James Toney was very good but he'd lose to good fighters with footwork.

[crold1]

It's called losing.

He was losing handily.

He won every round after seven and the early going was a great case of stalking a guy into fatigue. Total classic fight as Toney just fought like his back was on fire all night. Considering he was two fights removed from club fighters, his ability to learn, adjust, and win was remarkable. It wasn't a miracle punch fight. It was a subtle turn in the mid-rounds.

[RichCCFC]

I have Toney's autobiography, and it stated that he and Hopkins was signed to fight at a catch weight around the late 90's, but Bernard turned the fight down shortly after. The thing about Hopkins is that he is not a dumb man, and he would not turned down a huge pay day and paper view event if he didn't think Jame's would have been a bad style match up for him.

Hopkins also signed to fight Calzaghe only to pull out of it, why does this never get mentioned?

[Truth]

Toney had an autobiography?

[slicksouthpaw16]

He won every round after seven and the early going was a great case of stalking a guy into fatigue. Total classic fight as Toney just fought like his back was on fire all night. Considering he was two fights removed from club fighters, his ability to learn, adjust, and win was remarkable. It wasn't a miracle punch fight. It was a subtle turn in the mid-rounds.

Even in the earlier rounds, Toney was landing the cleaner and more effective blows, so when people say'' Toney was losing every round until he caught Nunn with a lucky punch'' is a myth. He was the one that wore Nunn out and set him up with that hook.

Toney had an autobiography?

Biography i meant, my mistake. I always get those two confused.

[Truth]

what was it called?

[slicksouthpaw16]

Hopkins also signed to fight Calzaghe only to pull out of it, why does this never get mentioned?

I don't know anything about that one, could it be a rumor? This is actually the first time Ive heard about it.

what was it called?

''James Nathaniel Toney''. I posted it on ESB a while back.

[crold1]

I don't know anything about that one, could it be a rumor? This is actually the first time Ive heard about it.



''James Nathaniel Toney''. I posted it on ESB a while back.

In 2002/03, while still with King, a deal was worked with Showtime where Hopkins would face Hakkar, Calzaghe and Harry Simon with Calzaghe being approx. for $3 Mill in PPV. the 3 was Hopkins reported figure. When the deal was all set, Hop came back and asked for double, effectively killing it. Now, did he balk because of Cal? hardly. he wanted out of working with King and wanted a shot at O$car. So, technically, one could say Hopkins killed what would have been a tough fight for good money for an easy fight for GREAT money. No brainer.

[wmute]

It's called losing.

He was losing handily.

go watch the fight again, dont give me the scorecads, jsut watch the fight.

[sparked_85]

go watch the fight again, dont give me the scorecads, jsut watch the fight.

I will do actually, because in my minds eye Nunn was well on top.

But then last time I watched it I was not as clued up to the nuances of boxing. Crold, suggests an a changing of the tide from round 6 onwards. I'll have a look could be interesting this time around.

I really like Nunn though, I think that influences me. Smooth as a varnished table.

[KostyaTszyu44]

Why does everyone make it out like he would beat Roy Jones if he wasn't weight drained, or Hopkins or Calzaghe?

All three of those posses Toney's biggest weakness - Too much footwork.

Toney is great if you're a fighter who will lean on his chest and try to slug it out with him but I refuse to believe he could beat any of those three, his work at heavyweight is irrelevent as his style is suited to it (even Roy Jones said this).

i dont think james could ever beat roy but a motivated and fit toney would handle calzaghe pretty easily, and probably edge out bernard too