Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Boxerbeetle
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 32853
Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 10:59

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by Boxerbeetle »

keithmoonhangover wrote:
Boxerbeetle123 wrote:
He's Gone Jim! wrote:Depends on which version of Toney turns up. If it's the lazy and/or weight drained version who knows?
Toney near his best would absolutely pulverise Froch. He's a level above skillwise.
Skillwise, Toney is more than one level above Froch, Toney is about as high a level as it gets in terms of pure boxing skills. If he fancied it, he'd embarass Froch over 12 one-sided rounds. Of course, Toney sometimes fancied a McDonalds more than he fancied a fight...
At Super Middle, Toney struggled with Charles Williams. What did he do at that weight that puts him LEVELS above Froch.
As I stated, I was talking purely about boxing skills as opposed to the whole package. Just looking at his recent fights I'd say that Kessler & Groves are a skill level above Froch, and Dirrell, Taylor & Ward are a few levels above him. Not knocking Froch as a fighter at all & the results of those fights show that skills aren't everything, but to even suggest he's on a similar level in terms of pure boxing skills to Toney is just ridiculous.
keithmoonhangover
Cruiserweight
Posts: 16939
Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by keithmoonhangover »

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:
keithmoonhangover wrote:As I stated, I was talking purely about boxing skills as opposed to the whole package. Just looking at his recent fights I'd say that Kessler & Groves are a skill level above Froch, and Dirrell, Taylor & Ward are a few levels above him. Not knocking Froch as a fighter at all & the results of those fights show that skills aren't everything, but to even suggest he's on a similar level in terms of pure boxing skills to Toney is just ridiculous.
Boxing skills consist of one thing.... winning. The object of the exercise is use your skills, whatever they are, to win. There are no points for artistic merit. Marciano was a superb boxer. He used what he had to win and did it brilliantly.
Boxerbeetle
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 32853
Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 10:59

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by Boxerbeetle »

keithmoonhangover wrote:
Boxerbeetle123 wrote:
keithmoonhangover wrote:As I stated, I was talking purely about boxing skills as opposed to the whole package. Just looking at his recent fights I'd say that Kessler & Groves are a skill level above Froch, and Dirrell, Taylor & Ward are a few levels above him. Not knocking Froch as a fighter at all & the results of those fights show that skills aren't everything, but to even suggest he's on a similar level in terms of pure boxing skills to Toney is just ridiculous.
Boxing skills consist of one thing.... winning. The object of the exercise is use your skills, whatever they are, to win. There are no points for artistic merit. Marciano was a superb boxer. He used what he had to win and did it brilliantly.
So Marciano is as skilled a boxer as Mayweather Jr? Not sure that logic holds up.
keithmoonhangover
Cruiserweight
Posts: 16939
Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by keithmoonhangover »

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:So Marciano is as skilled a boxer as Mayweather Jr? Not sure that logic holds up.
Your definition of a 'skilled boxer' seems to refer to good movement, defence, jab etc. In reality, a skilled boxer is someone who wins. You might call them a fighter, but they are not, they are not involved in a fight, it's a boxing match. The two participants are boxers, who are nicknamed fighters. Someone that wins is more skilful than his opponent, because he uses his boxing skills. That is 'boxing skills'.
Boxerbeetle
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 32853
Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 10:59

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by Boxerbeetle »

keithmoonhangover wrote:
Boxerbeetle123 wrote:So Marciano is as skilled a boxer as Mayweather Jr? Not sure that logic holds up.
Your definition of a 'skilled boxer' seems to refer to good movement, defence, jab etc. In reality, a skilled boxer is someone who wins. You might call them a fighter, but they are not, they are not involved in a fight, it's a boxing match. The two participants are boxers, who are nicknamed fighters. Someone that wins is more skilful than his opponent, because he uses his boxing skills. That is 'boxing skills'.
I'd say hitting without getting hit is boxing skills at its purest, whether that's done by movement, defence, jabbing etc is secondary. It's a completely separate thing from just winning a fight, otherwise Edwin Valero would be lauded as an all time great.
keithmoonhangover
Cruiserweight
Posts: 16939
Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by keithmoonhangover »

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:
keithmoonhangover wrote:
Boxerbeetle123 wrote:So Marciano is as skilled a boxer as Mayweather Jr? Not sure that logic holds up.
Your definition of a 'skilled boxer' seems to refer to good movement, defence, jab etc. In reality, a skilled boxer is someone who wins. You might call them a fighter, but they are not, they are not involved in a fight, it's a boxing match. The two participants are boxers, who are nicknamed fighters. Someone that wins is more skilful than his opponent, because he uses his boxing skills. That is 'boxing skills'.
I'd say hitting without getting hit is boxing skills at its purest, whether that's done by movement, defence, jabbing etc is secondary. It's a completely separate thing from just winning a fight, otherwise Edwin Valero would be lauded as an all time great.
Hitting without getting hit is only a concept of what a good boxer should be. In reality, it doesn't matter if he uses his face to stop punches. Winning proves his skill.
Boxerbeetle
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 32853
Joined: 19 Sep 2011, 10:59

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by Boxerbeetle »

keithmoonhangover wrote:
Hitting without getting hit is only a concept of what a good boxer should be. In reality, it doesn't matter if he uses his face to stop punches. Winning proves his skill.
Whilst I agree to a point, Froch lost to Ward because Ward is better at hitting without getting hit & Froch's skills were demonstrated to be comparatively limited. Which is exactly why (back on topic) Toney would also beat Froch.
keithmoonhangover
Cruiserweight
Posts: 16939
Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by keithmoonhangover »

Boxerbeetle123 wrote:
keithmoonhangover wrote:
Hitting without getting hit is only a concept of what a good boxer should be. In reality, it doesn't matter if he uses his face to stop punches. Winning proves his skill.
Whilst I agree to a point, Froch lost to Ward because Ward is better at hitting without getting hit & Froch's skills were demonstrated to be comparatively limited. Which is exactly why (back on topic) Toney would also beat Froch.
Ward won because he was the better boxer on the night. If Froch had a rematch and knocked Ward out, he'd be the better boxer on the night.
mrbassie
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 1563
Joined: 26 Oct 2003, 00:55

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by mrbassie »

keithmoonhangover wrote:
At Super Middle, Toney struggled with Charles Williams.

Struggled? He lay on the ropes, countered him for 11 and a half rounds and knocked him out. It was an inside fighting clinic.
hurlock
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5687
Joined: 29 Mar 2009, 04:23

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by hurlock »

Toney is way too savy!
mickey1975
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 23015
Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by mickey1975 »

mrbassie wrote:
keithmoonhangover wrote:
At Super Middle, Toney struggled with Charles Williams.

Struggled? He lay on the ropes, countered him for 11 and a half rounds and knocked him out. It was an inside fighting clinic.
You won't win an argument with Keith this week, even when he's wrong. I think he's annoyed at Wlad ducking Shannon Briggs or something.
keithmoonhangover
Cruiserweight
Posts: 16939
Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by keithmoonhangover »

mickey1975 wrote:
mrbassie wrote:
keithmoonhangover wrote:
At Super Middle, Toney struggled with Charles Williams.

Struggled? He lay on the ropes, countered him for 11 and a half rounds and knocked him out. It was an inside fighting clinic.
You won't win an argument with Keith this week, even when he's wrong. I think he's annoyed at Wlad ducking Shannon Briggs or something.
mickey my good man, you are deluded. I am as well, but at least I'm prepared to admit it.

Toney-Froch is a closer fight than people are making out. If Toney is that good, why did Tiberi, Griffin and Thadzi give him so much trouble? When exactly was Toney's prime? When he got completely dominated by Jones? When he struggled with Reggie Johnson?
littlepug
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 5351
Joined: 03 Jul 2012, 07:17

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by littlepug »

Its all about doing the best with what you were born with you have no other choice, now out of Jones, Toney and froch who managed to achieve this ?
mickey1975
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 23015
Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by mickey1975 »

I'm not even bothered about Froch-Toney, just warning him you're taking no prisoners at the moment. What's your opinion on Wlad's ducking?
mickey1975
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 23015
Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by mickey1975 »

littlepug wrote:Its all about doing the best with what you were born with you have no other choice, now out of Jones, Toney and froch who managed to achieve this ?
Froch.
keithmoonhangover
Cruiserweight
Posts: 16939
Joined: 16 Sep 2010, 10:42

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by keithmoonhangover »

mickey1975 wrote:I'm not even bothered about Froch-Toney, just warning him you're taking no prisoners at the moment. What's your opinion on Wlad's ducking?
He's not ducking anyone.
Final round
Cruiserweight
Posts: 4911
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 17:02

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by Final round »

ShadrachSimmo wrote:Speaking of great fighters past their prime I see Glen Johnson got stopped at cruiser last night in the Congo.

Why is he still fighting?
X2 tko'd in the Congo at Cruiserweight ffs..
mickey1975
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 23015
Joined: 02 Mar 2009, 12:54

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by mickey1975 »

keithmoonhangover wrote:
mickey1975 wrote:I'm not even bothered about Froch-Toney, just warning him you're taking no prisoners at the moment. What's your opinion on Wlad's ducking?
He's not ducking anyone.
I agree. I don't think it would make good business sense for them to fight, no matter how much Briggs cries about it. I don't think Wlad is scared of him though.
Final round
Cruiserweight
Posts: 4911
Joined: 20 Oct 2010, 17:02

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by Final round »

Wlad would box the ears off the cannon
TerribleTerry
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 5272
Joined: 29 Aug 2003, 12:30

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by TerribleTerry »

mrbassie wrote:
keithmoonhangover wrote:
At Super Middle, Toney struggled with Charles Williams.

Struggled? He lay on the ropes, countered him for 11 and a half rounds and knocked him out. It was an inside fighting clinic.
Not to mention that Charles Williams was the consensus light heavyweight champ not long before facing Toney at super middle.

Toney stopping Williams was an excellent result in my book
n1ebf
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 4267
Joined: 20 Sep 2007, 10:33

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by n1ebf »

Final round wrote:
ShadrachSimmo wrote:Speaking of great fighters past their prime I see Glen Johnson got stopped at cruiser last night in the Congo.

Why is he still fighting?
X2 tko'd in the Congo at Cruiserweight ffs..
I'm guessing he doesn't normally box at Cruiser, but at LightHeavy. Otherwise only 2 of those 3 things listed above would be surprising. Just something about "tko'd in the Congo at Cruiserweight" made me :lol:

Bloody Hell.....The Congo?? Maybe someone said he's not a proper Road Warrior!
polecateddy
Heavyweight
Heavyweight

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by polecateddy »

TerribleTerry wrote:
mrbassie wrote:
keithmoonhangover wrote:
At Super Middle, Toney struggled with Charles Williams.

Struggled? He lay on the ropes, countered him for 11 and a half rounds and knocked him out. It was an inside fighting clinic.
Not to mention that Charles Williams was the consensus light heavyweight champ not long before facing Toney at super middle.

Toney stopping Williams was an excellent result in my book
Set a little known punch record for the division too! To be fair Williams had been relieved of his light-heavy title by Henry Maske and had a record light on 'names.'
TopGun
Light Heavyweight
Posts: 1532
Joined: 24 Jun 2012, 05:27

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by TopGun »

Toney all day every day....one of the best in his prime
orbtastic
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 12549
Joined: 05 Dec 2006, 11:22

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by orbtastic »

Williams was a better fighter/boxer than most give him credit for. He was hampered by making 168 though, he'd Toney's eye closed and it was a pretty close and evenly contested fight.

Toney's problem was that he was lazy, talented but lazy. He also blew up in weight between fights and was a huge drainer. You only had to see him reaching for the Gatorade after weigh-ins to know he'd dropped a lot of weight in the last couple of weeks.

I think Froch would be one of the best fighter's he's fought at 168 and certainly has the chin, workrate and stamina to make it more than interesting, particularly over the last third.

I met Toney in Atlantic City, he was a big imposing figure. God knows how he ever made 160/168.

I think he had to drop something like 40lbs for the Jones fight, after that he was in a bit of a hinterland and dropping decisions and being outhustled to guys he should really have been beating. In that sense, he was his own worst enemy.

I think the trash talk would send Froch over the edge.
big lennox
Heavyweight
Heavyweight
Posts: 2550
Joined: 06 Feb 2004, 13:44

Re: Carl Froch vs prime James Toney

Post by big lennox »

orbtastic wrote:Williams was a better fighter/boxer than most give him credit for. He was hampered by making 168 though, he'd Toney's eye closed and it was a pretty close and evenly contested fight.

Toney's problem was that he was lazy, talented but lazy. He also blew up in weight between fights and was a huge drainer. You only had to see him reaching for the Gatorade after weigh-ins to know he'd dropped a lot of weight in the last couple of weeks.

I think Froch would be one of the best fighter's he's fought at 168 and certainly has the chin, workrate and stamina to make it more than interesting, particularly over the last third.

I met Toney in Atlantic City, he was a big imposing figure. God knows how he ever made 160/168.

I think he had to drop something like 40lbs for the Jones fight, after that he was in a bit of a hinterland and dropping decisions and being outhustled to guys he should really have been beating. In that sense, he was his own worst enemy.

I think the trash talk would send Froch over the edge.
Did you get to speak to Toney -what was he like?
Post Reply