James Toney vs Joe Calzaghe (168lbs)

I would certainly say he was in his prime for Lacy and Kessler. But I get your point, as a few years ago Calzaghe could bang with authority. People disregard his power based on his ineffective flurries against Hopkins. Look at Calzaghe's KO percentage before he fought Eubank, it was was scary. Only hand problems over the years have made him a point scorer with less mustard being his shots.

Ive seen virtually every Calzaghe fight live or delayed since he beat Eubank. Unlike some US posters who have maybe seen a handful of those fights and only took an interest in him over the last 2-3 years.

 

I think skill-wise and in terms of his experience and ring craft, Calzaghe is at the height of his powers these days. The only differences between now and a few years back, or in his younger days, is his slightly deteriorated physical ability and fragile hands. Still, he still fights with the same basic style, just a bit more versatile nowadays than ever before IMO, which makes up for those flaws.

I agree with your point in regards to the comparison between Toney at 160 and higher weights BTW Rob. It's something I've thought about and recognized, but need to take into consideration more often when speaking on Toney's abilities.

 

Against Lacy and Kessler he was in his prime experienced-wise IMO. It isn´t so that he is/ was completely washed up there, but he didn´t have the same effect on his opponents with his punches like before his many hand injuries. JC himself lies to himself when he always says " I´ll knock him out... (RJJ)" or so, but in reality he knows that he lost lot of his power. Logically (what I understand), some posters will respond now that he KO´d only the bums, but now when he faces solid competition he wins only via decision or things like that... but in this case it isn´t the truth, like you mentioned the Eubank- fight, around that time JC had very good power at 168 lbs IMO...

 

Against Lacy and Kessler he was a more efficient fighter and more experienced as well, as you said. Handspeed as quick as it ever was, punch economy and stamina the same, and the variety of his shots and combos probably widened even more in evidence of both those showings. Of course he wasn't "It isn´t so that he is/was completely washed up there" as you put it. Polar opposite actually.

Logic says that fighters become less effective as they get older and look worse the deeper they are into their long title reigns. Holmes declined steadily after the Cooney showing in 1982, and Hagler was also on his way down steadily halfway through his reign. Against Mugabi and Leonard it was very noticeble. Not the same with Calzaghe.

Giving your views on a fighter starting to decline or when he was well past his prime, etc, is the same as judging a fight. Let your eyes do it.

 

Robbi!!! Thats The Best Avatar Ever Hahahahahaha

 

Sweet Pea, i was surprised you never commented on the point i made out about Hopkins being the only man who has ever slowed the pace of Calzage and dictated it against him. I know the styles of both men has come up a lot here, and its asically been done now, but i notice that you're usually big on analysing the dictating of the pace of bouts in these hypothetical matchups. Anyway, the point im making is that even when Toney is having his good spots when the style of the fight suits his style of fighting, he will not be slowing the pace of Calzage, which imo is a must if you are going to beat him at 168.

 

I did comment on that, I just saw it a different way. Hopkins's movement is what caused Calzaghe to slow his pace (particularly after the knockdown), as he wasn't able to set himself properly to explode, and the prospect of being caught with flush counters while not set clearly gave him problems commiting early on as well. Hopkins is a ring general, one of the best. Calzaghe proved his adaptability in the end though, like he typically does, though if Hopkins were younger and fresher I doubt that would've been the case. Still a close, very competitive fight prime for prime, but I'd probably favor Hopkins.

 

Sorry i never knew your comment was in response to my post, my bad.

Yea i agree it was because of Hopkins' movement, but even moreso of his ring generalship/tactical acumen. I was just touchin on the 'how to beat Calzaghe' aspect specifically rather than other discussed points here.

On the point of Joe's versatility, its always the thing that will pull him through big fights, he adapts takes over when in crisis.

For the record i actually thought Bernard won, but i know a lot had it for Calzage, it was close.

 

Footwork would be so crucial here.

 

A very close fight in which prime for prime i see it going either way , although i'm leaning towards toneys but its a 50/50

 

James "split decision" Toney has always had a myriad of trouble with opponents who have a high punch volume. During the Jirov fight, one of the career best efforts by Toney, i had Jirov ahead going into the 11th. Toney pulled it out in the final rounds, credit for that, but it goes to show you the trouble he has with high punch output fighters.

Calzaghe darts in and out faster, works from unorthodox angles and his ability to adapt his style to neutralize his opponent, i.e. ring generalship, is one of the very best in history. I'd pick him to win anything from a close 7-5 to a comfortable (i.e., fewer close rounds) 8-4. Toney's indomitable fans will claim that he was robbed, worst robbery in history, plus he was weight drained, overweight, and hadn't trained for the fight.

 

Its a bit of a shame calzaghe is getting his biggest challenges at the end of his career. Although he now seems smarter and more adaptable,he has lost speed and punch power.
Im glad a poster like robbie and some of the brits have seen calzaghes early fights and dont just judge him on his recent efforts. (technique wise.) The bile from some of the americans on calzaghe is ludicrous,joe is an atg,and with hindsight he could have beaten every 168er in history,with jones being the one he could lose.....

 

I watched the fight just last night. Never scored it. But on the viewing the whole fight, no chance was Jirov ahead after 10. He hardly hit Toney with anything clean at all throughout the fight. Toney less active, but far more accurate.

The judges agreed with myself, but they had it stupidly wide. I have the BBC version with Rawling and McKenzie. They had it for Toney as well.

 

Robbi Joe never had substancial power

1. You can count on 1 hand how many fighters Joe has had counted out, most are accumulation TKOs where the opponent looked like he was taking too much punnishment type stoppages

2. His comp before Eubanks were journeymen

3. His punching style was always sloppy and thats why his hands break so easily

 

Toney by 10th round KO.