Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


View Poll Results: 1935 Max "Bronze Age" Baer VS 2005 Sam "Caveman" Peter - 12 Rounds SLUGFEST WAR
Peter KO 13 30.95%
Max KO 26 61.90%
Peter Decision 1 2.38%
Max Decision 2 4.76%
Voters: 42. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 06-08-2012, 11:52 PM   #76
Vladimir23
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,457
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 1935 Max "Bronze Age" Baer VS 2005 Sam "Caveman" Peter

Max Baer was a bum

Peter by brutal KO
Vladimir23 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 06-09-2012, 08:10 AM   #77
he grant
Historian/Film Maker
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 7,529
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 1935 Max "Bronze Age" Baer VS 2005 Sam "Caveman" Peter

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcvey View Post
I just took issue with your statement that Max "fought no one close to Peter in size, strength , power and speed. All those I mentioned were around the same size or appreciably bigger ,I don't know about their speed or strength or power ,and ,I suspect you don't either. I think Peter is a glorified club fighter.
Baer fought Schaaf, Schmeling, Farr,ect they are markedly better than Peter imo.
The list had size and little else ... the fact is that Peter gets a bum wrap here simply because he did not become the better , second coming version of David Tua that he was originally promoted as .. in addition, he clearly lost his drive ( if not his hunger ) early on ... in reality , in his brief prime Peter was enormously strong, explosive and hard hitting , far more so than anyone the front running Baer ever fought ... the Peter than fought Wlad the first time or that won the title from Maskaev was a pretty dangerous guy ..

I don't know who I pick as it is a could go either way sort of this but to me , by no means is Baer any sort of lock ..
he grant is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2012, 08:26 AM   #78
TheGreatA
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,098
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 1935 Max "Bronze Age" Baer VS 2005 Sam "Caveman" Peter

Peter was never any good. His best punching accomplishment was knocking over an old, glass-jawed Jeremy Williams with a blindside shot.
TheGreatA is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2012, 08:36 AM   #79
Absolutely!
Fabulous, darling!
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: A cut above my left nose
Posts: 3,225
vCash: 500
Default Re: 1935 Max "Bronze Age" Baer VS 2005 Sam "Caveman" Peter

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi View Post
He did not win both fights. He lost the first one. did you even see it? And yes, Toney was shot, indicated by his declining performances in the years before and how he looked during their fights. He was very much past it in the first and completly done in the second. Another indication how punch-drunk and done he is would be him slurring his speach so much that you are barely able to understand him. And not just recently that started years back. Toney was shot, old, fat and a natural smw. And his hw credentials are very thin anyway, as pointed out before.
Peter won both fights against Toney because the judges said he did. Of course you can dispute the decision as much as you like, but then that puts you on extremely shaky ground in trying to defend Galento who, under any competent referee, would have been flat out disqualified against Nova.

I don't deny that the first Peter fight could have gone either way, but the bottom line is that you simply can't defend Galento's win over Nova unless you're also willing to accept the official decision in the first Peter fight, else you end up looking like a hypocrite.

As for Toney's condition, was he past prime and fighting outside his natural weightclass? Sure. That's a far cry from being shot though, isn't it? Nothing in Toney's prior performances at heavyweight indicates that he was anywhere near the sorry state you're trying to paint him in, and your insistence on comparing him to Ali in the Holmes/Berbick fights is ludicrous and frankly insulting.

And please stop trying to call Toney a blown up super middleweight. Like a lot of fighters he outgrew his division as he grew older. He was not a natural heavy, but he was no longer a natural SMW at that point either. Nowhere near.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bodhi View Post
You mean like Toney? And yeah it was a foulfest, so? Peterīs best fight was probably the first one against Wlad and the only reason why he won rounds was because he rabbit punched. Whatīs your point? Galento fought legitimate hw contenders. And he beat them. And more than Toney or Peter did. Doesnīt matter if those were true hws today or not since in history there is this funny rule that eras have to be judged by their standards and not by current ones.
Fighters can only fairly be judged by the standards of their era, but when you're comparing fighters from different eras such considerations have to be thrown out the window if any meaningful debate is to take place. You can't just speculate on what so-and-so would be like with an extra twenty pounds of muscle or an extra three inches of height, nor can you just 'upgrade' a fighter's opponents to match the size/weight of a later era with no consideration for the effects such changes would have. And I'm sorry but a LHW is a LHW whatever the era.

Since we're not talking H2H with Peter and Galento I guess it comes down to resumes, and I'm very unconvinced that Galento even achieved more in his time than Peter did in his. Aside from Nova, which I already addressed, which legitimate heavyweight contenders did Galento beat? Al Ettore? Nathan Mann? What did these men achieve in their eras that was any better than Maskaev (Rahman twice, SS Sam, WBC champ), Toney (Holyfield, Ruiz, Oquendo, Guinn) or even McCline (Grant, Whittacker, Briggs, Boswell)?

Peter's not going to win resume of the decade, but he carved out a more respectable place for himself in this current era than Galento did in his.
Absolutely! is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-09-2012, 09:04 AM   #80
Absolutely!
Fabulous, darling!
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: A cut above my left nose
Posts: 3,225
vCash: 500
Default Re: 1935 Max "Bronze Age" Baer VS 2005 Sam "Caveman" Peter

Quote:
Originally Posted by he grant View Post
The list had size and little else ... the fact is that Peter gets a bum wrap here simply because he did not become the better , second coming version of David Tua that he was originally promoted as .. in addition, he clearly lost his drive ( if not his hunger ) early on ... in reality , in his brief prime Peter was enormously strong, explosive and hard hitting , far more so than anyone the front running Baer ever fought ... the Peter than fought Wlad the first time or that won the title from Maskaev was a pretty dangerous guy ..

I don't know who I pick as it is a could go either way sort of this but to me , by no means is Baer any sort of lock ..
Peter's one of those fighters who suffered from the Lacy effect, too much hype early on then ridicule and retrospective downgrading afterwards. I was never particularly impressed by Peter when he was being billed as this monster-punching heavyweight machine pre 2005, but he was never a bum, nor was he as crude and skillless as he was made out to be, as displayed in the second Toney fight (his best performance IMO).

Style-wise, neither fighter fought someone like the other, though perhaps Maskaev comes closer to Baer than anyone Baer fought who resembled Peter. In Louis's era someone like Tami Mauriello was probably the closest you'd get to Peter, though he was far more jittery on his feet and lacked the solid base that Peter fought from.
Absolutely! is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2012, 12:59 PM   #81
Azzer85
ATG
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: West Midlands, UK
Posts: 6,818
vCash: 500
Default Re: 1935 Max "Bronze Age" Baer VS 2005 Sam "Caveman" Peter

Peters does the Ali shuffle
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKO5W0l_0gs[/ame]

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=liwDVF69Cis[/ame]
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptNAlNEB7Kw[/ame]
Azzer85 is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2012, 05:01 AM   #82
bodhi
So I can die easy ...
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 9,491
vCash: 1337
Default Re: 1935 Max "Bronze Age" Baer VS 2005 Sam "Caveman" Peter

Quote:
Originally Posted by Absolutely! View Post
Peter won both fights against Toney because the judges said he did. Of course you can dispute the decision as much as you like, but then that puts you on extremely shaky ground in trying to defend Galento who, under any competent referee, would have been flat out disqualified against Nova.

I don't deny that the first Peter fight could have gone either way, but the bottom line is that you simply can't defend Galento's win over Nova unless you're also willing to accept the official decision in the first Peter fight, else you end up looking like a hypocrite.

As for Toney's condition, was he past prime and fighting outside his natural weightclass? Sure. That's a far cry from being shot though, isn't it? Nothing in Toney's prior performances at heavyweight indicates that he was anywhere near the sorry state you're trying to paint him in, and your insistence on comparing him to Ali in the Holmes/Berbick fights is ludicrous and frankly insulting.

And please stop trying to call Toney a blown up super middleweight. Like a lot of fighters he outgrew his division as he grew older. He was not a natural heavy, but he was no longer a natural SMW at that point either. Nowhere near.



Fighters can only fairly be judged by the standards of their era, but when you're comparing fighters from different eras such considerations have to be thrown out the window if any meaningful debate is to take place. You can't just speculate on what so-and-so would be like with an extra twenty pounds of muscle or an extra three inches of height, nor can you just 'upgrade' a fighter's opponents to match the size/weight of a later era with no consideration for the effects such changes would have. And I'm sorry but a LHW is a LHW whatever the era.

Since we're not talking H2H with Peter and Galento I guess it comes down to resumes, and I'm very unconvinced that Galento even achieved more in his time than Peter did in his. Aside from Nova, which I already addressed, which legitimate heavyweight contenders did Galento beat? Al Ettore? Nathan Mann? What did these men achieve in their eras that was any better than Maskaev (Rahman twice, SS Sam, WBC champ), Toney (Holyfield, Ruiz, Oquendo, Guinn) or even McCline (Grant, Whittacker, Briggs, Boswell)?

Peter's not going to win resume of the decade, but he carved out a more respectable place for himself in this current era than Galento did in his.
Didnīt read, mady my point already. You donīt agree. Fine, makes you wrong.
bodhi is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2012, 05:19 AM   #83
Flea Man
มวยสากล
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: @ferociousflea
Posts: 39,875
vCash: 75
Default Re: 1935 Max "Bronze Age" Baer VS 2005 Sam "Caveman" Peter

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheGreatA View Post
Peter was never any good. His best punching accomplishment was knocking over an old, glass-jawed Jeremy Williams with a blindside shot.
This. And some rabbit punches to Wlad.

Overrated as a puncher even, as I've already said.
Flea Man is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2012, 11:01 AM   #84
Hookie
Belt holder
ESB Addict
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Chambersburg, PA
Posts: 2,459
vCash: 500
Default Re: 1935 Max "Bronze Age" Baer VS 2005 Sam "Caveman" Peter

Max was past prime vs. Louis... prime vs. prime Max could win a decision. Baer overrated? I say no!

Peter was much bigger and stronger? Power? They both had good power, Peter had good power in almost every punch he thru and he knocked guys out with pressure and power. Baer had a nice overhand right but he didn't set it up with very many power shots.

I think it goes the distance, I think Baer visits the canvas, but I also think Baer could win a close hard fought decision.
Hookie is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2012, 12:07 PM   #85
Flea Man
มวยสากล
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: @ferociousflea
Posts: 39,875
vCash: 75
Default Re: 1935 Max "Bronze Age" Baer VS 2005 Sam "Caveman" Peter

Peter didn't have 'good power' in 'almost every punch he threw' IMO. Mainly because his application was abysmal.
Flea Man is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2012, 12:08 PM   #86
Flea Man
มวยสากล
East Side VIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: @ferociousflea
Posts: 39,875
vCash: 75
Default Re: 1935 Max "Bronze Age" Baer VS 2005 Sam "Caveman" Peter

Absolutely! you're making your case well, I agree with a lot of it.

Is Peter on a similar level to Galento? Most probably.

Max Baer? Peter would get battered.
Flea Man is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2012, 12:39 PM   #87
Stevie G
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: London,England
Posts: 9,207
vCash: 1000
Default Re: 1935 Max "Bronze Age" Baer VS 2005 Sam "Caveman" Peter

Maxie wins in five.
Stevie G is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013