Couture vs James Toney

Training
41

[quote]ZEB wrote:
One final point regarding James Toney-Those who are crying that he’s 42 years old and past his peak need to keep in mind that he fought 47 year old in Randy Couture.[/quote]

Randy is old and past his peak too. It just so happens that he’s only been fighting professionally for a decade less than Toney, and his schedule been far less active, and he had no amateur fights, and he’s still in shape even if his reflexes aren’t as sharp as they used to be.

I don’t even really see the point of your post, any one who saw the Vera and Nogueira fights know Randy is old and shop worn - its just ridiculously obvious looking at the two athletes whose age has slowed them down more

42

[quote]cycobushmaster wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:

[quote]Balrogo wrote:

[quote]USMCpoolee wrote:
Was anyone else surprised that Randy’s lazy ass shot actually got a take down? I guess I am giving more credit to Toney than I should. The old debate should be settled, MMA fighters are better at MMA than boxers. Go figure… [/quote]

Not at all. Come on man, Randy’s been wrestling for like 35 years - he had absolutely no problem taking down Mark Coleman, who was a world-class wrestler at around the same time Toney was a world-class boxer (early-to-mid 90s). Why would he have problems with a fat, old boxer when he had no problems with an in-shape, old wrestler?[/quote]

No I didn’t mean were people surprised that he took Toney down in general. I only saw highlights on ESPN of the fight, but Randy’s shot that led to his takedown was like a foot short and he still managed to get Toney down. Again, because I only saw highlights I could be exaggerating/way off, it just didn’t seem like a good shot to me.

Randy is my favorite fighter, I know he is a freakish wrestler man, I never would question that. It just seemed like that particular takedown was shit. [/quote]

that was a low single, where you aim for ther ankle/calf (vs a high single, the more common version, where you aim for the knee/thigh).

for being such a big fan, you don’t seem to be a fan of wrestling…
[/quote]

Chill, I know what it was man, I wrestle. From the shots of it I saw it didn’t even seem like he was close though. Seems like I am wrong. Not the first time that has happened.

43

it was a sloppy ankle pick for sure, but he got it. My favorite part of the fight was where Toney actually helped Randy sink that triangle in and he didn’t even realize it. You could tell he did zero ground work in his fight prep.

Theres a fair amount of pro boxers in MMA that have had a decent career in MMA. Alessio Sakara, Chris Lytle, Marcus Davis, Anderson Silva, Ray Mercer, Art Jimmerson…there have been more than a few boxers in MMA. Toney has been the first champ (at one time or another) to come into the UFC.

44

[quote]Balrogo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
One final point regarding James Toney-Those who are crying that he’s 42 years old and past his peak need to keep in mind that he fought 47 year old in Randy Couture.[/quote]

Randy is old and past his peak too. It just so happens that he’s only been fighting professionally for a decade less than Toney, and his schedule been far less active, and he had no amateur fights, and he’s still in shape even if his reflexes aren’t as sharp as they used to be.

I don’t even really see the point of your post, any one who saw the Vera and Nogueira fights know Randy is old and shop worn - its just ridiculously obvious looking at the two athletes whose age has slowed them down more[/quote]

The point of my post was to point out that while Toney is 42, Couture is 47. It matters not that Couture took better care of himself. If that were the gripe then people would be claiming such. In short, the pure age gripe has no bearing.

45

[quote]admbaum wrote:
it was a sloppy ankle pick for sure, but he got it. My favorite part of the fight was where Toney actually helped Randy sink that triangle in and he didn’t even realize it. You could tell he did zero ground work in his fight prep.
[/quote]

It wasn’t that sloppy. It was actually a very well executed low single (at least from what I remember). Which is an excellent choice for a takedown against someone who is trying to catch you with a punch/knee coming in as you are so low to the ground that you are very safe from such a counter. Add to that that Toney had probably never seen one before and didn’t even make an attempt to step that leg/foot out of the way and it made for a very easy takedown for Randy.

46

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The point of my post was to point out that while Toney is 42, Couture is 47. It matters not that Couture took better care of himself. If that were the gripe then people would be claiming such. In short, the pure age gripe has no bearing.
[/quote]

It matters a lot that Couture took better care of himself. A lot. The implications of being an old boxer are different than being an old wrestler in the first place, and when you compound that with everything else I mentioned it makes perfect sense to sum it up as Toney being old, as it is abundantly clear that the years have depreciated his abilities more than they have Randy’s.

47

[quote]Sentoguy wrote:
admbaum wrote:
it was a sloppy ankle pick for sure, but he got it. My favorite part of the fight was where Toney actually helped Randy sink that triangle in and he didn’t even realize it. You could tell he did zero ground work in his fight prep.

It wasn’t that sloppy. It was actually a very well executed low single (at least from what I remember). Which is an excellent choice for a takedown against someone who is trying to catch you with a punch/knee coming in as you are so low to the ground that you are very safe from such a counter. Add to that that Toney had probably never seen one before and didn’t even make an attempt to step that leg/foot out of the way and it made for a very easy takedown for Randy.

[/quote]

Exactly right.

48

[quote]Balrogo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:
The point of my post was to point out that while Toney is 42, Couture is 47. It matters not that Couture took better care of himself. If that were the gripe then people would be claiming such. In short, the pure age gripe has no bearing.
[/quote]

It matters a lot that Couture took better care of himself. A lot. The implications of being an old boxer are different than being an old wrestler in the first place, and when you compound that with everything else I mentioned it makes perfect sense to sum it up as Toney being old, as it is abundantly clear that the years have depreciated his abilities more than they have Randy’s.[/quote]

(eye roll)

One more time. I was responding to someone who was complaining strictly about AGE! Got it? OBVIOUSLY it makes a huge difference that Couture took better care of himself than has Toney. But the issue on that particular post was AGE! No one can complain based solely upon age that Toney had a disadvantage as he was 5 years younger. IE, the complaint of age has no justification.

The argument was NOT about conditioning, it was purely about age. Obviously, it is important to take care of yourself. However, that is a separate argument.

If someone says Couture was in better shape than Toney regardless of age, I would agree. However, when someone says Toney lost because he is too old at 42 I would disagree by pointing out that Couture is 47, which is what I said.

If you still don’t understand and want further clarification you may PM me as I don’t think it’s fair to take up forum space on this nonsense.

49

I think he wants to say that Couture has barely aged, while Toney is in bad shape and biologically over 50, which is a funny argument.

“Yeah on paper he’s older but really he’s so much younger that it’s unfair.”

My beef, on the other hand, was that Toney showed ZERO knowhow on the ground. Quite the contrary.
I usually don’t watch a lot of hype videos but got the impression from the man himself (silly, gullible me!) that he’s put a lot of effort in the gym. Gold Belt and all…

So in theory, a boxing champ (he doesn’t hold a real belt, does he; oh silly me - again!) who spends nine months learning how to avoid takedowns and counter them should have at least a minor puncher’s chance.
His punching ability and chin should be miles above his opponent even without training, and clinching against Toney, something Couture usually does a lot, would be too risky for the older cough younger fighter.

So it should have been clear that it’s all about the takedown.

A fat, greedy fool urinating on his own sport.

50

I just finally watched the fight, I was way wrong. Not a sloppy shot at all. Guess I wasn’t paying attention when I saw the highlights.

51

For a variety of reasons, Toney never should have been in that ring. Chief among them is skill-type and level; Toney brought too little, too late in terms of MMA-style training and ability. Beyond that, he also clearly was in no kind of shape.

I make these observations as a huge fan of Toney the fighter and consummate craftsman of his chosen style. Been watching Toney nearly twenty years; in his prime he was easily one of the best boxers of his generation, and would’ve excelled in any era of the game.

Been watching MMA since the first UFC, too, and feel I know both very different endeavors well.

From a boxing vs MMA standpoint, this fight decided a few things: how James Toney would do against Randy Couture under MMA rules (not well, and not very significant, either), and probably how most boxers who don’t add a sound grappling/ground game would fare against MMA fighters, when fighting under MMA rules.

I’d extrapolate from this that the reverse probably holds true, too: a quality MMA fighter who doesn’t drastically sharpen his hand striking and footwork game is probably going to lose (and just as badly) to a quality boxer, if they’re fighting under boxing rules.

Superiority fails to be established between boxing and MMA (as a few kind of stupidly thought it might), just advantage – the guy fighting in the style and under the rules he’s devoted a significant chunk of his life to, against a guy who hasn’t done either, is going to take it every time (except for the occasional fluke).

52

Nice response…that’s awesome you were in James Toney era.

As far as the MMA fighter going into a boxing ring…Fedor’s Brother, Alexander had his hand at boxing and he was getting worked…this is after many MMA fights. It’s the same thing, 2 different sports. I’d say a pro boxer spending a good 5 years of hard training in the ground game, while maintinng his hands and doing muay thai (we’re talking about an elite boxer) would do quite well in MMA I would think.

Regardless…there would be no point of an elite boxer going to MMA…for him to make a CONSIDERABLE LESS amount of money for all that hard training.

It really bugs me MMA fighters don’t get paid more.

53

I have said this repeatedly over the past couple years as these stupid “MMA vs. Boxing” arguments come up.

Its like having a shark and a wolverine, and you asking “Who will win in a fight?”

The normal reply would be, “Well are they fighting in the water or in the woods?” Because that’ll determine who’s going to win.

54

[quote]rasturai wrote:

It really bugs me MMA fighters don’t get paid more.[/quote]

You can thank Dana White and company for the low pay. The UFC has been valued at various numbers, the latest in the 1 billion dollar range. And yet they pay some of their fighters mighty little. Granted some of the big names are taken care of with bonus money etc. But when all is said and done I don’t think that White has set up an environment to encourage young athletes to make mma their career, especially if they can do anything else.

55

I believe that at some point, when the time is right, the pay will explode.

-MMA must grow a bit worldwide, perhaps get a tad more timid (ellbows etc)
-MMA being olympic would help a lot here.
-UFC must have secured global dominance
-the financial side must be secure (duh…)
-a charismatic superstar who’s marketable worldwide must appear. He shouldn’t be too much of a freak or too american (if he’s american). He must be very dominant.

If that is the case, paying him 10x more isn’t just realistic, it actually makes a lot sense for the company.

56

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I believe that at some point, when the time is right, the pay will explode.

-MMA must grow a bit worldwide, perhaps get a tad more timid (ellbows etc)
-MMA being olympic would help a lot here.
-UFC must have secured global dominance
-the financial side must be secure (duh…)
-a charismatic superstar who’s marketable worldwide must appear. He shouldn’t be too much of a freak or too american (if he’s american). He must be very dominant.

If that is the case, paying him 10x more isn’t just realistic, it actually makes a lot sense for the company.

[/quote]

I don’t disagree that fighters pay will ultimately go up. However, there is no reason that they couldn’t pay more right now. They have multiple streams of revenue.

UFC fight gate

UFC PPV

UFC video Games (they sold 4 million over the past year)

UFC Spike Ultimate Fighter series

They are not just worth a great deal they are also cash rich.

57

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I believe that at some point, when the time is right, the pay will explode.

-MMA must grow a bit worldwide, perhaps get a tad more timid (ellbows etc)
-MMA being olympic would help a lot here.
-UFC must have secured global dominance
-the financial side must be secure (duh…)
-a charismatic superstar who’s marketable worldwide must appear. He shouldn’t be too much of a freak or too american (if he’s american). He must be very dominant.

If that is the case, paying him 10x more isn’t just realistic, it actually makes a lot sense for the company.

[/quote]

I don’t disagree that fighters pay will ultimately go up. However, there is no reason that they couldn’t pay more right now. They have multiple streams of revenue.

UFC fight gate

UFC PPV

UFC video Games (they sold 4 million over the past year)

UFC Spike Ultimate Fighter series

They are not just worth a great deal they are also cash rich. [/quote]

Should, but won’t, as long as Dana White owns these guys. They have “handlers” in the back area checking out the fighters gear to make sure that only “approved” sponsors are visible. Dana came up with UFC Poker on-line, so all of the sudden Full Tilt sponsorship was banned (you’ll see Strikeforce guys still wearing them).

With the exception of a few big names, most of the fighters earn next to nothing after training costs, manager percentages, taxes, etc. When Brock Lesnar helps set 1 million+ PPV sales, but makes 1/40 of a prize-fighter boxer, there’s something wrong. That was one of the reasons Frank Shamrock wanted to fight Dana White…pay.

58

[quote]gregnagaye wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I believe that at some point, when the time is right, the pay will explode.

-MMA must grow a bit worldwide, perhaps get a tad more timid (ellbows etc)
-MMA being olympic would help a lot here.
-UFC must have secured global dominance
-the financial side must be secure (duh…)
-a charismatic superstar who’s marketable worldwide must appear. He shouldn’t be too much of a freak or too american (if he’s american). He must be very dominant.

If that is the case, paying him 10x more isn’t just realistic, it actually makes a lot sense for the company.

[/quote]

I don’t disagree that fighters pay will ultimately go up. However, there is no reason that they couldn’t pay more right now. They have multiple streams of revenue.

UFC fight gate

UFC PPV

UFC video Games (they sold 4 million over the past year)

UFC Spike Ultimate Fighter series

They are not just worth a great deal they are also cash rich. [/quote]

Should, but won’t, as long as Dana White owns these guys. They have “handlers” in the back area checking out the fighters gear to make sure that only “approved” sponsors are visible. Dana came up with UFC Poker on-line, so all of the sudden Full Tilt sponsorship was banned (you’ll see Strikeforce guys still wearing them).

With the exception of a few big names, most of the fighters earn next to nothing after training costs, manager percentages, taxes, etc. When Brock Lesnar helps set 1 million+ PPV sales, but makes 1/40 of a prize-fighter boxer, there’s something wrong. That was one of the reasons Frank Shamrock wanted to fight Dana White…pay.[/quote]

So what you’re saying is…

Dana White = Don King.

Both = The Devil.

59

[quote]WolBarret wrote:

[quote]gregnagaye wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
I believe that at some point, when the time is right, the pay will explode.

-MMA must grow a bit worldwide, perhaps get a tad more timid (ellbows etc)
-MMA being olympic would help a lot here.
-UFC must have secured global dominance
-the financial side must be secure (duh…)
-a charismatic superstar who’s marketable worldwide must appear. He shouldn’t be too much of a freak or too american (if he’s american). He must be very dominant.

If that is the case, paying him 10x more isn’t just realistic, it actually makes a lot sense for the company.

[/quote]

I don’t disagree that fighters pay will ultimately go up. However, there is no reason that they couldn’t pay more right now. They have multiple streams of revenue.

UFC fight gate

UFC PPV

UFC video Games (they sold 4 million over the past year)

UFC Spike Ultimate Fighter series

They are not just worth a great deal they are also cash rich. [/quote]

Should, but won’t, as long as Dana White owns these guys. They have “handlers” in the back area checking out the fighters gear to make sure that only “approved” sponsors are visible. Dana came up with UFC Poker on-line, so all of the sudden Full Tilt sponsorship was banned (you’ll see Strikeforce guys still wearing them).

With the exception of a few big names, most of the fighters earn next to nothing after training costs, manager percentages, taxes, etc. When Brock Lesnar helps set 1 million+ PPV sales, but makes 1/40 of a prize-fighter boxer, there’s something wrong. That was one of the reasons Frank Shamrock wanted to fight Dana White…pay.[/quote]

So what you’re saying is…

Dana White = Don King.

Both = The Devil.[/quote]

I’m not saying that. I think it’s more a matter of timing than anything else. Early in the days of boxing the first big promoter was a man named Tex Rickard. Rickard promoted fights such as Dempsey/Carpentier. In fact, the live gate for that fight, which was held in 1921 was an astounding $1.8 million. The rematch was even greater at 2.7 million.

My point is while Rickard was the very first great boxing promoter. Unfortunately, he regularly underpaid his fighters. When you are the first and you do it well you have a sort of monopoly.

While Dana White and Tex Rickard are two completely different stories there is enough similarities to reach a logical conclusion. That is, if they don’t have to pay their fighters more, they don’t. That is one reason I was pulling for Trump and the others to give the UFC a challenge. Not so there would be two, or three champions in every weight class, none of us would like that. But, I really feel badly for the fighters who dedicate their lives to a sport that will not even pay them a good living.

Is Dana White the devil? No, probably no more than most people who found themselves in the enviable position to be at the very top of a sport which is growing by leaps and bounds. I think it’s probably human nature to try to take as much as possible. He will only pay the fighters more when he has to, not until.

60

Fighters can go on strike! lol No fight? No Money!!