H2H: Peak James Toney v Peak Joe Calzaghe

:nut

This is what I'm talking about when I say Toney is universally overrated. All this proves is how basic and pedestrian your knowledge of boxing is.

 

how can an unbeaten fighter have a suspect chin. what a joke !

 

bull****.

and why have you got a picture of don king just after getting arrested for murder against your name ? make you feel tough ?




b

 

the ignorance is astounding .

 

definitely a win for Toney. He's just too good a fighter for Calzaghe. He's accurate and aggressive for a counter puncher. Calzaghe's style is made to allow Toney room to work and win.

 

who were these 2 "bums" you're on about ?

and anyway, in boxing you're only as good as your last fight , and eubank was good in the calzaghe fight, thats all that matters.

even ali had off days ..................

posters on here sometimes simplify the sport so much .

 

Toney never had good footwork, though he did move more in his younger days. Still, pressuring and fighting at long-range were not his forte. If you'll watch his footwork at any point of his career, it's simply nowhere near his upper-body skills in terms of technique or efficiency. It just wasn't a part of his game that he ever refined(probably felt he didn't need to), and it would cost him against pretty much any truly great MW, or(IMO anyway) in a fight with Joe at SMW, though Joe has his own weaknesses technically.

Watch his fight with Nunn for an example of a prime Toney's lack of footwork.

 

If Toney was in prime shape than I think he beats Joe C into a very mushy pulp.

 

No, I do think that, and believe me, I fully understand that there's more to boxing than purely technical skill. Boxing is often described as a science. I consider it more of an art because there's room for so much innovation and there is more to defining a fighter than purely technique. Believe me I know. I just don't see how it plays into this fight being as Toney was a pretty inconsistent fighter and never really proved himself to be truly great in my eyes in the first place. I'd say Calzaghe(while not facing the same level of competition) was more dedicated and consistent than Toney in his performances, though both have had their share of off nights.

As it is, styles do make matchups, and when one fighter(Calzaghe) has shown the ability to adapt while the other(Toney) has a more set style, I'll take the first guy, especially when he hasn't really shown anything that would lead me to believe he'd crack under pressure or not perform at his best. Toney has on the other hand.

What I think is that you're overrating Toney here, just like everyone else. He never proved anything like this until his later career when he was facing bigger, but slower and overall less skilled opponents. In his prime he showed more than enough problems with plenty of fighters, and while the "styles make matchups" phrase doesn't always dictate how a fight will go, Toney simply wasn't much of an adaptable fighter, though at his very best he showed he was more well-rounded than say the latter version.

Again, Toney just hasn't proven any of that to me, he was a very skilled, smart inside fighter, but there is more to boxing technique than that, and he never really found the need to learn that. That would cost him against more well-rounded fighters with better dedication. I think his own arrogance played against him in that case.

I'd favor Joe in a close fight, as I've said.

 

Yeah..... a semi-great fighter like Calzaghe would get shut out 12-0 and 11-1.... too bad Joe wasn't as good as the might Drake Thadzy, Terry McGroom, Johnson, Griffin and Tiberi :scaredas: