Toney to get rematch with Peter

By JE Grant

Despite a pre-fight notice that the winner of the Samuel Peter – James Toney fight Sept. 2 would get a shot at the WBC “world” title, the WBC issued a press release Sept. 26 announcing a requirement that Peter must meet Toney in a rematch despite capturing a split decision victory in their first match.

Although it was clear to this observer that Toney should have captured the decision, two of the three paid judges at ringside scored the bout for Peter.

The purpose of the rematch, according to a poorly written news release from the WBC, is that it “will clear the air and we will have official undisputable challenger to our new champion Oleg Maskaev.”

The organization has taken it upon itself to renege on the promise that the winner of the bout would challenge Maskaev. Is it the position of the organization that there was an illegal action that led to the decision? If so, there’s nothing in this new edict that points to that conclusion.

Another listed reason is that “the WBC believes that at this moment there can not be a more interesting heavyweight fight than this rematch, and it will be very good for boxing.” Really? How about Wladimir Klitschko vs. Oleg Maskaev? Maybe Klitschko vs. Sergei Liakhovich? 

More importantly, it is insufficient to say that because a bout would be “interesting” is it acceptable to negate a decision gained in the ring – however controversial it may be.

Further amusing is the WBC’s contention that because Toney was number one going in, “he had no need to fight anyone to gain the right to contend for the title. By choosing Samuel Peter, the highest rated boxer adopted a top-level sports decision and the WBC wishes that the official challenger be the winner of this rematch so nobody has doubts about it.”

Again, poor English aside, is the WBC really satisfied with saying that a number one contender need not win fights when he is waiting for a title contest? Consider the possible implications of that statement. Are number one contenders now exempt from the need to continue winning?

Disputed decisions are a part of boxing and always have been. Decisions about who should and should not contend for a title are always debatable in the best of circumstances.

In this circumstance, the organization ruled that the winner would face Maskaev. There was a clear line drawn. The two met with judges selected by the California commission and a judgment was made at the end of 12 rounds with Peter named the winner. To date no one has been accused of anything illegal or immoral in the process.

As such, Sam Peter met the standards set by the organization and should now move on to face Maskaev.

Of course some will laud this decision simply because they disagree with the decision in the ring.

James Toney has been the undeserving beneficiary of every decision with respect to his stay in the division.

He has gained a number one ranking despite never having beaten a legitimately rated top 10 heavyweight.

Losing what at first appeared to be a victory for another belt by being found to have used illegal, performance-enhancing drugs disgraced him.

He was extremely lucky to gain a draw with then-titlist Hasim Rahman. For some reason, despite the very controversial nature of that decision the WBC is in no mood to order a Rahman vs. Toney rematch.

Yet he continues to gain bouts that will lead to title shots.

In a final and laughable closing to the news release, the organization issued this plea:

“The WBC invites all parties to kindly restrain from using a hard language in their public statements, since boxing is a sport for gentlemen and we all would like to keep it that way.”

Disrespectfully, I decline the invitation.