james toney...as a technical fighter is way OVER RATED

Think you have misunderstood the concept of technique. Toney had very, very good footwork for starters.

 

No, he didn't. That's like saying Locche had great footwork. It served his purpose in terms of keeping him balanced. That's all it did.

 

He may be a bit overrated..I agree...but I wouldn't put too much stock in a sparring match. He'd slap Green silly...make him punch drunk in a real fight.

 

uppercut at 1:08 was ****ing great. slips 2 jabs then fires the right uppercut.

 

He's definitely a bit overrated as a technician but you're ignoring his relatively brilliant(in regards to his competition) skills on the inside brah

 

bloody hell, watch his fights with johnson and mccallum.

not only does he slip and weave, he fights with a jab on the outside, he presses the action, he shows a brilliant compliment of technique actually.

 

What da :huh

If theres one thing Toney doesnt have is great footwork.

Its actually one of his weaknesses.

Hes too flat footed thats why anyone with good movement gave him him fits.

 

That's "all"? That's a ****ing lot. There's some many great fighters, renowned for the their footwork, who often fail in this regard.

Add to that, that Toney was very good at turning his opponent, when for example on the ropes, with deft, economical movements. And you have a very, very good footwork. He wasn't a dancer, but his footwork was class. Make no mistake about that.

 

Good to see you don't have a clue about boxing either.

Let me ask you; did Nunn have great footwork?

 

Is this your idea of haikus, or what are you doing here?

 

Nunn had good footwork.

One of the reasons why he was boxing circles around Toney for most of the fight.

But judging by your usual nutthugging ways around here(towards fighters and footballers which is even weirder considering football is a team sport) you probably had Toney ahead at the time of the stoppage.

 

No. That's flat out bull****. Just because he was a balanced fighter doesn't mean he had great (or even "very, very good") footwork. It was sound in terms of placement, but he lacked any kind of versatility with it. Sure, he was able to turn and play the angles on Barkley, but he isn't pulling those moves often on any educated fighter.

Nor is he out-boxing many educated boxers from the outside, least of all the movers. Nunn didn't have great technical footwork either, but you saw how Toney struggled on the front foot in that fight. Hell, you saw how **** his stalking skills were when he faced Jones. Couldn't even attempt to cut off the ring. Obviously Jones played a part in that, but even Toney's efforts were pathetic.

So no, I'm sorry, but having "very, very good footwork" by any meaningful standard involves more than being able to balance on a pivot to gain leverage for your shifts and punches.

 

Nunn had won every round except 2-3 of them. Toney needed a KO to win.

But Nunn's footwork wasn't that great . He had great legs/footspeed, whatever you want to call it. But he was often off balance and used up way too much energy in his moves. That's not great footwork.

In fact, I hesitate to even call his footwork good. He wasn't even very adept at keeping the range and often came closer than he wanted, but made up for it with reflexes. Well, until it no longer was enough to cover the gaps.

That you fail to make this distinction pleases me, I must say though.

The one thing that actually is a bit overrated of Toney's is his head movement. He could dip to dip to deep when ducking, not bending his knees properly, and also just lean away to his right without a great deal of finesse.