of Toney not being particularly special...
I thought that James Toney was a very good middleweight in his day, but certainly not a Hall-of-Famer, considering that five of his seven championship bouts were monumental struggles that he could (and possibly should) have tasted defeat in two or three of them.

My opinion of the Nunn fight is already well-known, but my comments about Toney’s performances against Reggie Johnson, Mike McCallum and Dave Tiberi have been pretty much ignored. People refuse to discuss them, because it merely serves to prove that (a junk food addict like) James was very beatable and weight-drained as a 160lb-er.

People like to reminisce about “the good ole days” by considering fighters whose primes were more than twenty years ago through rose-tinted nostalgic glasses, and regarding them unstoppable destructive behemoths, when reality painted a drastically contrasting picture of events!

James Toney was an impressive middleweight, but seemed very beatable and failed to dominate the division.
I would agree with a lot of that, I just don't see the Nunn fight the same way you do. Like most discussions here, I'd say we are in 95 percent agreement on the subject being discussed.

In fact, I'm not sure anyone here is really that far from what you are saying about Toney. It's not like anyone is really arguing he is one of the top 5 middles all time or anything like that.

His hall of fame credentials is a tough question too. He did some impressive things, but he lost a few big fights and he was dinged for roids....In the end, I think he had more talent than his accomplishments ended up showing, though overall he clearly had a fine career. It would be easy to say he should get in, but I'll bet if one saw the list of other guys also up for induction he would quickly move to the bubble...
Steo
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 13
Joined: 21 Mar 2012, 20:28

Re: How good was James Toney at middleweight

Post by Steo »

fergusg wrote:
Steo wrote:
fergusg wrote:James Toney was merely a decent fighter at 160lbs. His victories over Nunn, Tiberi, Johnson and McCallum were very fortunate indeed!
:doh:

Only the victory over Tiberi was fortunate, in fact that was a robbery. The others were very good wins against great fighters
Toney was a country mile behind on the scorecards when he scored a lucky one punch KO over Nunn.
Are you kidding me. I can't believe you could call it a lucky punch. That was a master class blow, man, not a lucky punch. Just a second before that punch Toney switch to southpaw stance and beat Nunn to the punch with a fantastic left hand. And Toney started to land heavy punches in the last 3 or 4 rounds before the KO
Post Reply