He's worng and so are you. McCline wasn't very good. He gassed against Peter.His out put dropped to almost nothing and Peters still couldn't do anything to him , yet Peter walks thru Conney like some unstoppabe tank?? Pure fantasty
Johnson earned his top-ten rating, by beating Maskaev. He wasn't rated at the time. And, where exactly did Johnson go, after beating Maskaev? Nowhere. As for Maskaev himself... ...nice try at building up a Peter opponent, whose career was in near tatters by 2002, having been sparked out by B-level opponents in 2000, 2001 and 2002. And, this is a Maskaev at a time much closer to his prime than when he faced Peter, whom he didn't fight until 6 years later, when he was 39 years old.
Your opinions mean nothing to anyone with a brain regarding both Cooney and 2000s Heavyweights. This isn't the thread for you.
You outright admited to not having seen the fights your debating about. You literally don't have a clue what you're posting about. Why are you even here?
No disrespect - but both Toney and Maskaev are just as apt to be considered as old and as shot as Lyle, Young and Norton. Toney was 38; Maskaev was 39 and even McCline was 37. None of them had achieved a level anything like Lyle (39), Young (31) and Norton (37).
Could go either way if Peter went in early and bombed by I seen Gerry many times and even though he was a one armed soldier the left hand was brutal- a smart guy could stay away from the left hook and upper hook and be safe but Sam's not a cutie his only shot would be to hurt Gerry first but in this scenario I see Sam coming out early looking for the kill and walking into the wrecking crane of a double hook to the head and body and taking the count before 4 rounds - Gerry had an insane left hook and decent speed and a killer instinct if you were hurt
Johnson saw a monthly top ten rating before Maskaev. You wouldn't know that. Regardless, beating Maskaev doesn't make you top ten in the annual ratings for three straight years and he would've earned an annual ranking anyway. Peter fought Maskaev because he had a title. That's how bxoing works. Maskaev's wins against Rahman and Sam around that time showed he could fight.
I love how the same folks who diss Maskaev want to tell me how great Satterfield was.. Carry on, noobs.
Out of those 39 fights 26 were scheduled for 10 or less rounds. 7 lasted the distance in these shorter (mostly) early fights.
I don't think it matters really. Do you? Johnson ultimately made no impact and neither did Maskaev, of any significance. Anyone who wants to use a 39 year old Maskaev as some kind of benchmark for the level of quality Sam Peter fought, is more than welcome to. I just won't be aligning with that point of view any time soon. So what did? Again, Johnson went nowhere. He lost to Ruiz, lost his way (or vice versa) and then rolled into the ring at 260 to get battered by Vitali. None of this changes the original point I made to @janitor about Maksaev and Toney. Who cares? It doesn't alter the original and subsequent points I have made, in response to Maskaev (and Toney) being held up as an example of Peter's superiority over Cooney and I've indulged yet another one of these little excursions around, but not on, the topic for a bit too long. As I alluded to, in a previous post... ...if there's to be criticism of Cooney for his outings against past prime opposition then the same criticism should be leveled at Peter, whose best outings came against Toney, who was 38; Maskaev, who was 39 and McCline, who was 37. What's more is that Lyle, Young and Norton had operated at a greater level in the heavyweight division than either of the three mentioned above. The ratings from each respective era do not really change that.
I'm aware of that, but it doesn't really change the overall point, does it? If you want, we could call it 3 opponents in 39 fights, with Holmes achieving a 74.36% KO ratio and, as for the 7 fights that were scheduled for less than 12 rounds, which went the distance... ...I guess we'll never know.
Don't have to fool anyone, JR. I used facts. Lyle and Norton were both coming off wins against contenders, and Young went on to have a string of victories after.
Maskaev was a champion and Johnson was was a well schooled contender. James Toney beat up Rahman and got a decision over Oquendo post Peter. Both were top ten which is different from Cooney's path of opponents. The fight that really shows why Peter would win is the Wlad fight though. He went 12 with an rangy, enormous puncher and ATG and had decent success. Cooney would fold; he could barely even do 12 rounds.
I realize that they are not the best wins in history, but they are still better on paper than what Cooney can bring to the table. It might well be worth putting a tenner on Cooney, if the book makers see things as I do!
