True or False: James Toney's win over Michael Nunn is better than any win of Floyd's?

[The Big Dunn]

But it's true that Shane was considered over the hill before Margarito and had one fantastic performance left in him.

He was clearly not considered as solid as Nunn despite what a P4P list would say.

This is a fair point. I just wish shane didn't have his toothache when he was prime.

[LacedUp]

My point is I disagree with you calling those 6 wins top wins, especially, Roldan, Curry and Starling at MW. I have no issue with Tate, Barkley and Kalumbay-except you saying he should be in the HOF.

Roldan was in his 75th or so fight and he retired after the loss. Starling went up from WW to MW and went back to WW after the loss. Curry at MW is 2 fights removed from losing to Rochet. this wasn't WW curry.

I think the points I am raising are fair.

Fair enough if you disagree.

They were top fights at the time? It's like saying Ray Leonard wouldn't get full credit for beating Duran if he won their first fight. It's always easy to look back and not give them full credit. Maybe take Roldan away, and it's still better than the streak of wins any Floyd victim has had leading up to a fight with Floyd. If not, let me know who?

All I'm saying is that Floyd doesn't have a win as impressive as an undefeated Michael Nunn. I really can't see who's as impressive as Nunn. Pacquiao comes closest imo.

[!! Shawn]

shane was rated about as high p4p as Nunn was when Floyd beat him, that is all I posted and that is true. I did not say or imply he was in his prime nor undefeated like Nunn.

When SHane was prime he was in a completely different class than Nunn.

The p4p rankings have become the Name for Name rankings. We both know Shane Mosely was not the #3 p4p fighter in the world in 2010. His ranking was based almost entirely off his win over Margarito, who showed to be nothing without plaster in his gloves.

Shane in his prime was in the same class as Nunn, but Nunn was a much more skilled fighter than Shane. Shane had more dog in him, was faster, and could take a better punch.

Nunn was a much more skilled technician, much slicker, and more defensively sound, and he also was very tall and rangy for his division... and southpaw...

He was a nightmare, and was destined to be an ATG, if he didn't meet Toney.



Here is the Kalambay fight...

The Same Kalambay that beat Mike McCallum in his prime... The same Mike McCallum that basically everyone who ever fought him listed as the best fighter they ever fought.



vs Tate... The Olympic Gold Medalist...

Just use your eyes. The Nunn was SPECIAL.

Then consider that After the Toney loss, Nunn moved up to 168 and become the Lineal Champion there as well...

[LacedUp]

This is a fair point. I just wish shane didn't have his toothache when he was prime.

You mean after the Vargas fight?

Would have been nice if it happened then.

[Doctor_Tenma]

Mannys last PRIME prime fight was Cotto.

Looked a tad bit stronger against Clottey

[The Big Dunn]

Fair enough if you disagree.

They were top fights at the time? It's like saying Ray Leonard wouldn't get full credit for beating Duran if he won their first fight. It's always easy to look back and not give them full credit. Maybe take Roldan away, and it's still better than the streak of wins any Floyd victim has had leading up to a fight with Floyd. If not, let me know who?

All I'm saying is that Floyd doesn't have a win as impressive as an undefeated Michael Nunn. I really can't see who's as impressive as Nunn. Pacquiao comes closest imo.

No disrespect but I do not remember those wins over curry and starling being celebrated that much. of course its a long time ago and the memory is off.

I think the Nunn win was a great win for Toney, no question. I guess the equivalent would've been prime ODH, shane or Manny, maybe cotto. Fair point about the win streak I agree no one on Floyd's resume had that string of wins.

ODH, shane and Manny wouldn't fight high risk Floyd like Nunn fought high risk Toney.

[!! Shawn]

Fair enough if you disagree.

They were top fights at the time? It's like saying Ray Leonard wouldn't get full credit for beating Duran if he won their first fight. It's always easy to look back and not give them full credit. Maybe take Roldan away, and it's still better than the streak of wins any Floyd victim has had leading up to a fight with Floyd. If not, let me know who?

All I'm saying is that Floyd doesn't have a win as impressive as an undefeated Michael Nunn. I really can't see who's as impressive as Nunn. Pacquiao comes closest imo.

I think Cotto is a better win, as he was quite a bit fresher at the time they fought. Honestly, Pacquaio has been a shell of himself for years...

I mean just think of all the broadcasts where they were making excuses for Pacquiao's poor performances. Manny is having "Leg cramps"! That what they sold us as Pacquiao slid from the peak of his abilities. As he went from a guy that was always in and out side to side, throwing punches from every angle, to a guy who would stand in front of you. They also managed to mask his slide with all of the Marquez fights.

When you see two guys slipping together, you can't see them slipping.

For example, Rafa Marquez and Vaszquez went from p4p greats to, non competitive fighters in the span of 4 fights with each other. You couldn't see them slipping though, because you never saw them against another fighter, just against each other.

Same things happened with Manny and Marquez. Manny would have an "off night" then Fight another close fight with Marquez, and everyone would be like "Well! Looks like the two Warriors are still at their best!"

[!! Shawn]

Looked a tad bit stronger against Clottey

Clottey didn't fight back at all. Cotto fight, was the first fight I saw him slowing down in.

I said it after the fight too, that Manny would be on the slide from there.

[The Big Dunn]

The p4p rankings have become the Name for Name rankings. We both know Shane Mosely was not the #3 p4p fighter in the world in 2010. His ranking was based almost entirely off his win over Margarito, who showed to be nothing without plaster in his gloves.

Shane in his prime was in the same class as Nunn, but Nunn was a much more skilled fighter than Shane. Shane had more dog in him, was faster, and could take a better punch.

Nunn was a much more skilled technician, much slicker, and more defensively sound, and he also was very tall and rangy for his division... and southpaw...

He was a nightmare, and was destined to be an ATG, if he didn't meet Toney.



Here is the Kalambay fight...

The Same Kalambay that beat Mike McCallum in his prime... The same Mike McCallum that basically everyone who ever fought him listed as the best fighter they ever fought.



vs Tate... The Olympic Gold Medalist...

Just use your eyes. The Nunn was SPECIAL.

Then consider that After the Toney loss, Nunn moved up to 168 and become the Lineal Champion there as well...

Dude, I saw all those fights and in no way am I denigrating Nunn. Your point about p4p list is fair regarding RING but not all p4p lists are like that.

Nunn is not a HOF'er while shane is considered a lock by all of us. See my response above-I think the Tate and Kalumbay wins are very good.

[LacedUp]

No disrespect but I do not remember those wins over curry and starling being celebrated that much. of course its a long time ago and the memory is off.

I think the Nunn win was a great win for Toney, no question. I guess the equivalent would've been prime ODH, shane or Manny, maybe cotto. Fair point about the win streak I agree no one on Floyd's resume had that string of wins.

ODH, shane and Manny wouldn't fight high risk Floyd like Nunn fought high risk Toney.

Is Toney's resume better than Floyd's? No. I just think this is a case of beating someone who was in his absolute peak and clearly the top dog in the MW division.

Not too sure about the last one. I definitely think Oscar would have fought Floyd if the circumstances were equal to Nunn's. But he was making so much damn money at the time. But I can appreciate what you mean.

I think Cotto is a better win, as he was quite a bit fresher at the time they fought. Honestly, Pacquaio has been a shell of himself for years...

I mean just think of all the broadcasts where they were making excuses for Pacquiao's poor performances. Manny is having "Leg cramps"! That what they sold us as Pacquiao slid from the peak of his abilities. As he went from a guy that was always in and out side to side, throwing punches from every angle, to a guy who would stand in front of you. They also managed to mask his slide with all of the Marquez fights.

When you see two guys slipping together, you can't see them slipping.

For example, Rafa Marquez and Vaszquez went from p4p greats to, non competitive fighters in the span of 4 fights with each other. You couldn't see them slipping though, because you never saw them against another fighter, just against each other.

Same things happened with Manny and Marquez. Manny would have an "off night" then Fight another close fight with Marquez, and everyone would be like "Well! Looks like the two Warriors are still at their best!"

I don't think Cotto was a better win than Pacquiao. Cotto looked good against Margarito, but other than that it had been years since he looked like the old Cotto i.e. how he looked vs Martinez and Geale - despite the opposition. He also looked bad vs Trout.

That's true about Pacquiao, and I'm not saying he was as good as he once was, obviously. But I still think he was good and had looked good beating Bradley, Rios and Algieri - 3 average opponents in my book, but he still looked good.