Page 4 of 4
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 23 Nov 2017, 15:50
by gilgamesh
Jones gets plenty of credit for both of those wins. They're seen as his key wins, when one of them (The Hopkins) one. Wasn't at the time he beat Hopkins. Hopkins would go on to greatness later. He lost, and fought to a draw in his first 2 title bouts. Roy was his first one.
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 23 Nov 2017, 16:38
by Kronkpride
Jip wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 15:47
Syntax Error wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 13:30
Kronkpride wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 00:45
Lights Out Toney. From MW to HW James Toney could get into the ring in his prime and give hell to every single top guy since 1970. There is no guy in that weight range the entire time that you can say James Toney doesn't belong in the ring with or have a chance against. His later career issues have cause many to forget how great he was. He was a fighter that played the weight game the wrong way. He stayed too light for too long and RJJ caught him. He didn't go up to HW in time to really show how great he could be in the division even though he won a belt and did very well there before the wheels fell off. I value what Toney did to JIrov at CW and Ruiz and Holy at HW way above what RJJ did winning a strap from Ruiz. Toney was the trut MW to HW guy of the era and not RJJ.
Why do people always give Toney a 'weight drained' pass for his schooling at the hands of Jones Jr?
He lost his next fight after that to Montell Griffin & that was at 175; was he weight drained for that too?
Toney seems to get off too lightly for some of his defeats & the likes of Jones Jr must bang his head against a wall every time he reads that stuff, because it's like his performance versus Toney just doesn't count.
Exactly.
Jones schooled hopkins with one arm, schooled toney when some said toney was 1 p4p.
Jones gets 0 credit for beating atg like hopkins & toney.
Jones deserves a ton of credit for those wins. James Toney was one of the top P4P guys and so was Roy. MW's who could truly beef up and compete with the HW's. James Toney though was the guy of the era who could really compete with HW's long term. He could have and should have went up in weight much sooner. They had to keep him bust between lower weight title fights to stop him from going up to his natural weight. He was one of the very few who fought like the old school guys and took matches between title fights. His handlers keeping him so low in weight for so long also contributed to his later career weight issues. They messed him up mismanaging his weight. RJJ did face a weight drained Toney but he still deserves credit for it. And Toney deserves a lot of credit for taking that fight that all the fans wanted even though it was not on the best terms for him. Toney never backed down from a challenge and did not have a career where the scales were always tipped in his favor. Griffin was a hard guy to fight for anybody. Toney and RJJ both had their troubles with him. Toney deserves credit for going into that bout straight off a loss to RJJ. He was always up for the challenge. I think RJJ was great and one of the best of all times but I am ultra impressed by James Toney ability to be a true competitive HW fighter over what could have been a longer haul than he went. Jirov was an absolute beast at CW when James Toney took him down. James proved it at 190 and at HW that he was bad man no matter the size of the guys he was facing. The 3 fights he had with Jirov then Holyfield and then Ruiz is one of the most impressive feats ever done by a MW Champion. He didn't just cherry pick Ruiz like RJJ did. He fought a ton of the best big guys at the time. His amazing chin held up and he actually carried good power all the way up to the top. You do not find those types of skills packaged in a MW human being very often. James Toney is a freak of nature. Roy had the slickness and the reflexes but he never proved himself to the level James Toney did at the higher weights. Roy's skills were enough for Huggerman Ruiz but he didn't ever have the chin to sustain a long term run at the top weights. If he got caught he was going out to the big guys. James Toney could get caught all night and still be there at the end of the bout. I like James over RJJ even though he lost to him head to head because of what he could truly do at the highest weights. James Toney was no pretend HW. He could have campaigned there much sooner than he did. There is nobody else like him. He could have fought in every era and because of the skill set he had he would have probably done even better back in the days when there were no round limits. How you gonna beat a guy you can't knock out? He would have been in some epic long term bouts back in those days. He was the oldest school guy of his generation. No matter when he would have been one of the best in the world.
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 23 Nov 2017, 16:41
by gilgamesh
Kronkpride wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 16:38
Jones deserves a ton of credit for those wins. James Toney was one of the top P4P guys and so was Roy. MW's who could truly beef up and compete with the HW's. James Toney though was the guy of the era who could really compete with HW's long term. He could have and should have went up in weight much sooner. They had to keep him bust between lower weight title fights to stop him from going up to his natural weight. He was one of the very few who fought like the old school guys and took matches between title fights. His handlers keeping him so low in weight for so long also contributed to his later career weight issues. They messed him up mismanaging his weight. RJJ did face a weight drained Toney but he still deserves credit for it. And Toney deserves a lot of credit for taking that fight that all the fans wanted even though it was not on the best terms for him. Toney never backed down from a challenge and did not have a career where the scales were always tipped in his favor. Griffin was a hard guy to fight for anybody. Toney and RJJ both had their troubles with him. Toney deserves credit for going into that bout straight off a loss to RJJ. He was always up for the challenge. I think RJJ was great and one of the best of all times but I am ultra impressed by James Toney ability to be a true competitive HW fighter over what could have been a longer haul than he went. Jirov was an absolute beast at CW when James Toney took him down. James proved it at 190 and at HW that he was bad man no matter the size of the guys he was facing. The 3 fights he had with Jirov then Holyfield and then Ruiz is one of the most impressive feats ever done by a MW Champion. He didn't just cherry pick Ruiz like RJJ did. He fought a ton of the best big guys at the time. His amazing chin held up and he actually carried good power all the way up to the top. You do not find those types of skills packaged in a MW human being very often. James Toney is a freak of nature. Roy had the slickness and the reflexes but he never proved himself to the level James Toney did at the higher weights. Roy's skills were enough for Huggerman Ruiz but he didn't ever have the chin to sustain a long term run at the top weights. If he got caught he was going out to the big guys. James Toney could get caught all night and still be there at the end of the bout. I like James over RJJ even though he lost to him head to head because of what he could truly do at the highest weights. James Toney was no pretend HW. He could have campaigned there much sooner than he did. There is nobody else like him. He could have fought in every era and because of the skill set he had he would have probably done even better back in the days when there were no round limits. How you gonna beat a guy you can't knock out? He would have been in some epic long term bouts back in those days. He was the oldest school guy of his generation. No matter when he would have been one of the best in the world.
I thought James Toney won both of his fights with Montell Griffin personally. 2nd one wasn't even close, he got robbed badly in that one.
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 23 Nov 2017, 18:17
by jamesmcdonnell
Jones had an incredible run , as much as I love Leonard, is have to say jones jr looked unbeatable during his prime.
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 23 Nov 2017, 18:19
by jamesmcdonnell
ewenhay wrote: ↑18 Nov 2017, 15:30
But since you asked, it's Duran for me.
As good a call as any. Durans win over Leonard was a stunning achievement.
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 23 Nov 2017, 19:09
by SaadOffTheDeck
Hearns should be on the list way before someone like Toney. He lost his two biggest fights, but the dude that fought Duran is a freaking nightmare. The dude that foiught Benitez could outbox anyone. I know Floyd could never beat him.
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 26 Nov 2017, 04:25
by Kalan
SaadOffTheDeck wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 19:09
Hearns should be on the list way before someone like Toney. He lost his two biggest fights, but the dude that fought Duran is a freaking nightmare. The dude that foiught Benitez could outbox anyone. I know Floyd could never beat him.
The Duran fight was a punching operation – not a show of boxing mastery... Guys who get hit a ton and knocked out several times – and get battered and beaten up like Hearns?? They’re not the greatest boxers.. How many times has Floyd Mayweather been knocked out???
Hearns got clocked with hard, loaded shots that don’t hit a master boxer in the ass... Candidates for greatest boxer are Vasyl Lomachenko... Floyd Mayweather... Mikey Garcia... Keith Thurman... Terence Crawford... Gary Russell... Bernard Hopkins in his prime was good... Anthony Joshua was knocked down by Klitschko, but he'll be one of the greatest boxers in a few years.. He got a late start, but is on a tear.
I know Floyd would beat the shitt out of the very punchable Hearns.
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 26 Nov 2017, 04:39
by Enlightened-One
Kalan wrote: ↑26 Nov 2017, 04:25Candidates for greatest boxer are Vasyl Lomachenko... Mikey Garcia... Keith Thurman... Terence Crawford... Gary Russell... Anthony Joshua was knocked down by Klitschko, but he'll be one of the greatest boxers in a few years.
Seriously?
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 26 Nov 2017, 07:23
by Counter-puncher
Enlightened-One wrote: ↑26 Nov 2017, 04:39
Kalan wrote: ↑26 Nov 2017, 04:25Candidates for greatest boxer are Vasyl Lomachenko... Mikey Garcia... Keith Thurman... Terence Crawford... Gary Russell... Anthony Joshua was knocked down by Klitschko, but he'll be one of the greatest boxers in a few years.
Seriously?
You're looking at a guy who thinks Trinidad would have lit up Marvin Hagler. Yeah, the same guy who lost about 11 rounds to Winky Wright.
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 26 Nov 2017, 07:32
by jamamb
not sure if lomachenko even the best active in his division, though ppl love to act like beasts davis and berchelt dont exist.and i would certainly take spence to molest thurmans soft body.im just talking overall as fighters.
or r we talking technical boxing skill btw? because if we are a a guy like russell is more blazing speed then skill
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 26 Nov 2017, 17:00
by SaadOffTheDeck
Kalan wrote: ↑26 Nov 2017, 04:25
SaadOffTheDeck wrote: ↑23 Nov 2017, 19:09
Hearns should be on the list way before someone like Toney. He lost his two biggest fights, but the dude that fought Duran is a freaking nightmare. The dude that foiught Benitez could outbox anyone. I know Floyd could never beat him.
The Duran fight was a punching operation – not a show of boxing mastery... Guys who get hit a ton and knocked out several times – and get battered and beaten up like Hearns?? They’re not the greatest boxers.. How many times has Floyd Mayweather been knocked out???
Hearns got clocked with hard, loaded shots that don’t hit a master boxer in the ass... Candidates for greatest boxer are Vasyl Lomachenko... Floyd Mayweather... Mikey Garcia... Keith Thurman... Terence Crawford... Gary Russell... Bernard Hopkins in his prime was good... Anthony Joshua was knocked down by Klitschko, but he'll be one of the greatest boxers in a few years.. He got a late start, but is on a tear.
I know Floyd would beat the shitt out of the very punchable Hearns.
Considering you don't know the first thing about boxing, this nonsense is hardly surprising.
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 26 Nov 2017, 17:14
by victor-romeo
Of the list given it was for me between RJJ, Duran, Leonard, I went with Leonard..
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 27 Nov 2017, 00:19
by Jip
Kalan. Sometimes you make sense. This time not.
It is nonsense to say you are great when you dont get knocked down, take 0 beatings etc..
2 important factors
1 how good are your opponents?
2 what style do you fight?
1 floyd looked good against old, limited, unaggressiv or simply b level opponents at 147 or 154. Against top 147-154 like robinson, leonard, hearns, young prime mosley, trinidad it is a totaly different story.
2 how do u fight. Some atg love defence and focus on that, therefore less punch output and less risk to leave yourself open for counters like leonard or floyd. Other atg love offence and prefer to attack and are more open therefore like pac or tyson. But that doesnt make them worse.
Would floyd choose to fight more offensiv like in the mcgregor fight than he would be more open to counter attacks. Would pac fight more defensive minded, focusing on moving staying outside less punches thrown like in the oscar fight, than he would be less open to counter attacks.
Style!
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 27 Nov 2017, 00:50
by jujigatame
Was this really meant to be "since 1980"? If you're really counting from 1970 onward, then Ali should be included. The Thrilla in Manila was 1975.
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 01 Dec 2017, 01:26
by ClivePatrickLyons
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 01 Dec 2017, 03:36
by Enlightened-One
A theatrical and over-the-top reaction does not undermine facts in any way.
For sure, Ali scored some big wins during the seventies, but part of the reason why those fights were deemed so significant, was due to a combination of his back-story, coupled with the fact that he'd declined, therefore making bouts far more competitive and exciting than they otherwise would have been if he were at his physical prime.
Also, you cannot possibly claim that Ali wasn't very fortunate about being awarded the victory of several bouts during the seventies that many people thought he didn't deserve.
Ali was a great fighter, but the seventies version of the man should not be considered the best boxer that has ever competed since 1970.
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 10 Dec 2017, 23:36
by ClivePatrickLyons
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 11 Dec 2017, 02:25
by Enlightened-One
I have no idea what you're trying to say in this post.
For sure, I can hazard a guess that you're mocking me somehow, but you haven't explained your reasoning.
Regardless, I don't believe that any of my words that you've quoted are unreasonable or fail to reflect the real-world situation.
I've dropped some knowledge - it's as simple as that.
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 11 Dec 2017, 21:31
by jujigatame
The version of Ali that beat Frazier in 1975 should totally be in the running for "best boxer since 1970" and any indication to the contrary is ridiculous.
Also how the hell does Monzon not get on this poll? The selections make no sense whatsoever.
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 11 Dec 2017, 23:36
by Freedom
Duran.
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 11 Dec 2017, 23:41
by Ricky_
No Hagler or Hearns?
The 130 version of Pacman is the best on that list. Leonard has the best resume by a mile. Too early to consider Loma but he might be the one.
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 12 Dec 2017, 02:34
by Kalan
It has to be Vasyl Lomachenko... Winner of 396 of 397 amateur fights and 2 Olympic Gold Medals.
With only 2 pro fights Lomachenko boxed rings around brilliant undefeated southpaw Gary Russell, 24-0, to win the Lineal Featherweight Title... That was effectively his 1st defense of the title he lifted from Salido -- but was robbed in the process.
With only 7 pro fights Lomachenko became a 2-Division World Champion by icing Rocky Martinez
With only 7 pro fights Lomachenko beat the highly skilled and undefeated Nicholas Walters 26-0-1
With only 10 pro fights Lomachenko easily beat brilliant, undefeated 2-time Olympic Champion Guillermo Rigondeaux
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 12 Dec 2017, 19:32
by ClivePatrickLyons
Kalan wrote: ↑12 Dec 2017, 02:34
It has to be Vasyl Lomachenko... Winner of 396 of 397 amateur fights and 2 Olympic Gold Medals.
With only 2 pro fights Lomachenko boxed rings around brilliant undefeated southpaw Gary Russell, 24-0, to win the Lineal Featherweight Title... That was effectively his 1st defense of the title he lifted from Salido -- but was robbed in the process.
With only 7 pro fights Lomachenko became a 2-Division World Champion by icing Rocky Martinez
With only 7 pro fights Lomachenko beat the highly skilled and undefeated Nicholas Walters 26-0-1
With only 10 pro fights Lomachenko easily beat brilliant, undefeated 2-time Olympic Champion Guillermo Rigondeaux
THAT AMATEUR RECORD IS RUBBISH YOU ARE ONE SILLY MAN TO BELIEVE THAT SANTA BE COMING SOON BAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Re: Since 1970, who was the best boxer
Posted: 13 Dec 2017, 03:27
by Enlightened-One
Kalan wrote: ↑12 Dec 2017, 02:34
It has to be Vasyl Lomachenko... Winner of 396 of 397 amateur fights and 2 Olympic Gold Medals.
With only 2 pro fights Lomachenko boxed rings around brilliant undefeated southpaw Gary Russell, 24-0, to win the Lineal Featherweight Title... That was effectively his 1st defense of the title he lifted from Salido -- but was robbed in the process.
With only 7 pro fights Lomachenko became a 2-Division World Champion by icing Rocky Martinez
With only 7 pro fights Lomachenko beat the highly skilled and undefeated Nicholas Walters 26-0-1
With only 10 pro fights Lomachenko easily beat brilliant, undefeated 2-time Olympic Champion Guillermo Rigondeaux
OMFG!
I think you're getting far too carried away with your little journey riding the Lomachenko hype bandwagon.
For sure he's a good fighter, but he isn't the best boxer of the last 47 years.
You're entitled to your opinion though, so I won't try too hard to persuade you to change your mind, because I feel that would surely be a futile task to undertake.
