The Wlad fight didn't prove Peter could beat Eddie Chambers so thats a silly argument. Cooney had tools that Wlad didn't to beat Peter - body shots and uppercuts on the inside. It wouldn't and didn't take an ATG to beat Peter. Chisora would pose more of the threat to Cooney than Peter would. How do i know that? Chisora beat Helienus from pillar to post. Helenius star fished Peter old COLD.
It was a 12 rounder and by making that mistake you prove that Peter only beat McCline by the skin of his teeth. Massive blunder on your part , so you should really watch these fights before commenting on them. lolololol!!!
Because I didn't need to... I literally posted the result, which I know isn't controversial... I have seen Peter and Cooney, in their biggest fights, both wins and losses. That's enough to know that Peter hit like a truck, could land of good opponents, take a good punch and that Cooney couldn't take a punch and didn't have the best defense. You have an agenda if anything to do with Wladimir Klitschko, which includes Sam Peter. You've also tried to convince me something along the lines of Cooney was a better boxer than Vitali Klitschko. Nobody takes seriously on either of these subjects. At all.
You think highly of Peter only because of the Wlad fight. You haven't seen Peter in other fights by your very own admission , but I have , so that means i have a better gauge on how Peter does in this fight than you do. Another thing, keep your personal judgments about me out of it. Debate the topic of the thread or stfu.
Since guys like NoNeck never watched Peters and others may have forgotten , here's a reminder on how utterly terrible Sam Peter was! The guy was falling off balance just by throwing a jab!! This content is protected
In that case, Peter merely beat a guy over 12 who was Cooney’s size but more accomplished, whereas Cooney never finished a 12 or 15 round fight.
Needless to say that I disagree with your marketing blurb for Wlad, here. Wlad was not close to being considered an ATG in 2005. The significance of the first Wlad/Peter fight is that it was an eliminator for two of the sanctioning body's world titles. Wlad was only a few fights and a year or so removed from his starching, at the hands of Brewster and his career was still in the balance. Peter's great claim to fame, at the time, was his KO of Williams. The fight was an exhibition of unsophisticated clubbing and grappling, in which Peter had Wlad in a sticky moment or two, but failed to push the envelope. Wlad won, quite wide, in terms of rounds; primarily with his 'smash and grab, hold on for dear life and lean on top of your opponent, at every given opportunity' tactics. Wlad would have 21 more fights, after Peter (I), which represented the beginning and the end of his noted Championship, including a Peter rematch, which more or less fit the par for the course, in terms of the level of challenges Wlad would face, throughout. His longevity and partial-dominance of a division, one which almost every commentator you speak to would acknowledge as being weak, is what has gained him recognition in the all time great listings. None of this makes Peter a good fighter. Although, I do respect his competitive spirit and commitment to his contests. Peter was very strong, had a lot of guts and iron, but obviously lacked ability. Pure and simple. Peter's much vaunted punch power didn't really wreak much havoc in the higher tiers of the division. Indeed, as has already been discussed ad infinitum, his only wins of note are over Maskaev, who's chin never held up to a halfway decent punch, and a pair of decision 'W's against Toney, who was an obese, former middleweight; well, well past his prime; a virtually static target for Peter and the one who most likely deserved to win their first encounter. Peter is the most overrated Heavyweight I've seen on these boards and his biggest supporters also happen to be Wlad fans. I know you're one of them so I understand your need to build Peter up into this high quality opponent, but he just wasn't. Whilst he made adjustments to his strategy against Toney (2), his staple tactic was to just march in and dare his opponent to go toe-to-toe. This didn't pay off against Vitali, Wlad (in their rematch, 5 years later) and Helenius - it almost cost him against McCline, as well. It would cost him against Cooney.
No, you've seen 1 more important Peter fight than I have. By my own admission, I haven't seen the MCCLINE fight. You don't have a better gauge than me in this fight as you can see past your own hate of anything remotely related to Wlad.
McCline was old , past it and didn't have a full training camp when he stood in as a late replacement. He would have finished Peter in the early rounds had he been better prepared. A younger McClne would have beaten Peter handily.
I speak truths which are conceived as hate to fangirls like you.. You however also have an agenda , a pro Wlad agenda , so stfu about agendas and try stick to your very limited knowledge of the division during the 00's.
Like I always say, Joe Louis was not a great fighter when he beat Jack Sharkey, but rather a stumbling novice who had just been knocked out by some German.
Peter had a very good version of Wlad down twice. I reckon he takes Cooney unless Cooney takes him out. More durable.
George, I'm glad you're here. You've taught yourself a ton in a pretty short time and your posts are articulate and thoughtful. Funny, the Peter-McCline fight card is one of the two live fight cards I've been to in my life, and the only one in Madison Square Garden. Regarding the question, like most fantasy fights, it depends on when it happens. A young Cooney destroys and old Peter. A young Peter destroys an old Cooney. Prime for prime, I'll go with Cooney. But Peter could catch him.
Cooney inside 5 rpunds is my tentative pick, but it could go the other way too if Sam survives early on. Peter is shorter, a bit plodding and Gerry had big power in his prime. 60-40 Gerry.
