Greatest ever middleweight? europe+world?

stpaddy99

Bit of fun who was the best middle weight in UK / Ireland history, then european , then worldwide?

UK and Ireland ......


honeyghan
ted Kid Lewis
eubank
collins
benn
stracey
calzaghe
collins
randolph Turpin
watson
Froch

etc

then onto the world stage.......

sugar ray leonard
jake la motta
thomas hearns
bernhard hopkins
harry greb
marvin hagler
billy conn
carlos monzon
sugar ray robinson
mickey walker
roy jones
mickey walker
rocky graziano
Robert Duran
etc

FTA69

World wide in no particular order:

Sugar Ray Robinson
Andre Ward
Marvin Hagler
Carlos Monzon
Harry Greb
Roy Jones Jr
James Toney
Ezzard Charles

walshb

So it's not exactly MW then.

If so I will go with worldwide SRR/Jones Junior/Toney/Hagler/McCallum/Hopkins/Monzon/Zale.

stpaddy99

I think its a more interesting richer mix than the heavyweight which often comes down to just louis or ali , though larry holmes , marciano and tyson fans would dispute it as would some from the back and white days of jack johnson
the middleweight divison has extraordinary depth

Littlehorny

For me Watson was the best of the UK/Ireland middleweights, a great boxer who nearly lost his life in the ring. As for Benn, Eubank and the rest they really operated most of their careers at super middle.
For me Robinson will always be the greatest welterweight of all time but and i'm biased here as i'm a big fan but Hagler is the best pure middle ever.
Jones is more of a super middle or light heavy and Toney the same. Haven't seen enough of Greb and Monzon to judge them.

stpaddy99

Littlehorny wrote: »

For me Watson was the best of the UK/Ireland middleweights, a great boxer who nearly lost his life in the ring. As for Benn, Eubank and the rest they really operated most of their careers at super middle.
For me Robinson will always be the greatest welterweight of all time but and i'm biased here as i'm a big fan but Hagler is the best pure middle ever.
Jones is more of a super middle or light heavy and Toney the same. Haven't seen enough of Greb and Monzon to judge them.

hagler was just plain frightening
still think he should have won that fight with sugar ray and cant believe there wasnt a rematch
for my money though hagler was the best of his era by far
the vast maority would have robinson as the top of the heap
in recent times it seems roy jones has the kudos as number one...
not sure why toney is even being mentioned, hes not in this class though

I cant go with watson as the best of the lot in europe. he did hammer benn and had legendary wars with eubank and of course he was brave beyond words....but his earlier defeats to cook and then mccallum and defeat to eubank on points just go against him as being the best. he is however a great and his courage in adversity is extraordinary and puts everything else into perspective....in recent few decades in europe it probably comes down to collins, eubank, calzaghe and honeyghan.

Kess73

Hagler for me, with Monzon coming a close second.

FTA69

stpaddy99 wrote: »

in recent times it seems roy jones has the kudos as number one...
not sure why toney is even being mentioned, hes not in this class though

James Toney not world class? He was a world champion at three different weights and was also the first middleweight since Fitzsimmons to beat the heavyweight champion. He was also one of the youngest middleweight champions in history.

He knocked out Michael Nunn (who was also one of the best middleweights ever) as well as beating McCallum and Johnson. After moving up to super he also won that title, only losing it to Roy Jones, which is no great shame to be honest. Later on he beat Jirov to win the cruiserweight title, something which really is astonishing for a man who started out at middleweight.

Not to mention the fact the man has never been stopped in 90 fights and is one the most technically adept fighters to grace the game. Freddie Roach described him as the most talented boxer he'd ever seen. It's commonly acknowledged that Toney was world class. He was certainly leagues ahead of Eubank etc.

stpaddy99

I dodnt say not world class, just not in the class of the greatest ever we mentioned

walshb

stpaddy99 wrote: »

I dodnt say not world class, just not in the class of the greatest ever we mentioned

I would say though, that on his best night he could beat many in the lists, including Hagler!

walshb

I would also say that his wins over Nunn and McCallum are better than any of Marvin's title defenses.

FTA69

walshb wrote: »

I would also say that his wins over Nunn and McCallum are better than any of Marvin's title defenses.

Oh I don't know about that, Hearns/Hagler was astonishing stuff.

walshb

FTA69 wrote: »

Oh I don't know about that, Hearns/Hagler was astonishing stuff.

Hearns was not a true middleweight. He was moving up from 147 and 154. For me Mike McCallum and Nunn were both better at MW than Hearns. I am one who believes that Toney's style and skills and durability and toughness is bad for Hagler. Bad style match for him. I see Hagler losing.

megadodge

walshb wrote: »

Hearns was not a true middleweight. He was moving up from 147 and 154. For me Mike McCallum and Nunn were both better at MW than Hearns. I am one who believes that Toney's style and skills and durability and toughness is bad for Hagler. Bad style match for him. I see Hagler losing.

Although Hearns started out at welter he was probably at his best at light-middle and was a serious, serious middleweight. I think he'd have ko'd Nunn. Nunn had a rather iffy chin and though he was very fast and tricky nobody and I mean NOBODY ever outboxed Tommy Hearns - and that includes a peak Sugar Ray Leonard. Nunn isn't going to outbox Tommy and at some stage he was going to be hit on that dodgy chin by one of the hardest punchers of all-time!

Toney would get outboxed at range by Hearns all night long, but Tommy wouldn't be able to KO him, which leaves us with the 'puncher's chance', something similar to the Nunn fight. It's definitly a possibility as Hearns' chin wasn't exactly castiron, but most times I'd expect a wide UD for the Hitman.

McCallum probably presented the biggest threat to Hearns as he had an iron chin, high workrate, very good skills, stamina and boxing IQ. But Don Curry was easily outboxing Mike before getting caught by a wild left hook and if he could I think Tommy could too.

I think Hagler / Toney would have been an excellent fight, but I think many underestimate Hagler's skills. They just remember his most famous fights - Hearns, Mugabi and Leonard, which were his last three and I definitely think the Hearns fight really damaged Hagler's remaining career - he was well past it for his last two fights. For most of Marvin's career he was regarded as a very skilled counter-puncher, who also happened to be a rock-chinned, hard-hitting southpaw with a very high workrate. Not exactly the type of opponent Toney is going to handle easily. There's no way this is not going the distance and neither fighter is getting rocked, so I think the difference is workrate, especially if it's 15 rounds and I'd fancy Hagler to be too busy and take a tight decision.

For what it's worth, I thought Toney lost both McCallum fights - and I'm not the only one!

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

Although Hearns started out at welter he was probably at his best at light-middle and was a serious, serious middleweight. I think he'd have ko'd Nunn. Nunn had a rather iffy chin and though he was very fast and tricky nobody and I mean NOBODY ever outboxed Tommy Hearns - and that includes a peak Sugar Ray Leonard. Nunn isn't going to outbox Tommy and at some stage he was going to be hit on that dodgy chin by one of the hardest punchers of all-time!

Toney would get outboxed at range by Hearns all night long, but Tommy wouldn't be able to KO him, which leaves us with the 'puncher's chance', something similar to the Nunn fight. It's definitly a possibility as Hearns' chin wasn't exactly castiron, but most times I'd expect a wide UD for the Hitman.

McCallum probably presented the biggest threat to Hearns as he had an iron chin, high workrate, very good skills, stamina and boxing IQ. But Don Curry was easily outboxing Mike before getting caught by a wild left hook and if he could I think Tommy could too.

I think Hagler / Toney would have been an excellent fight, but I think many underestimate Hagler's skills. They just remember his most famous fights - Hearns, Mugabi and Leonard, which were his last three and I definitely think the Hearns fight really damaged Hagler's remaining career - he was well past it for his last two fights. For most of Marvin's career he was regarded as a very skilled counter-puncher, who also happened to be a rock-chinned, hard-hitting southpaw with a very high workrate. Not exactly the type of opponent Toney is going to handle easily. There's no way this is not going the distance and neither fighter is getting rocked, so I think the difference is work rate, especially if it's 15 rounds and I'd fancy Hagler to be too busy and take a tight decision.

For what it's worth, I thought Toney lost both McCallum fights - and I'm not the only one!

No way Toney lost fight 1 to McCallum. Close fight, but most of the telling shots were landed by Toneyl The better work and the better shots.

I agree with a lot that you say about Hearns. Problem is that he has nothing on his 160 lbs resume that stands out. Knocked out twice is what stands out. Once by Iran Barkley, albeit by a hail mary shot by a less than great MW. Nunn could bang a bit too. Very close boxing match I would imagine, and yes, possible for Hearns to get the KO. But possible too for Nunn tp get it.

As excellent a boxer as Hearns was, I see him hitting a lot of thin air against the best 160 lbs Toney. He is not strong enough to beat Toney over 12, and nor does he have the chin to take Toney's shots, who was an underrated hitter. IF Tommy can avoid a clean shot for 12 he can win. I don't think he can. I see Toney getting to him with solid and heavy counters.

McCallum for me is all wrong for Tommy. Strength, chin, power, stamina, work rate and a wicked body attack. I think he really forces the pace, takes Tommy's legs from him and negates Tommy's distance and reach advantages. Makes it a war, and in close war, and dissects Hearns for a late stoppage win.

The best Hagler for me was the very early 80s Hagler. The man who annihilated Minter, for example. I believe that version beats Ray Leonard and maybe stops Duran. Hagler was just a bit inconsistent in his performances. I still think that Toney's style is bad for him. He's not going to win by moving around and jabbing,. This will be an inside war, and a war won by the better inside technician. That is Toney. Slipping and countering Hagler far better than Hagler imagines.

FTA69

megadodge wrote: »

Although Hearns started out at welter he was probably at his best at light-middle and was a serious, serious middleweight.

Unlike walshb I agree with you here. He was 6'2" tall like, and easily had the frame, power and skills to be considered a middleweight. The anomaly with Hearns was that he actually fought at welterweight as opposed to middleweight in my opinion.

I think he'd have ko'd Nunn. Nunn had a rather iffy chin and though he was very fast and tricky nobody and I mean NOBODY ever outboxed Tommy Hearns - and that includes a peak Sugar Ray Leonard. Nunn isn't going to outbox Tommy and at some stage he was going to be hit on that dodgy chin by one of the hardest punchers of all-time!

I'd agree with you here.

I think Hagler / Toney would have been an excellent fight, but I think many underestimate Hagler's skills. They just remember his most famous fights - Hearns, Mugabi and Leonard, which were his last three and I definitely think the Hearns fight really damaged Hagler's remaining career - he was well past it for his last two fights. For most of Marvin's career he was regarded as a very skilled counter-puncher, who also happened to be a rock-chinned, hard-hitting southpaw with a very high workrate. Not exactly the type of opponent Toney is going to handle easily.

Hagler wouldn't be easy to handle for anyone to be honest but if there's one thing Toney is expert at it's handling swarming fighters who like to fight on the inside. I could see Hagler doing a lot more work but Toney landing the cleaner and harder shots and more of them to boot.

For what it's worth, I thought Toney lost both McCallum fights - and I'm not the only one!

Outrageous! McCallum looked like he outworked Toney, but like the scenario above; Toney landed the most clean shots and was the slicker fighter throughout. They were well deserved wins, albeit very close fights. Toney to this day says that McCallum gave him the toughest bouts of his career.

(Then again he also says that Jones is a coward and a "clown" and he would have KOd him if he wasn't so weight-drained.)

stpaddy99

the best of the europeans would probably have to go to calzaghe, even though he was involved in few super fights, its hard to see past his record

FTA69

stpaddy99 wrote: »

the best of the europeans would probably have to go to calzaghe, even though he was involved in few super fights, its hard to see past his record

He has a few big scalps but most of them were beyond their prime really. Hopkins is biggest win followed by Kessler in my opinion. Still, he probably is the best super middle/light heavy to come out of Europe.

walshb

FTA69 wrote: »

megadodge wrote: »

Unlike walshb I agree with you here. He was 6'2" tall like, and easily had the frame, power and skills to be considered a middleweight. The anomaly with Hearns was that he actually fought at welterweight as opposed to middleweight in my opinion.

This is true, but he just didn't seem to be strong enough at the weight. I think the likes of Toney/McCallum and McClellan would be too strong for him. He's too suspect at this weight for me to be confident that he'd beat these lads.

The quote above is from what FTA69 posted, not megadodge.

megadodge

Walshb,

We're always going to disagree on Toney's worth, as he is your favourite boxer and I personally think he was overrated - he needed the right opponent to look good against, a la the face-first past-his-not-very-good-best Iran Barkley. The problem I see in your argument is you just constantly make excuses for him.

You claim Hagler was "a bit inconsistent" (??? examples please), but there's no mention of Dave Tiberi!! Michael Nunn was easily outboxing Toney until he got caught in the 11th and IMO Hearns is a better boxer and WAAAAAAAY harder puncher than Nunn (and Dave Tiberi), yet you think Toney takes Hearns. I agree he has a puncher's chance, but that's about it. Hearns was the ultimate offensive boxer and it was all at long range, Toney would struggle badly to get to him while taking the sort of punches he never took before. I think he'd be kept too defensive to have a chance of winning on points.

While I haven't seen the McCallum/Toney fights since they happened, my memory was McCallum landing his jab at will throughout the fight, while Toney landed harder but much less often. If McCallum could land the jab so often, Hearns would land even more, as IMO he had the greatest jab of all time.

In relation to Hearns' strength, he handled himself very well against men over a stone heavier at light-heavy.

With regard to Hagler, again I have to state Marvin was a technician first, then turned slugger for Hearns as he couldn't hope to outbox him. He should have retired after it as it finished him. Anyway, while Hagler wasn't tall, he had a disproportionately long reach and was in the main a long-range boxer, but was a fantastic in-fighter also (I still regard him as the best two-handed uppercutter I've seen). Toney would have work every second of every round against an opponent who has no obvious weakness and we all know James wasn't a 3-minute a round fighter. It's still a very tough fight, but yet again I feel Hagler's boxing ability is being underrated.

megadodge

FTA6,

You said both McCallum fights were "very close" and that Toney claimed McCallum's fights were "the toughest of his career", yet you think it's "outrageous" that I thought McCallum won both???

stpaddy99

am I misisng somthing here? hagler destroyed hearns....obliterated him
toney lost loads of fights ....hagler barely lost any...in fact in over 60 fights , he won 30 world title fights destroying nearly everyone in quick time....including duran and hearns and only lost 3 fights his whole career and avenged 2 of those defeats by hammering bobby watts and willie monroe the 2nd time. ....surley he had to be the best of his era

walshb

stpaddy99 wrote: »

am I misisng somthing here? hagler destroyed hearns....obliterated him
toney lost loads of fights ....hagler barely lost any...in fact in over 60 fights , he won 30 world title fights destroying nearly everyone in quick time....including duran and hearns and only lost 3 fights his whole career and avenged 2 of those defeats by hammering bobby watts and willie monroe the 2nd time. ....surley he had to be the best of his era

Toney lost loads of fights? At MW he did not. Nor at SMW. Yes, when he moved up he did lose some, but loads? He's had about 90 or so fights. If Hagler ventured beyond 160 I reckon that L starts to increase.

walshb

megadodge wrote: »

Walshb,

We're always going to disagree on Toney's worth, as he is your favourite boxer and I personally think he was overrated - he needed the right opponent to look good against, a la the face-first past-his-not-very-good-best Iran Barkley. The problem I see in your argument is you just constantly make excuses for him.

You claim Hagler was "a bit inconsistent" (??? examples please), but there's no mention of Dave Tiberi!! Michael Nunn was easily outboxing Toney until he got caught in the 11th and IMO Hearns is a better boxer and WAAAAAAAY harder puncher than Nunn (and Dave Tiberi), yet you think Toney takes Hearns. I agree he has a puncher's chance, but that's about it. Hearns was the ultimate offensive boxer and it was all at long range, Toney would struggle badly to get to him while taking the sort of punches he never took before. I think he'd be kept too defensive to have a chance of winning on points.

While I haven't seen the McCallum/Toney fights since they happened, my memory was McCallum landing his jab at will throughout the fight, while Toney landed harder but much less often. If McCallum could land the jab so often, Hearns would land even more, as IMO he had the greatest jab of all time.

In relation to Hearns' strength, he handled himself very well against men over a stone heavier at light-heavy.

With regard to Hagler, again I have to state Marvin was a technician first, then turned slugger for Hearns as he couldn't hope to outbox him. He should have retired after it as it finished him. Anyway, while Hagler wasn't tall, he had a disproportionately long reach and was in the main a long-range boxer, but was a fantastic in-fighter also (I still regard him as the best two-handed uppercutter I've seen). Toney would have work every second of every round against an opponent who has no obvious weakness and we all know James wasn't a 3-minute a round fighter. It's still a very tough fight, but yet again I feel Hagler's boxing ability is being underrated.

I have made no excuses for Toney. All I said was that I believe he has the tools and style to beat Hagler. Not sure where the excuses are?

To the Toney-Nunn fight. Yes, Nunn was ahead, but he was NOT beating Toney easily. Toney was very competitive in pretty much each rd. Toney was coming on real strong in the final 3 rds. Watch the fight again and pay close attention to Toney's work. He then got the KO.

Hagler's inconsistency showed for me against Duran and Leonard. Ok, vs. Leonard he was past his best days, and Leonard was super quick, but he looked so novice like at times. Maybe he gave Duran too much respect.

Toney too was inconsistent. Best vs. best I think Toney is the cleaner and more effective fighter, and wins. It's a myth that he isn't a 3 minute fighter. Toney competed in several fights that set compu box records for punches thrown. He was a 3 minute fighter when he NEEDED to be, and I would not doubt that against Hagler. One of the reasons Toney was so effective was his calmness and clean work. He used opponents' energy against them.

Dave Tiberi IMO did very well, but just like the Drake Thadzi fight, Toney was deserving of the win as well.

Hearns got knocked out twice at MW, and was out-boxed by Barkley in their rematch. Hearns does not beat Toney at MW or SMW. Better chance at MW, little chance at SMW, and no chance above this.

Finally, I would say go watch the first McCallum fight. Toney always looked the stronger and the one landing the damaging shots. Mike may have landed a little more, but the quality was with Toney. Deserved winner of a very close fight. I wouldn't argue with the verdict going to McCallum, but folks claiming a robbery is ridiculous.

stpaddy99

99% of boxing experts put hagler way above toney and rightly so....hagler destroyed everyone bar leonard.....toney great fighter, simply lost too many fights....9 defeats by the end...griffin did him twice at middleweight, he lost to the main man roy jones pretty comprehensively....he stepped up weights and lost 5 fights , 2 in a row to samuel peter.
it may have been an interesting fight, but the fact remains hagler was a lot better

walshb

I am a Hagler fan, but NO, he did not destroy everyone. He did not destroy a blown up LW/WW in Duran. There's one. I have Hagler top 5 MW ever, but no way is he a better p4p fighter than Toney, who went all the way to HW and was competitive. Hagler did not and could not do that in his era or in Toney's era. Toney is just a more rounded fighter.

Like I said, 8-9 defeats in 90 or so fights across 4-5 weight divisions. Hagler stayed at 160. What were his major wins? Hearns? A WW/LMW moving up. Same as Hopkins beating up on Tito. SRL comes off a 3-4 year retirement and moves up and beats Hagler.

At MW I think Toney and Hagler put on a FOTC. At SMW or above I see Hagler having less and less a chance vs. Toney. Toney was p4p a superior boxer/fighter.

And like I said earlier. McCallum and Nunn were IMO better than any win on Marvin's ledger! Nunn was a consensus top 2 p4p fighter. Considered unbeatable.

stpaddy99

if hagler had become fatter and more out of shape later in his career he may well have moved up weights like toney and lost a load of fights and respect. but he didnt. hagler remained supremely fit and dominant throughout his awesome career, 30 world title fights says a lot

Id actually rate calzaghe above toney. he may have had brittle hands later in his career but the italian welshman always found a way to win and if you want to talk weights he did middleweight super middle and light heavy

walshb

stpaddy99 wrote: »

if hagler had become fatter and more out of shape later in his career he may well have moved up weights like toney and lost a load of fights and respect. but he didnt. hagler remained supremely fit and dominant throughout his awesome career, 30 world title fights says a lot

Id actually rate calzaghe above toney. he may have had brittle hands later in his career but the italian welshman always found a way to win and if you want to talk weights he did middleweight super middle and light heavy

No, Hagler didn't have the kind of game/skills to move up and win. He didn't have the innate defense to avoid clean and heavy shots. The likes of Spinks and Qawi would have found Hagler's chin far easier than they'd have found Toney's. As for above LHW, not a hope Hagler is remotely competitive at CW/HW.

No way Hagler moves up and is competive against the likes of Jirov or Holyfield, even the 2003 Holyfield that Toney beat. No way he's competitive. That is why for me Toney is superior in an overall sense.

Toney was really at his best a 168-175 lber. He was a 200 lb ball player before boxing took over.

Not a big fan of Calzaghe's style, but at 168 he was a tremendous winner, and a tough match for anyone. I would back the best Toney at 168. Calzaghe may well be throwing loads, but he'd be missing a whole lot, and eating solid counters. Calzaghe could be hurt and dropped. Wouldn't surprise me if Toney halted him.

btw, not sure he ever fought at 160 lbs. Check that. I thought he always fought above 160, and towards the end he had a couple of LHW fights.

stpaddy99

walshb wrote: »

No, Hagler didn't have the kind of game/skills to move up and win. He didn't have the innate defense to avoid clean and heavy shots. The likes of Spinks and Qawi would have found Hagler's chin far easier than they'd have found Toney's. As for above LHW, not a hope Hagler is remotely competitive at CW/HW.

No way Hagler moves up and is competive against The likes of Jirrov or Holyfield, even the 2003 HolyfIELD that Toney beat. No way he's competitive. That is why for me Toney is superior in an overall sense.

Toney was really at his best a 168-175 lber. He was a 200 lb ball player before boxing took over.

Not a big fan of Calzaghe's style, but at 168 he was a tremendous winner, and a tough match for anyone. I would back the best Toney at 168. Calzaghe may well be throwing loads, but he'd be missing a whole lot, and eating solid counters. Calzaghe could be hurt and dropped. Wouldn't surprise me if Toney halted him.

btw, not sure he ever fought at 160 lbs. Check that. I thought he always fought above 160, and towards the end he had a couple of LHW fights.

yeah I think toney would have beaten joe at light heavweight as he had a bigger punch.....at 168 though Id have to go with joe

FTA69

megadodge wrote: »

FTA6,

You said both McCallum fights were "very close" and that Toney claimed McCallum's fights were "the toughest of his career", yet you think it's "outrageous" that I thought McCallum won both???

It was more tongue in cheek mate! Toney is may favorite boxer of all time as well so I might be a bit biased towards him. They were close fights in the sense McCallum was there throughout but I do think it was pretty clear that Toney landed the better and cleaner shots.

Michael Nunn was easily outboxing Toney until he got caught in the 11th

He was outboxing him but as walsh said, he wasn't beating Toney up by any means. First of all James was very young and a lot less polished than he is now (he credited McCallum with growing him as a fighter). Toney's gameplan was to go out and wear him down, and that's exactly what he did. KOing Nunn at that time was absolutely huge like, probably the biggest upset in years.

FTA69

stpaddy99 wrote: »

99% of boxing experts put hagler way above toney and rightly so....hagler destroyed everyone bar leonard.....toney great fighter, simply lost too many fights....9 defeats by the end...griffin did him twice at middleweight, he lost to the main man roy jones pretty comprehensively....he stepped up weights and lost 5 fights , 2 in a row to samuel peter.
it may have been an interesting fight, but the fact remains hagler was a lot better

The only loss he had at middleweight was against Jones, hardly an indictment to have lost to the fighter of the decade is it? Griffin beat him at light-heavyweight by the way and Peter was a monster of a heavyweight; again you can hardly indict him for that loss.

walshb

FTA69 wrote: »

The only loss he had at middleweight was against Jones, hardly an indictment to have lost to the fighter of the decade is it? Griffin beat him at light-heavyweight by the way and Peter was a monster of a heavyweight; again you can hardly indict him for that loss.

Jones was at SMW. That Jones was at his best. A match for any 160-170 lber ever.

FTA69

Not to mention he was physically destroyed from making weight at short notice.

Johner

FTA69 wrote: »

Not to mention he was physically destroyed from making weight at short notice.

And who's fault was that? That was just James Toney, the weight drained excuse only came up when he lost. He should have been better prepared and in better shape over his career, I know he moved up weight after the fight but if he thought being weight drained would have been an issue then why would he take the fight? Wouldn't have mattered anyway, I don't see anyway he would have beaten Roy Jones.

Henno30

Johner wrote: »

And who's fault was that? That was just James Toney, the weight drained excuse only came up when he lost. He should have been better prepared and in better shape over his career, I know he moved up weight after the fight but if he thought being weight drained would have been an issue then why would he take the fight? Wouldn't have mattered anyway, I don't see anyway he would have beaten Roy Jones.

Jackie Kallen pushed him into it to some extent. When she proposed making the rematch at 160 Toney went crazy and threatened to kill her. I agree with you generally though, Toney didn't have the discipline to manage his weight. He would never have beaten Jones either. Not a pre-Tarver Jones anyway.

FTA69

Henno30 wrote: »

When she proposed making the rematch at 160 Toney went crazy and threatened to kill her.

He's a gas man alright.

Henno30

FTA69 wrote: »

He's a gas man alright.

He could never have had a conventional career. He's not made for conventions.

walshb

Toney's one of the most arrogant and trashy sports starts in history! I can't recall him ever being nice/polite/mannerly/praising!

Dick phelan

Johner wrote: »

And who's fault was that? That was just James Toney, the weight drained excuse only came up when he lost. He should have been better prepared and in better shape over his career, I know he moved up weight after the fight but if he thought being weight drained would have been an issue then why would he take the fight? Wouldn't have mattered anyway, I don't see anyway he would have beaten Roy Jones.

So true i hate people making excuses for fighters like Toney "he lost because he was not prepared he didn't train right" exactly who's fault is that he had his chance to fight RJJ and lost very clear his fault for not training why should RJJ have that win tainted because Toney was to lazy or stupid to think he could make weight. Anyway RJJ in his prime beats Toney no matter what RJJ was simply better. To many excuses made for the likes of Toney or Tyson about how they lost because of poor training ect that's their fault they lost they don't get a pass on a loss because they didn't prepare right.

dazza161989

In the world has to be sugar ray robinson, in my opinion, pound for pound, the greatest boxer of all time.

Europe: the underrated, and under appreciated Joe Calzage, his record speaks for itself.

stpaddy99

dazza161989 wrote: »

In the world has to be sugar ray robinson, in my opinion, pound for pound, the greatest boxer of all time.

Europe: the underrated, and under appreciated Joe Calzage, his record speaks for itself.

cant argue with that....whilst its fun to debate all these legends...in the end you look at the records of these fighters and its hard to see past sugar ray robinson as the greatest.....calzaghe was probably the best of the europeans....I cant think of anyone with legitimate claims to be better?

dazza161989

stpaddy99 wrote: »

cant argue with that....whilst its fun to debate all these legends...in the end you look at the records of these fighters and its hard to see past sugar ray robinson as the greatest.....calzaghe was probably the best of the europeans....I cant think of anyone with legitimate claims to be better?

Its not often some1 agrees on boards

efb

SRL the guy just oozed class

terrymccarthy05

Sugar Ray Robinson bar none

Henno30

terrymccarthy05 wrote: »

Sugar Ray Robinson bar none

At welterweight, but at middleweight it's less clear.

The Pheasant2

Lads none of ye mentioned our very own George Gardiner out of Lisdoonvarna Co. Clare! Middleweight champion of the world and first ever undisputed light heavyweight champion of the world.

Also an honourable mention to Rocky Graziano - great fighter with a seriously impressive KO record. Unfortunately couldn't overcome Tony Sale though.

walshb

The Pheasant2 wrote: »

Lads none of ye mentioned our very own George Gardiner out of Lisdoonvarna Co. Clare! Middleweight champion of the world and first ever undisputed light heavyweight champion of the world.

Also an honourable mention to Rocky Graziano - great fighter with a seriously impressive KO record. Unfortunately couldn't overcome Tony Sale though.

Graziano was a slugger. Brave slugger. Doesn't make my top 20.

terrymccarthy05

Henno30 wrote: »

At welterweight, but at middleweight it's less clear.

Less clear to who.

walshb

Less clear in the sense that SRR was probably a more dominant all time WW than he was at MW. He was a force at MW, but more a force at WW.

efb

terrymccarthy05 wrote: »

Less clear to who.

Whom. ;-p

Henno30

terrymccarthy05 wrote: »

Less clear to who.

At welterweight almost every list you'll ever see will name SRR as the greatest ever. At middleweight you'll frequently see other names picked ahead of him. It's much more in dispute is all I'm saying.