James Toney

[yancey]

How good/great of a boxer do you consider this guy to be?

How would he have done against some of the all-time greats?

What would you consider his style of boxing to be?

[HomicideHenry]

I always say of Toney.... that he had more talent than Roy Jones, and that he was more skilled than Hopkins... but James Toney got in the way of James Toney. He was a masterful boxer regardless of what weight class he chose to fight. He was a throwback to the "complete" professionals like Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott. I could only think, had he been in an earlier era where the money wasn't as great, etc. he would of stayed hungrier (pardon the pun, we all know Toney's battle with the fridge) for alot longer, and therefore would of been an even greater fighter than he is remembered.

Instead... we remember him now as a guy whose staying on for too long... and we remember him more for his short comings, than his successes. But for my money, he was superior to Jones and Hopkins, though he lost to them. In terms of legacy, his record is far richer than both men's. In terms of legacy, he's greater p4p than both men. In terms of legacy, he's the better fighter because of his success at higher weights. I'd say, in alot of ways, he reminds me of Archie Moore in that latter regard. Jones failed at Cruiserweight, and only fought once at heavyweight. Hopkins, though becoming a champion at LHW, doesn't come close to the multiple titles won in various divisions like James.

[yancey]

I always say of Toney.... that he had more talent than Roy Jones, and that he was more skilled than Hopkins... but James Toney got in the way of James Toney. He was a masterful boxer regardless of what weight class he chose to fight. He was a throwback to the "complete" professionals like Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott. I could only think, had he been in an earlier era where the money wasn't as great, etc. he would of stayed hungrier (pardon the pun, we all know Toney's battle with the fridge) for alot longer, and therefore would of been an even greater fighter than he is remembered.

Instead... we remember him now as a guy whose staying on for too long... and we remember him more for his short comings, than his successes. But for my money, he was superior to Jones and Hopkins, though he lost to them. In terms of legacy, his record is far richer than both men's. In terms of legacy, he's greater p4p than both men. In terms of legacy, he's the better fighter because of his success at higher weights. I'd say, in alot of ways, he reminds me of Archie Moore in that latter regard. Jones failed at Cruiserweight, and only fought once at heavyweight. Hopkins, though becoming a champion at LHW, doesn't come close to the multiple titles won in various divisions like James.

Of the styles of boxing, which style would describe him best?

Boxer-puncher?

Also, at what weight was he at his absolute best?

(I had lost complete interest in boxing during the Toney era and don't know much about him. Lately I've been studying him on youtube. Pretty impressed, to say the least)

[littlepug]

He could punch alright but never went looking for it, he would just stay in the pocket shifting and sliding and just counterpunch, he had decent speed a very good chin and every punch in the book

[Seamus]

His achievements should easily put him in the IBHOF, but despite his solid chin, counterpunching ability, and strength on the inside, he is a little overrated at present. He's nowhere near the top of any weight classes, other than the ones with short histories. Put him in with a guy with a jab a little movement, stamina, and a decent chin and he'd be in trouble.

[HomicideHenry]

Of the styles of boxing, which style would describe him best?

Boxer-puncher?

Also, at what weight was he at his absolute best?

(I had lost complete interest in boxing during the Toney era and don't know much about him. Lately I've been studying him on youtube. Pretty impressed, to say the least)

He was an all-around fighter. He could box wonderfully, and when the ocassion called for it he could dig down deep and fight his ass off as well. And at his absolute best?.... that's hard to say, for Toney reinvented himself many times... I thought had he campaigned at Cruiserweight for a longer time, he very well could have made himself into one of the all-time greats at that weight. But heavyweight was more lucrative, and he did very well for himself there as well.

[dr_devious]

Instead... we remember him now as a guy whose staying on for too long... and we remember him more for his short comings, than his successes. But for my money, he was superior to Jones and Hopkins, though he lost to them. In terms of legacy, his record is far richer than both men's. In terms of legacy, he's greater p4p than both men. In terms of legacy, he's the better fighter because of his success at higher weights. I'd say, in alot of ways, he reminds me of Archie Moore in that latter regard. Jones failed at Cruiserweight, and only fought once at heavyweight. Hopkins, though becoming a champion at LHW, doesn't come close to the multiple titles won in various divisions like James.

James Toney never fought Bernard Hopkins.

[ElJefe]

I always say of Toney.... that he had more talent than Roy Jones, and that he was more skilled than Hopkins... but James Toney got in the way of James Toney. He was a masterful boxer regardless of what weight class he chose to fight. He was a throwback to the "complete" professionals like Ezzard Charles and Jersey Joe Walcott. I could only think, had he been in an earlier era where the money wasn't as great, etc. he would of stayed hungrier (pardon the pun, we all know Toney's battle with the fridge) for alot longer, and therefore would of been an even greater fighter than he is remembered.

Instead... we remember him now as a guy whose staying on for too long... and we remember him more for his short comings, than his successes. But for my money, he was superior to Jones and Hopkins, though he lost to them. In terms of legacy, his record is far richer than both men's. In terms of legacy, he's greater p4p than both men. In terms of legacy, he's the better fighter because of his success at higher weights. I'd say, in alot of ways, he reminds me of Archie Moore in that latter regard. Jones failed at Cruiserweight, and only fought once at heavyweight. Hopkins, though becoming a champion at LHW, doesn't come close to the multiple titles won in various divisions like James.

Of the styles of boxing, which style would describe him best?

Boxer-puncher?

Also, at what weight was he at his absolute best?

(I had lost complete interest in boxing during the Toney era and don't know much about him. Lately I've been studying him on youtube. Pretty impressed, to say the least)

Have you watched his fight with Iran Barkley yet? If you haven't, check it out, one of my favourites. Ignore Foreman's pro-Barkley commentary. Some of James' counter punching off the ropes was brilliant to watch. He was always so calm in the ring.

[Bobbyptsd]

Instead... we remember him now as a guy whose staying on for too long... and we remember him more for his short comings, than his successes. But for my money, he was superior to Jones and Hopkins, though he lost to them. In terms of legacy, his record is far richer than both men's. In terms of legacy, he's greater p4p than both men. In terms of legacy, he's the better fighter because of his success at higher weights. I'd say, in alot of ways, he reminds me of Archie Moore in that latter regard. Jones failed at Cruiserweight, and only fought once at heavyweight. Hopkins, though becoming a champion at LHW, doesn't come close to the multiple titles won in various divisions like James.

James Toney never fought Bernard Hopkins.

He didn't say that he did.

[Tomasino]

Instead... we remember him now as a guy whose staying on for too long... and we remember him more for his short comings, than his successes. But for my money, he was superior to Jones and Hopkins, though he lost to them. In terms of legacy, his record is far richer than both men's. In terms of legacy, he's greater p4p than both men. In terms of legacy, he's the better fighter because of his success at higher weights. I'd say, in alot of ways, he reminds me of Archie Moore in that latter regard. Jones failed at Cruiserweight, and only fought once at heavyweight. Hopkins, though becoming a champion at LHW, doesn't come close to the multiple titles won in various divisions like James.

James Toney never fought Bernard Hopkins.

He didn't say that he did.

[Bobbyptsd]

I didn't say that he said that he did.

[Tomasino]

I didn't say that he said that he did.

I didn't say anything

[BoxBuzz]

so when he "lost to them" that was referring to the loss in the ring to Jones...and the loss at the poker game with Hopkins I guess.

[Tomasino]

so when he "lost to them" that was referring to the loss in the ring to Jones...and the loss at the poker game with Hopkins I guess.

Must have been

[Counter-puncher]

Instead... we remember him now as a guy whose staying on for too long... and we remember him more for his short comings, than his successes. But for my money, he was superior to Jones and Hopkins, though he lost to them. In terms of legacy, his record is far richer than both men's. In terms of legacy, he's greater p4p than both men. In terms of legacy, he's the better fighter because of his success at higher weights. I'd say, in alot of ways, he reminds me of Archie Moore in that latter regard. Jones failed at Cruiserweight, and only fought once at heavyweight. Hopkins, though becoming a champion at LHW, doesn't come close to the multiple titles won in various divisions like James.

James Toney never fought Bernard Hopkins.

He didn't say that he did.

yes he did ('though he lost to THEM')

[palooka]

Instead... we remember him now as a guy whose staying on for too long... and we remember him more for his short comings, than his successes. But for my money, he was superior to Jones and Hopkins, though he lost to them. In terms of legacy, his record is far richer than both men's. In terms of legacy, he's greater p4p than both men. In terms of legacy, he's the better fighter because of his success at higher weights. I'd say, in alot of ways, he reminds me of Archie Moore in that latter regard. Jones failed at Cruiserweight, and only fought once at heavyweight. Hopkins, though becoming a champion at LHW, doesn't come close to the multiple titles won in various divisions like James.

James Toney never fought Bernard Hopkins.

He didn't say that he did.

'But for my money, he was superior to Jones and Hopkins, though he lost to them.'

[palooka]

The Toney v Price Charles Williams is another fantastic bout to watch if you appreciate off the ropes defence and counter punching.

[tagjohnson]

Has Toney officially retired?

[Datsue]

His achievements should easily put him in the IBHOF, but despite his solid chin, counterpunching ability, and strength on the inside, he is a little overrated at present. He's nowhere near the top of any weight classes, other than the ones with short histories. Put him in with a guy with a jab a little movement, stamina, and a decent chin and he'd be in trouble.

I concur, though I feel you might've slightly underestimated just how good you had to be to beat him. But yes, Toney attracts lots of plaudits from people who like to ignore that you can be tricky, tough, "old-skool" etc etc & yet also stylistically vulnerable to losing matches against the right type of fighter.

In Toney's case I always thought he was not only troubled by the type of fighter you mentioned, but honest hard-working non-punching types who were physical enough to stand up to him & keep a workrate up that he couldn't live with.

He was a guy with so many positives yet so many glaring faults, & moving up in weight so much gave his fanbase an excuse to trumpet him from the rooftops & overlook how spotty he actually was, 'cos as he moved up the ability levels of his opposition dropped so sharply in proportion to the size increase that Toney flattered to deceive & this lets his cheering section ignore/come up with a fantasy to explain how he could get outslicked so badly by Griffin in the rematch & couldn't beat Drake Thadzi.

[Sklar]

Not a committed enough killer for me to say he was the total package and rate him with the very best. Did most things as well as anyone though.

[Counter-puncher]

But yes, Toney attracts lots of plaudits from people who like to ignore that you can be tricky, tough, "old-skool" etc etc & yet also stylistically vulnerable to losing matches against the right type of fighter.
.

yeah, there's definitely a very signficant aesthetic component in the manlove for Toney, that gets promoted over-above any tawdry concerns with things like consistency of performance, level of opposition, or other such trivia. 'flattering to deceive' could seldom have more relevance to a bloke's career in a boxing context.

[Boxerbeetle]

He absolutely dominated Holyfield, I couldn't believe how easily Toney handled & stopped him.

[palooka]

He absolutely dominated Holyfield, I couldn't believe how easily Toney handled & stopped him.

Neither could I and has anyone else handled Evander so easily?

[big lennox]

He absolutely dominated Holyfield, I couldn't believe how easily Toney handled & stopped him.

Neither could I and has anyone else handled Evander so easily?

It was indeed a masterful performance by Toney, and I was hoping that he would stay in shape and fight the other top fighters at the time.

It is worth remembering, though, that Holyfield was about 900 years old at the time, and nothing like the fighter who did epic battle with Bowe and Tyson etc. Although, he was still body beautiful, his reflexes and stamina had significantly diminished. It's interesting to note that when Toney was the same ages as the Holyfield that he beat (42) he had dropped down several levels as well.

That being said, Toney was a terrific fighter -his skill set was tremendous, and he was mentally (as well as physically) tough as bold boots.

[Seamus]

Let's not forget that Toney had his share of subpar performances before stopping a faded Holyfield.