James Toney, wasted potential??

Saw this comment on youtube in a James Toney vs Mike Mccallum I video:

"I saw this back then... and today, watching it for the 3rd or 4th time in my life, I had it 115-113 for James Toney... although in the last couple rounds he was gassed, and his timing was really off, and he was swinging at a whole lot of air there.

Having seen so many fights, I don't think this match is the "uber amazing technical masterpiece" some say it is (e.g., by the comments below, you'd think it was the greatest ring match of all time... when really it was more of an intense full contact sparring session between two skilled technicians... as far as a fight goes, there was no grave danger, or no exploration of the outer limits of game-depth by either man, or primal ferocity behind the skilled violence, no desperate will-to-survive drama... lol someone below said it's"the greatest fight of all combat sports" umm, not quite... that's kind of a like a pimply teen finally popping his cherry and then waxing poetic about his "passionate love making" and the most intense sex ever-- more than a little hyperbolic; just calm down, son...)

But, this memorable boxing match was certainly a solid example of tight toe-to-toe boxing... with good jabs, a lot of shoulder rolling and flat-footed head movement while slipping punches, short diameter close punching techniques, surprisingly good efficient footwork... something almost resembling a technical video game match between two players who really knew their buttons and ducks.

For boxing history fans... personally, I think this is where you can really see the entrenched later style of James Toney developing... where he would ultimately get much less-light on his feet, quite a bit fatter and softer, and he would really use masterfully efficient footwork and shoulder rolling to essentially become a lazy phone booth fighter-- enabling him to stand there and duke it out without either clinching or taking much real damage.

Unfortunately, while some are impressed by this evolution of James, because it exudes so much boxing skill... I really think it robbed him of his potential as a more well-rounded fighter. Because his work ethic was always at the bare minimum (i.e., a clock-puncher), but his technical skill was so good, it essentially enabled him to "cheat" a lot and opt for the easy way through rounds.

It took just one key fighter with far more developed movement, and a much wider range of fighting techniques, rather than just a tricky bag of phone-booth boxing mastery, to expose Toney and make him look fairly ordinary. And that was Roy Jones, Jr. ...James Toney's lazy movement and technical style was just totally left in the dust when Jones Jr. literally ran circles around him, peppering him and making him look slow and inactive with his superior athleticism. Toney would never really evolve after that. He just seemed to sort of accept it... and he seemed to just double down on that style, trying to select opponents who would just stand in a small circle within his reach and box it out with him.

He really was one of the best fighters of this type in all of history. But the throw a high-pressure forward style at him, or the opposite in a backing-up outside style at him-- anything extraordinary that would force him to move out of his comfy phone booth-- and he could be beaten by less technical fighters. "Styles make fights," as they say, and Toney was really married to his style... which I see blossoming in this Toney-McCallum I match. And so, I always thought of Toney as such a strange not-so-strange boxing anomaly... so good, so expert at that one style he mastered... and yet such a lazy dud, a fish completely flopping out of the water whenever he was out of his comfort zone.

An unsurprising example of this is his MMA experiment with Randy Couture, decades later. When Couture took a single-leg shoot... and then just went to full mount atop Toney to choke him out... Toney literally did look like a hapless beached whale, just flopping there doing nothing, totally helpless, and too confused and lazy to even try. A significant number of his boxing fights were like this, too, in reality... pretty much the same thing, in a nutshell... if he didn't get to fight his toe-to-toe, shoulder rolling, tight circle lazy fight, then he just flopped around and waited for the next fight to start.

Anyway... when I watch this particular fight with McCallum... this is where I see the emergence of THAT James Toney... the fighter that he whould choose to be forever. This fight is where I see him go down that fateful road, once and for all. Some might say Nunn... maybe... but you could see the chase still, the fire in him to do what needed to be done-- as opposed to just "do your thing" and accept things the way they'll play out. Nunn was more like his "crossroads."

Some would say Jones, Jr., and that makes more sense... although I'd say that match was Toney's final opportunity to choose to go back to the drawing board and retrain, and then reinvent his style, to learn and evolve with boxing and develop from the experiences that others around him forced upon him. But he didn't evolve. He said, "Naaahhh. I'm good." And promptly ditched his team, then began the fatty-fatso cheeseburger climb through various weight classes of the the alphabet soup belts... seeking the hollow "championships" he could manage to win using his one style. It might seem like I am not a Toney fan. But... I am. Or maybe I was, but I still feel like I am (I just feel more realistic about it...). I mean, now he is a fairly inarticulate curmudgeon, who probably still believes he is "the greatest fighter of all time."

Like a bunch of not-too-humble old champs who will be remembered by many, but forgotten by most. To me, he was an exceptionally talented, skilled boxer who didn't quite have the deep gameness inside to be the historically dominant champion he had the potential to be.

Unlike some champions, who did reach their potential, and perhaps more... speaking of, there was a remarkable man providing modest commentary during this bout. Have no illusions about this: Marvin Hagler would have literally walked Toney down, forced him to trade until he was gassed and could slip and duck no more, and then knocked him out. Even a Toney "in his prime."

One was a good boxer who tried to bend the boxing titles to his own skill set, the other was a good boxer with lion's heart... who reigned for seven years, unified all the available titles and ducked no one (McCallum's claim is just silly revisionist history, as he wasnt even in the same division as Hagler when he was active, while Hagler was lining up the top draws of the day, one by one...Hagler simply retired before McCallum came up), who fought on average twice a year to defend those titles, and KO'd at a 78% rate, and a 92% rate during his championship reign of 13 title defenses (i.e., one decision), whether early or late rounds, from top to bottom out of all 15 round contests, Hagler could KO during any portion of the fight... until that fateful day where he met the other Sugar Ray. Hagler and Toney, "levels to the game," and all that."

Watching James Toney has always been hard for me, not because his style, i think he is entertaining but he looks to force/bully things with his handspeed when things dont go according to his gameplan, also it frustrates when he plants on his feet instead of being a more mobile fighter (like Ezzard Charles ), i read somewehre many years ago that Bill Miller didnt consider James Toney a finished product but James had a difficullt attitude and ended up leaving Pops Bill Miller.

What do you think about him regarding this aspect???