James Toney vs Sam Peter

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • marq
    Pro
    • Jul 2003
    • 549

    #31
    Re: James Toney vs Sam Peter

    Originally posted by WilliamWilliamson
    Taylor didn't land any punches in 24 rounds. Jim Lampley said he was dominating the rounds, because they hate Bernard Hopkins and everyone watching bought into it. The first fight, Taylor won the 3 of the first 4, maybe all of the first 4, but he didn't win another round after that. From the 5th to the 12th in that first fight, Hopkins controlled it with EASE. Never even got hit and had Taylor running like a baby the last 3 rounds and still getting ROCKED. The 2nd fight was just Hopkins beating the boy.

    If a fighter never gets hit in 24 rounds, he didn't lose.

    I don't want to get started on those fights anymore, it's too frustrating. Sad that Hopkins' middleweight streak had to end because of politics. HBO is really pissing off with the whole Jermain Taylor thing. They signed him to this big fight deal, he's their young middleweight that they're hyping, but it's so frustrating. He's CLEARLY lost his last 3 fights and the judges keep giving it to him. Now they're going back to putting him in there with Junior Middleweights and welterweights.
    Well, didn't see the Toney fight so I can't comment. I thought he would win, oh well. However, I watched both Taylor-Hopkins fights a few times (they were VERY boring too) and I think Taylor won both. I also thought he beat Winky but that's just me. I thought Hopkins started too late in the first fight and Taylor's jab dominated the second fight. Also believe he hurt Winky a few times in that fight and that Winky took the last round off. I disputed rounds 9 and 10 (which I think Taylor won) that were given to Winky. That said, guess his "3 loses" weren't exactly clear...but boxing is subjective and needs to be cleaned up.

    Comment

    • WilliamWilliamson
      Pro
      • Nov 2005
      • 690

      #32
      Re: James Toney vs Sam Peter

      The four judging criteria of boxing are the following:

      Clean Punching
      Ring Generalship
      Effective Aggression
      Defense

      Comment

      • WilliamWilliamson
        Pro
        • Nov 2005
        • 690

        #33
        Re: James Toney vs Sam Peter

        Originally posted by aholbert32
        Great post. I felt the same way. The fight could have gone either way. I thought Toney won but I'm not upset with the decision.
        Yeah, there's a difference between close and controversial. 116-111 is robbery though, no way Peter took 9 rounds of that fight.

        Comment

        • Complex
          MVP
          • Oct 2005
          • 2494

          #34
          Re: James Toney vs Sam Peter

          Finally had a chance to watch the Peter vs Toney fight. Toney 116-113.

          Toney wins this one IMO. His best rounds were 6, 9, and 11. Peter had his best rounds in the 5, and 10. In many of the middle rounds. Toney would start strong and be somewhat consistent. Peter would try to steal rounds by shoe shine punching. The 4th and 9th were a toss up IMO, Toney more consisten and Peter landed the (few) harder shots.

          Those scorecards with 116-111 for Peter were just crazy.

          Peter simply can not box. I dont see him beating any of current champions.

          Toney's wife is fineeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

          With a point deduction for Peter, the 116-111 scores make no sense.
          Follow me on Twitter - http://twitter.com/complex219

          Comment

          • WilliamWilliamson
            Pro
            • Nov 2005
            • 690

            #35
            Re: James Toney vs Sam Peter

            Originally posted by Complex
            Finally had a chance to watch the Peter vs Toney fight. Toney 116-113.

            Toney wins this one IMO. His best rounds were 6, 9, and 11. Peter had his best rounds in the 5, and 10. In many of the middle rounds. Toney would start strong and be somewhat consistent. Peter would try to steal rounds by shoe shine punching. The 4th and 9th were a toss up IMO, Toney more consisten and Peter landed the (few) harder shots.

            Those scorecards with 116-111 for Peter were just crazy.

            Peter simply can not box. I dont see him beating any of current champions.

            Toney's wife is fineeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.

            With a point deduction for Peter, the 116-111 scores make no sense.
            Toney has just angered too many people over the years.

            Comment

            • Del_Liger
              Rookie
              • Oct 2002
              • 167

              #36
              Re: James Toney vs Sam Peter

              Originally posted by WilliamWilliamson
              Toney has just angered too many people over the years.
              That shouldn't have nothing to do with this fight?

              Comment

              • WilliamWilliamson
                Pro
                • Nov 2005
                • 690

                #37
                Re: James Toney vs Sam Peter

                Originally posted by Del_Liger
                That shouldn't have nothing to do with this fight?
                It shouldn't, but it does, or did rather

                Comment

                • BezO
                  MVP
                  • Jul 2004
                  • 4414

                  #38
                  Re: James Toney vs Sam Peter

                  Originally posted by thelwig14
                  What do you like? Judges are going to be the same way in their preferences. Do you like beautiful counter punching? This is what Toney did. But do you take away the emphasis when it has no effect on the receiver as he continually comes forward. Do you like the aggressor? Do you like who lands the more powerful shots? Should the person who hurts the other one more win that round?

                  Strong arguments can be made for each fighter and this was not a robbery just as it would not have been if Toney would have won.

                  I, myself, have no problem with the decision because I can see what the judges saw. Peter was never hurt once in the fight (and really has only been hurt twice in his entire career=Wlad), and Toney without a doubt was staggered at least 3 times during the fight.
                  What do you mean by hurt? Toney never looked in danger of being knocked out. He got knocked back a few times, but he never looked like what I woud call hurt.

                  And how do you classify "no effect on the receiver"? Peter never looked like he was hurt, but he was effected. Toney's jab & defense effected Peter's ability to land punches, his willingness to throw punches for fear of being countered, and his face was swollen.

                  But this is exactly why boxing needs to be updated. At least let boxers know how much weight is put on what. That would probably effect how fighters faught. If 1:30 of defense and jabs are not worth as much as 2-3 power shots, let boxers know that.

                  IMO, in order for a few power punches to take precedent over a higher number of less powerful punches, those power punches have to have more of an effect then those less powerful punches... a knock down, a boxer in immediate danger of being knocked down... something to show that those power shots are more effective than the less powerful punches of the opponent. Otherwise, we're assuming the power shots in question are more effective.

                  Originally posted by thelwig14
                  Toney is going to have a hard time getting fights now.
                  I doubt that. The press thought he won. It's not like he looked washed up.
                  Shout out to The Watcher! Where you at bruh?

                  Comment

                  • aholbert32
                    (aka Alberto)
                    • Jul 2002
                    • 33106

                    #39
                    Re: James Toney vs Sam Peter

                    [QUOTE=BezO;2620051]What do you mean by hurt? Toney never looked in danger of being knocked out. He got knocked back a few times, but he never looked like what I woud call hurt.

                    And how do you classify "no effect on the receiver"? Peter never looked like he was hurt, but he was effected. Toney's jab & defense effected Peter's ability to land punches, his willingness to throw punches for fear of being countered, and his face was swollen.

                    [QUOTE]

                    I watched the fight and Toney was in trouble twice in the fight. I dont remember the exact rounds but I think they were the 6 and the 10th.

                    Comment

                    • BezO
                      MVP
                      • Jul 2004
                      • 4414

                      #40
                      Re: James Toney vs Sam Peter

                      Originally posted by aholbert32
                      I watched the fight and Toney was in trouble twice in the fight. I dont remember the exact rounds but I think they were the 6 and the 10th.
                      Maybe I can catch another repeat. I only saw it once. Normally I tape fights, but this didn't seem worth it.

                      I remember Toney holding onto the ropes once after getting tagged a few times. Looked more like he was being an azz. But it's a round I would've given Peter.

                      Either way, let's agree Toney was in trouble twice. That's 2 rounds. What were the judges seeing the other 6 rounds? I can't imagine how the 2-3 good shots Peter was landing per round were viewed as more effective than what Toney was doing for the first 1:30 of each round. Toney pulled off some classic counter punching throughout the fight. Peter didn't pull off what I would consider effective power punching aside from a few moments in a few rounds.

                      8 rounds for Peter seems ridiculous.
                      Shout out to The Watcher! Where you at bruh?

                      Comment

                      • thelwig14
                        Banned
                        • Jul 2002
                        • 3145

                        #41
                        Re: James Toney vs Sam Peter

                        Originally posted by BezO
                        What do you mean by hurt? Toney never looked in danger of being knocked out. He got knocked back a few times, but he never looked like what I woud call hurt.

                        And how do you classify "no effect on the receiver"? Peter never looked like he was hurt, but he was effected. Toney's jab & defense effected Peter's ability to land punches, his willingness to throw punches for fear of being countered, and his face was swollen.

                        But this is exactly why boxing needs to be updated. At least let boxers know how much weight is put on what. That would probably effect how fighters faught. If 1:30 of defense and jabs are not worth as much as 2-3 power shots, let boxers know that.

                        IMO, in order for a few power punches to take precedent over a higher number of less powerful punches, those power punches have to have more of an effect then those less powerful punches... a knock down, a boxer in immediate danger of being knocked down... something to show that those power shots are more effective than the less powerful punches of the opponent. Otherwise, we're assuming the power shots in question are more effective.

                        I doubt that. The press thought he won. It's not like he looked washed up.

                        First, I could care less about both fighters so my objectivity is at its greatest.

                        Second, I consider myself very knowledgeable in the heavyweight game.

                        And to your comments, Toney was hurt at least two or three times. Toney never clinches or holds onto the ropes and he did it more than he ever has. I don't have the rounds with me as I finally erased it from my tivo, but go back through it and you will see Toney was legitimately hurt a few times.

                        Toney's punches had little effect on Peter. Whether you like it or not, the judges pay attention to how a fighter reacts to punches. Many pay no attention to faces as different fighters react to hits.

                        Peter walked through everything Toney threw at him. Not once in the fight did Peter fall back or buckle. However, Toney was affected and the judges saw this. And because Peter continues to come forward and shows no ill effect from the hits, judges can right it off as pitter patter punches.

                        Judging in boxing will always be subjective. Trying to make guidelines is pointless. Obviously one judged love Toney's scoring and the other two loved the power punching that Peter brought.

                        Toney will have a hard time getting fights. He has proven he will duck Wlad until the end of time and the other "big" Ruskies are not a good matchup for him. There is really no one else out there that will make a big enough matchup to get on HBO or SHO. He has looked mediocre and fat in his last few fights, and he brings more risk than reward for executives.

                        Comment

                        • BezO
                          MVP
                          • Jul 2004
                          • 4414

                          #42
                          Re: James Toney vs Sam Peter

                          Originally posted by thelwig14
                          And to your comments, Toney was hurt at least two or three times. Toney never clinches or holds onto the ropes and he did it more than he ever has. I don't have the rounds with me as I finally erased it from my tivo, but go back through it and you will see Toney was legitimately hurt a few times.
                          That's still only 3 times. Assuming those 3 times were enough to give Peter those rounds, there were 6 rounds(forgot about the pt deduction) others to account for.

                          Originally posted by thelwig14
                          Toney's punches had little effect on Peter. Whether you like it or not, the judges pay attention to how a fighter reacts to punches. Many pay no attention to faces as different fighters react to hits.
                          Not sure what rules the judges were going by then.

                          Clean punching - regardless of Toney's punches not "effecting" Peter, they were clean. And Peter's swollen face should say something about the effectiveness of the punches. Peter landed a lot less clean punches.

                          Ring generalship - All Toney IMO.

                          Effective aggresiveness - Peter was the aggressor, but he was ineffective more than not, while Toney demonstrated excellent counter punching technique for heavy weight. And I think I can count on one hand how many combinations Peter threw.

                          Defense - Toney appeared to be the much better defender while landing jabs and counter rights at will... at least for the first 1:30 of each round.

                          I can't imagine which, if any of the 4 areas Peter won in 9 of 12 rounds.

                          Originally posted by thelwig14
                          Peter walked through everything Toney threw at him. Not once in the fight did Peter fall back or buckle. However, Toney was affected and the judges saw this. And because Peter continues to come forward and shows no ill effect from the hits, judges can right it off as pitter patter punches.
                          I'm all for more powerful shots counting more than less powerful ones, but when the less powerful shots outnumber the more powerful ones by so much, I side with the lighter puncher.

                          Originally posted by thelwig14
                          Judging in boxing will always be subjective. Trying to make guidelines is pointless. Obviously one judged love Toney's scoring and the other two loved the power punching that Peter brought.
                          Sounds like there's an excellent point to creating guidelines. Tell judges exactly what they should like.

                          Originally posted by thelwig14
                          Toney will have a hard time getting fights. He has proven he will duck Wlad until the end of time and the other "big" Ruskies are not a good matchup for him. There is really no one else out there that will make a big enough matchup to get on HBO or SHO. He has looked mediocre and fat in his last few fights, and he brings more risk than reward for executives.
                          After this loss, I doubt Toney will have much choice but to not duck anyone. And I can't think of anyone that I'd rather see fight for any of the belts other than Toney. The division is shot, and Toney is one of its better fighters. But he defintely gets the fatboy award. If he could ever come in in shape, he'd be deadly... but probably not a heavy weight.

                          BTW, I could care less about either boxer personally, but Toney was clearly the better skilled and more entertaining fighter.
                          Shout out to The Watcher! Where you at bruh?

                          Comment

                          • thelwig14
                            Banned
                            • Jul 2002
                            • 3145

                            #43
                            Re: James Toney vs Sam Peter

                            Originally posted by BezO
                            That's still only 3 times. Assuming those 3 times were enough to give Peter those rounds, there were 6 rounds(forgot about the pt deduction) others to account for.

                            Not sure what rules the judges were going by then.

                            Clean punching - regardless of Toney's punches not "effecting" Peter, they were clean. And Peter's swollen face should say something about the effectiveness of the punches. Peter landed a lot less clean punches.

                            Ring generalship - All Toney IMO.

                            Effective aggresiveness - Peter was the aggressor, but he was ineffective more than not, while Toney demonstrated excellent counter punching technique for heavy weight. And I think I can count on one hand how many combinations Peter threw.

                            Defense - Toney appeared to be the much better defender while landing jabs and counter rights at will... at least for the first 1:30 of each round.

                            I can't imagine which, if any of the 4 areas Peter won in 9 of 12 rounds.

                            I'm all for more powerful shots counting more than less powerful ones, but when the less powerful shots outnumber the more powerful ones by so much, I side with the lighter puncher.

                            Sounds like there's an excellent point to creating guidelines. Tell judges exactly what they should like.

                            After this loss, I doubt Toney will have much choice but to not duck anyone. And I can't think of anyone that I'd rather see fight for any of the belts other than Toney. The division is shot, and Toney is one of its better fighters. But he defintely gets the fatboy award. If he could ever come in in shape, he'd be deadly... but probably not a heavy weight.

                            BTW, I could care less about either boxer personally, but Toney was clearly the better skilled and more entertaining fighter.


                            As I mentioned before, the fight was hard to judge and arguments can be legitimately made for either fighter. Simply put, neither fighter separated himself from the other and Toney in this case paid the price. I understand where you are coming from, but both fighters have strong arguments.

                            Remember, Toney was lucky to get this fight. He was slated to fight Brian Minto and was extremely fortunate that Peter wanted to fight him. Now, there is no reason for any of the belt holders to fight Toney. He has looked average lately and there is more risk than reward. Toney had the opportunity to fight the one fighter in the division that can generate bank and Toney ducked him like an afraid schoolgirl.

                            I do wholeheartedly disagree though with your assessment of the heavyweight division. The "Ruskies" are really, really talented. Just because they are at the forefront of the division does not mean they suck. It simply means they are finally allowed to compete. The same argument holds true with blacks in baseball in the 50's and Latin American baseball players years later. The Iron Curtain prevented great fighters from competing. There is talent in the division, it is just globalized and requires effort and energy to follow it. The media will catch on, as they are in the process of, and the division will continue to be better as it is properly covered.

                            And also remember that this era is especially suffering from politics and greed that other eras did not suffer from to this extent. This, unfortunately, does not look like it will be corrected in the short run. Though it will help immensely if a fighter can step forward and make the other ABC's look ridiculous. With Manny, I think Wlad will do this. This will greatly help the division and the public as they will know who the man is.

                            I

                            Comment

                            Working...