A judge scoring a fight one-sided doesn't necessarily mean they saw the fight as one-sided.
"Wait, what? How could that be?"
It just means the rounds were so damn close and two of the judges obviously favoured Sam's bigger appearing shots as opposed to the more conistent measured attack of Toney.
And because a lot of the rounds mimiced each other in appearance the judges were consistent in what they favoured. Not giving a round to the fighter who they believed to be losing because they're scoring too many points the other way.
The judges knew what they wanted to see and they stuck with it.
Put any other three judges in there and you could have a whole different outcome.
I mean if boxing were scored on, say, a 100 point must system, I bet you the scoring ratio would look a lot more close.
That's the 10 point must system for ya.
116-111 doesn't mean that the judge saw Peter destroy Toney.
Should he have started scoring a few more in Toney's favour because he was giving too many to Peter?
No. How could he have? So many rounds were identical. Neither fighter did much different from round to round. So the judges stuck with what they favoured.
I don't agree with 116-111 but I understand it.

And it was hell of a lot more entertaining a fight than I could've imagined! So I'm a happy camper.