Hopkins or Toney - who was better?

[IronDanHamza]

pointing out the difference doesnt change the fact that when Hopkins didnt have a clear edge in size and speed, he lost

whether he was prime (jones)

slightly past prime(taylor 2x)

or world class but clear past it(Dawson, Pascal 1 he looked like crap,CALZAGHE)


Timing beats speed and Hopkins was always one step behind when he wasnt facing come forward types

But again you're referring to fights outside of his prime. I was referring to fights in Toney's prime.

You say Hopkins was one step behind when not faced with a come forward type fighter. Yeah, I can agree with that. But Toney was three steps behind when he fought a guy that could box and move. So what's your point here?

[therealpugilist]

But again you're referring to fights outside of his prime. I was referring to fights in Toney's prime.

You say Hopkins was one step behind when not faced with a come forward type fighter. Yeah, I can agree with that. But Toney was three steps behind when he fought a guy that could box and move. So what's your point here?

im referring to his entire career....size, speed an athleticism troubled Hopkins


Hopkins himself benefitted from fighters coming to him, and looked out of place taking the lead or changing the pace of the fight mid fight.

Hopkins is overrated as a tactician and never pressed the gas or cut of the ring when dealing with those types....toney took losses too, difference is he actually won some too


Toney overcame McCallum and Nunn, i seriously doubt hopkins could have because he never beat anyone as good as them while at 160, let alone his entire career.

Thats my point....his best wins are over guys he held clear advantages over.......2 former welters Tito and DLH.....winky and pavlik were middleweights he fought at 170..finally fights jones after he got ktfo a couple times...he didnt take the risks or fight the opponents Toney did

[IronDanHamza]

im referring to his entire career....size, speed an athleticism troubled Hopkins


Hopkins himself benefitted from fighters coming to him, and looked out of place taking the lead or changing the pace of the fight mid fight.

Hopkins is overrated as a tactician and never pressed the gas or cut of the ring when dealing with those types....toney took losses too, difference is he actually won some too


Toney overcame McCallum and Nunn, i seriously doubt hopkins could have because he never beat anyone as good as them while at 160, let alone his entire career.

Thats my point....his best wins are over guys he held clear advantages over.......2 former welters Tito and DLH.....winky and pavlik were middleweights he fought at 170..finally fights jones after he got ktfo a couple times...he didnt take the risks or fight the opponents Toney did

Ok and in referring to his prime because this thread is about who's better prime for prime. What Hopkins did in his 40's is irrelevant.

What you're saying about Hopkins applies for Toney. Everything you're critiszing Hopkins for, Toney did worse.

Toney got a draw with McCallum and the second one he was lucky ton get the decision. He "overcame" Nunn in a fight he was losing handily. Outside of that and including both of them he has no dominant wins over top level opposition.

You doubt Hopkins could beat Nunn, I also doubt Hopkins would lose to Tiberi and Thadzi.

[Doctor_Tenma]

A lot of people posting in this thread haven't seen their careers.

They haven't seen Toney draw with journeyman, edge out hard fought decisions against unranked opponents and clearly lose against unranked opponents.

They haven't seen him get a gift decison against Reggie Johnson in which he made Toney look like an amateur.

They've seen him get absolutely embarrassed by Roy Jones, but they blame that on him being "drained". Ok, so tell me, when wasn't he "drained"?

They've seen him lose twice to Montel Griffin, but they claim those fights were robberies when they absolutely were not.

And you know what else? They completely ignore the above. They either refuse to adknowledge it or have every excuse in the book for it.

Consider me guilty as well, ever since you analyzed his career I came to realize Toney was never what I thought him to be. That said, at no point did I ever think he was as skilled as Hopkins or that he could have beaten him, Hopkins' would have been too tricky and more than hold his own on the inside. Toney had stamina issues, fought in spurts, Hopkins in his prime was always supremely conditioned.

[therealpugilist]

Ok and in referring to his prime because this thread is about who's better prime for prime. What Hopkins did in his 40's is irrelevant.

What you're saying about Hopkins applies for Toney. Everything you're critiszing Hopkins for, Toney did worse.

Toney got a draw with McCallum and the second one he was lucky ton get the decision. He "overcame" Nunn in a fight he was losing handily. Outside of that and including both of them he has no dominant wins over top level opposition.

You doubt Hopkins could beat Nunn, I also doubt Hopkins would lose to Tiberi and Thadzi.

Toney fought better opposition in his prime than Hopkins, in Hopkins prime he was facing a shot simon brown, never wases Robert Allen and antwun echols.

so basically you are trying to eliminate his losses...In hopkins prime he didnt fight anyone worth a damn outside of Roy Jones and he lost....didnt press the action nor cut off the ring

between Jones and fighting trinidad, Hopkins fought some of the worst title challengers in recent middleweight history

steve frank? Joe lipsey, willie bo james, adrew council

his competition was utter crap

doesnt change the fact that throughout his career he struggled when he had to press the action and didnt cut off the ring well

[bojangles1987]

Toney fought better opposition in his prime than Hopkins, in Hopkins prime he was facing a shot simon brown, never wases Robert Allen and antwun echols.

so basically you are trying to eliminate his losses...In hopkins prime he didnt fight anyone worth a damn outside of Roy Jones and he lost....didnt press the action nor cut off the ring

between Jones and fighting trinidad, Hopkins fought some of the worst title challengers in recent middleweight history

steve frank? Joe lipsey, willie bo james, adrew council

his competition was utter crap

doesnt change the fact that throughout his career he struggled when he had to press the action and didnt cut off the ring well

Toney lost to that kind of utter crap.

How in the hell can you accuse someone of trying to erase losses, call Hopkins's competition crap, and then yourself completely erase that Toney lost to fighters just as bad as the ones you are criticizing Hopkins for destroying?

Literally everything you are criticizing Hopkins for applies to Toney even more. He was worse at cutting off the ring, struggled worse with movement and athleticism, and was worse at pressing the action. And when he fought awful fighters, he lost, multiple times.

[IronDanHamza]

Toney fought better opposition in his prime than Hopkins, in Hopkins prime he was facing a shot simon brown, never wases Robert Allen and antwun echols.

so basically you are trying to eliminate his losses...In hopkins prime he didnt fight anyone worth a damn outside of Roy Jones and he lost....didnt press the action nor cut off the ring

between Jones and fighting trinidad, Hopkins fought some of the worst title challengers in recent middleweight history

steve frank? Joe lipsey, willie bo james, adrew council

his competition was utter crap

doesnt change the fact that throughout his career he struggled when he had to press the action and didnt cut off the ring well

What does that have to do with the fact that Toney was worse than Hopkins at what you're critisizing him for?

Allen and Echols are solid fighters. I wouldn't be suprised at all if both gave Toney all kind of problems.

[therealpugilist]

Toney lost to that kind of utter crap.

How in the hell can you accuse someone of trying to erase losses, call Hopkins's competition crap, and then yourself completely erase that Toney lost to fighters just as bad as the ones you are criticizing Hopkins for destroying?

Literally everything you are criticizing Hopkins for applies to Toney even more. He was worse at cutting off the ring, struggled worse with movement and athleticism, and was worse at pressing the action. And when he fought awful fighters, he lost, multiple times.

did you even watch the fights?

Griffin was a lot better than Steve frank, willie bo james and actually beat world class guys. After he lost an upset to thadzie After his losses Toney regrouped and didnt lose a fight for another 9 years, won a title at cruiserweight and became a heavyweight contender. something Hopkins never would be able to do

did HOPKINS ever beat anyone as good as nunn or mccallum? No

I know who he lost to, I also know who he beat and fought. Hopkins has one of the worst resumes of all time for an all time great middleweight.

Hopkins lost to a no name soon as his career started

and continued fighting no names from Jones until trinidad..,,,it was pathetic

[therealpugilist]

What does that have to do with the fact that Toney was worse than Hopkins at what you're critisizing him for?

Allen and Echols are solid fighters. I wouldn't be suprised at all if both gave Toney all kind of problems.

dude, you're not very good at trolling

Toney was not WORSE, he fought better opposition and when you opposition is stiffer, your limitations are exposed and fights are tougher

Fighting McCallum, Nunn, reggie johnson for titles is a 3 leagues higher than fighting robert allen, sergundo mercado and trinidad for your titles.

its called common sense...try using it.

the stiffer the competition, the tougher the fights


Hopkins fought no names, washed up champions, and former welterweights during his title reign

[therealpugilist]

Toney lost to that kind of utter crap.

How in the hell can you accuse someone of trying to erase losses, call Hopkins's competition crap, and then yourself completely erase that Toney lost to fighters just as bad as the ones you are criticizing Hopkins for destroying?

Literally everything you are criticizing Hopkins for applies to Toney even more. He was worse at cutting off the ring, struggled worse with movement and athleticism, and was worse at pressing the action. And when he fought awful fighters, he lost, multiple times.

yea montell griffin isnt better than those guys....GTFOH....Hagler struggled with movement and speed but Thats like saying Hagler wouldnt beat Hopkins or toney because he lost to willie monroe and billy watts but totally ignoring he beat tommy hearns, duran, minter etc.

thats a weak azz argument...fighters take losses and styles make fights.

you idiots keep bringing up toney's worst but not Hopkins worst

prime for prime is both guys at their best, and at their best I believe toney was the better fighter and beat better fighters....Hopkins was fighting nobodies

Toney isnt leading the poll right now because he ******...deal with it