James Toney Is A Victim of His Own Genius

[Neckodeemus]

james whole career has been this way. Because he doesn't fight three minutes a round, his fights are always close. Look at McCallum II...much like this fight it was one guy advancing with consistent pressure and Toney landing in combination in spots. he's a victim of his conditioning as much as genius.

Hello mate, that is a really, realy good point and I touched on it in the piece about Toney being outsmarted by Eddie Futch I did on this site, especially when Eddie got a high tempo mover like Griffin. I'm current re-watching the career of Toney and will taking a close look at three or four fights where this factor has let him down. Tiberi is up tonight, I'll also look at Rahman and (if I get a copy in time, I watched live without taping last week) this fight.

However I decided to go with thre genius line as the conidtioning aspect has been done to death in the weeks leading tot his fight, I will hold fire on the above mentioned piece until the fuss has died down.

I should probably explain also that I am not biased towards Toney, I've scored against him and the reason that I do so much stuff on him right now is that I order fighters career sets (especially now I'm replacing my VHS sets with DVD starting with my Toney tapes, which sadly took me two years to compile but DVD is so much better) and re-watch them only now I can write stuff up. Toney is merely first in line, next up is Lewis, then Holmes, Duran, Hearns, Hagler, Locche, Napoles, Robinson, Louis, Charles and (for my sins) Audley Harrison

I know Toney has a lot of flaws but, for me, his pluses make up for them.

[Kid Achilles]

Funny that you disregard 10-10 rounds because I think they are exactly what boxing needs to bring back to fix the growing problem of poor judging. Think of it this way:

In the first round of a hypoethtical fight Fighter A beats fighter B all over the ring and all but knocks him out. He wins the round 10-9.

The next round fighter B fights defensively. It is a boring round where both men stay at long distance and exchange jabs, and the occasional cross that misses. Fighter B lands two more jabs than fighter A. Do you really think Fighter B deserves to win a round by the SAME MARGIN as his opponent did in the previous round when he clearly dominated?

I do not think so, and I would score that second very close round 10-10. I score a round 10-9 when I think one fighter did enough to prove his mastery over the other. When it's close enough that you're splitting hairs, the round should be 10-10 IMO.

[Nautilus]

Funny that you disregard 10-10 rounds because I think they are exactly what boxing needs to bring back to fix the growing problem of poor judging. Think of it this way:

In the first round of a hypoethtical fight Fighter A beats fighter B all over the ring and all but knocks him out. He wins the round 10-9.

The next round fighter B fights defensively. It is a boring round where both men stay at long distance and exchange jabs, and the occasional cross that misses. Fighter B lands two more jabs than fighter A. Do you really think Fighter B deserves to win a round by the SAME MARGIN as his opponent did in the previous round when he clearly dominated?

I do not think so, and I would score that second very close round 10-10. I score a round 10-9 when I think one fighter did enough to prove his mastery over the other. When it's close enough that you're splitting hairs, the round should be 10-10 IMO.

or 9-9 ... to emphasize that noone won the round

[Neckodeemus]

Whilst I certainly agree that judging on the points system needs to be looked at I still think the ten-point must should entail a round winner getting ten-points.

In the case you use the narrow margin round could be scored 10-9 and the round where one guy is all but knoced out scores 10-8 for the dominant fighter, that way we reward greater dominance. Judges have 10 points to play with but they do not do so, I don't get that.

My problem with 10-10 is this, say you get lots of rounds like your second example, four or five rounds in fact. You would then have five rounds where 10-10 could be given and only seven rounds that can win the fight, a guy could win 4-3 and take a 12 round fight on points after only, to all extents, winning 4 rounds. That seems even more unfair.

Judges are asked to perform a task and if it requires greater use of the 10-8 then so be it. Maybe we need a judging sin-bin where they are not banned but re-educated and asked to shadow outstanding judges to see how they work things out.

Going to a gym and watching sparring would be a help, they could then fill out which guy won a session and how they would break it down as praise/criticism if they were a trainer.

[GunStar]

Terence Dooley, that was well written!

[Kball15]

great article

maybe this'll shutup all the people who somehow thought peter won the fight

[cold]

James Toney Great Boxer at any Weight Class


Toney was never a legitimate Heavyweight and I never respected him as a Heavyweight until he fought Sam Peter and Won imo.

I thought he would lose by KO to Peter.

Toney has gained respect and proved to be, irregardless of how "overweight" he is, at Heavyweight a great boxer.

[joeytrimble]

i think its funny this jack ass never was is bringing up age when its got **** to do with anything

this is a fight where 90 percent of the boxing world felt james toney won ...

agian you son of a dyke i say...GETS SOME ****IN BALLS!

[GunStar]

i think its funny this jack ass never was is bringing up age when its got **** to do with anything

this is a fight where 90 percent of the boxing world felt james toney won ...

agian you son of a dyke i say...GETS SOME ****IN BALLS!

Are you talking about Kid Achilles???

[joeytrimble]

hell yeah i am