Prime for Prime:Larry Holmes vs Sam Peter

they had slightly verying styles. I think Mercer had a little bit better of a jab with power in his right, while Peter liked to hook with both hands and had power in both. Durability is good for both men, though Mercer survived some **** poundings from Morrison, Cooper, Lewis, Holyfield and Damiani and was only decked against one of them. might have to give him the edge in that department. As for the thread topic I agree with your friend. A prime Holmes would systematically beat Peter to the punch and break him down for an eventual stoppage.

 

Holmes would beat the **** out of Sam Peters.

Sorry the difference in class is too wide and Peter brings nothing to the table to trouble Holmes, the worst that would happen is Peter may drop Holmes with one of his clubbing right hands, but Peters ain't no Tyson and hr wouldn't be able to finish Holmes who would most likely get back up and beat Peter to a pulp

 

i think Peter has a good chance,look at the trouble a limited but strong Berbick(15 rounds) gave Holmes.

 

Peter had a good chin and a good punch. He could give Holmes problems like Snipes, Shavers and Weaver did. Holmes wasn't invincible but he will ultimately prevail though like he did with all three mentioned.

 

Peter could be employed as a sparring partner for a prime Holmes. That's about as far as he gets.

 

Berbick was a better fighter than Peter in almost every category except raw power, and Holmes won about 12 of those 15 rounds.

 

Peter game and Holmes just does not break the tipping point of power to stop Peter. I see Holmes dominating with the jab and Peter chasing, some ugly moments but Holmes takes the nod

 

Peter is 30lb heavier than your hero and hit harder without a doubt.

 

If it were a 15 round fight, I think Holmes stops him on cuts or referee or corner intervention. Peter's defense was terrible and his stamina average. Larry would be outlanding him systematically. And A prime Holmes actually had some snap behind those shots.

 

on what basis?

 

On the basis he was much bigger and fought on average bigger men, the same exact theory you support on who hit harder in Tyson and Marciano.....

 

what a load of bollocks (expected from you though)

Here something for you
Tyson was smaller than Peters, weighed less as well.

The size difference between Tyson and his opponents was larger than Peters and his opponents.

Tyson kod more quality opponents than Peters did and in much more devastating fashionbthan him too.

Neither you, nor your argument nor Sam Peters has a leg to stand on

 

Still awaiting a comeback to show me who Peters actually ko'd to be mentioned in the same breath as Mike Tyson