Nah, he's right. You're being disingenuous I feel. The Wladimir that beat Peter was a far cry from the Wladimir that fell to Brewster. He was entering his prime years and would dominate the division for years after. Peter had him rocking and reeling several times. The second fight no, but Peter in the first fight was a handful for a prime Wladimir, who is levels above Johansson, who essentially was European level and not much better than that. Few would suggest that Peter was a skilled fighter. He wasn't fast nor well-schooled in my opinion. But he was a large aggressive lump who could box a little. Good clubbing power and a good chin. Took major punches off both Klits for many rounds before wilting. Skilled? Not really. He was pretty raw. But crude as he was, he could be a big handful for Johansson, who just never had to deal with anyone that powerful. And again, it's Johansson. He caught lightning in a bottle against a rather fragile champion, got mulllered by the same guy, and did very little after that. He wasn't anything special.
Whether he thinks Peter looks better than Liston I cannot say...but that is not what he said. He said “he looks quicker than Liston ever looked”, I am not sure I disagree. he also said if Peter fought: Moore, Patterson, Johanson, Harris, London etc. he would dominate and probably by 1 round KO. I slightly disagree, but that is cool. I do think he would beat all listed including Moore (unfortunately as he is one of my favorites) Patterson (again one of my favorites). I think Moore and Patterson and likely Ingo are all greater than Sam...but that he would likely beat all 3 of them. he definitely has a leaning towards modern fighters which is ok because it balances out all of the ones who worship the past and discredit modern fighters. Regardless if you agree with him or not, his posts make sense and even on divergent opinion he gives reason and evidence....there are some modernista trolls on here, he is not one. oh well, never mind
Wlad had not yet perfected his hug-of-death (to boxing) technique, at this stage. It was a point not that far removed from Wlad having been turned into a zombie by Lamon Brewster. His new-found form was yet to be fully established. Peter missed the opportunity of a lifetime to get Wlad out of there. Any previous Wlad opponent, who had had Wlad in that kind of trouble, walked out a winner - but not Peter. I find that quite telling.
Wladimir was getting better but he was only 3 fights removed from the Brewster loss, and he was just 2 fights removed from getting floored by Williamson. You underrate Johansson too. He obliterated the #1 world contender, then obliterated the world champion ... that makes him WORLD LEVEL, clearly. Of course, he tasted the limelight and couldn't sustain a long career, made good money, and lost the title in his first defence. That means he wasn't a great world champion, but he was world level and a worthy #1 contender and a worthy world champion for sure. His achievements easily exceed those of Sam Peter.
He's one of the worst posters here. I'm pretty sure he must be trolling. If he's not trolling, he's easily the worst.
Thanks for the defense, I don't engage posters like that one. I seldom read what he writes. I look at fighters different than most. Records are less important than video to me and at heavyweight when I see a big, fast, tank of a fighter I take notice. If I had a young heavyweight fighter and I was shown video of Patterson, Moore, and Peter and told to pick which one my fighter was going to fight next, Peter would definitely be number 3 and Patterson or Moore would be my choice. Video counts, I'm not interested in some guy's opinion who watches fights and reads old "historians" accounts but doesn't know anything about the technical or physical side of boxing. When I read an opinion by someone that disregards the chances of a physical tank like Peter, it tells me all I need to know about that person and their understanding of boxing. I'll just remember that poster and while I don't put them on "ignore", I ignore them. There are good posters on this board like you and others who keep things interesting. Thanks. EDIT: The poster with the following two comments is a perfect example of the type I ignore. The type that if you took him/her into a boxing gym, he/she'd be looking around for the smoothie bar and the lady who leads the boxercise class.
And, yet, when some fool down your gym says Sugar Ray Robinson was "crude swinging and only won because he was fighting short Italians" you accept that as a valid opinion. If you're not a troll, you clearly have little understanding of boxing.
Jeremy Williams was a glass chinned third-rate heavyweight who got KO'd or quit every time he stepped up to fight anyone close to being a legitimate contender. That's all on video. And, yeah, his 41-1 and winning streak means nothing, I agree.
Of course you ignore me. Because I've exposed your BS, contradictions and trolling several times and you have no answer. If you didn't post dumb stuff, you'd be forgettable, to be honest. You can fool some of the youngsters here who might be impressed with your silly gym stories and pretensions but it cuts no ice with people who've actually been around a bit. Also, when you edit your post to make a statement calling attention to my posts, and then you bold and underline a statement like that, I don't feel ignored at all.Thanks. Better effort next time.
It doesn't matter. He would not lose again until Fury. Wlad was prime. Peter gave a prime Wladimir some big scares. He beat Machen and Patterson. That's it. He also got obliterated by Patterson. That's his contribution to being noteworthy. Besides which, it doesn't matter whether he achieved more than Peter or not. Different eras. Irrelevant. He's not beating Peter in my view.
Rewriting history now are we. Why do boxing fans feel the need to rubbish a fighters accomplishments.
Yeah - the kind of scares most opponents would go on to win from. Sam Peter shares the honor of having knocked Wlad down and gone on to lose, with Steve Pannell. Sam Peter beat James Toney (fat and 38) and Oleg Maskaev (broken and 39). This isn't something to write home about. Peter took slow drubbings from Wlad and Vitali and also got obliterated by Helenius. That's his contribution to being noteworthy. We're all entitled to our opinions and you could be right, but Peter was not a class boxer, either. To illustrate that point, Eddie Chambers was the type that lost every time he stepped up in class. Lucky for him Peter was a step down.
It doesn't help to disparage Peter's opponents because that is a game that is commonly played and goes nowhere. They fought in different eras against different opponents. It's not relevant. Neither fought each other's opponents. I've stated earlier that Peter was raw and crude, but he does have some ability and physical assets that can't be ignored. He can't be easily dismissed simply because he didn't win a title. Ingo wasn't bad, obviously. Was he truly a world beater, or a Euro level guy who managed to win the title? For me, it's the latter. I don't think he sparks Peter out. That means it's going to be a long, long night against an aggressive, hard-punching opponent who can, if he lands right, take Ingo out.
