Who Necks? Sam Peters-Floyd Patterson (SWAP)

However you rate the era, it's pretty unarguable Ingo was a world class fighter in it, and not a Euro level guy.

He beat Eddie Machen and Floyd Patterson emphatically, it's not like he became champion because of politics, or some fluke.

 

It wasn’t a fluke. And Ingemar Johansson was an excellent fighter in his own day who I’ve always admired. But Patterson, Machen AND Johanson would be crusierweights in Peter’s era. While Sam Peter was never a world champion, he contended against men who had the type of size, power and athleticism that the aforementioned group wouldn’t likely be competitive against. Frankly I can’t see ingo lasting five rounds with Wladimir or Vitali. Neither Peter nor Ingo were very fast or skilled. They were both heavy hitters with limited ability. But the tie breaker for me is that Peter was significantly larger, stronger and possibly more durable. When you put two sluggers in the same ring THATS usually who wins

 

I know the point you made about this earlier, in your post, but you still managed to reduce Johansson to two "noteworthy" results. I was simply returning the example.

I'd have to disagree about relevancy. The fights they each partook in are all that is relevant when it comes to assessing their abilities. Of course, it is true that we cannot compare common opponents, but we can see how they performed in their own right.

What better performance did Peter put in than he did against Toney?
I note, as well, that you place value on Peter's failed effort against Wlad.

Agreed and I don't ignore them, but I have found on these forums that they are blown out of all proportion.
At 6' 2" and 17.5st. he was an imposing figure. He also had a huge competitive spirit. But he fell short in several key areas, not least in his defense, his accuracy and his movement (not bad for a stocky guy, but not great either). I never saw him cutting off the ring against anyone and his stamina was appalling. He wasn't particularly fast and he slowed, as a bout went on.

The much vaunted Peter power was oversold. He really wasn't shifting any class heavyweights in their prime, and the round in which he had Wlad in trouble showed to me just how far from a destroyer he was.

I can't argue with that. He might have been how you describe, since he didn't really amass more than a couple of results at the top, but those he did were of a fairly significant class and men in their prime. He might also have been another case of potential gone 'high-life happy', who reached the summit and allowed himself to be blinded by the sun.

I tend not to favor big hitters of a smaller stature to KO guys of 250lbs, either - but, contrary to the idea that Johansson was a one-trick-pony, he was actually quite mobile and agile with it. He had a good measure of distance and used his feet well to stay on the edge of the kill zone, dipping in and out in offense/defense, accordingly.

I've outlined some of Peter's weaknesses, as I see them, and a distance fight doesn't bode well for him.

KOs are always possible but, I don't rely on them as my go-to result. And, with Peter's record against ranked fighters being a bit iffy in the stoppage department, I'm definitely not backing that outcome with confidence.

 

I say Euro level because the majority of his name opponents were. He really didn't stick around the top very long at all. He beat two world level opponents and that's it. He lost twice against one of the ones he beat.

 

Sorry, I'm not going to multi-quote. It's a pain in the bum. So anyway...

I think we actually do agree about relevancy in that I agree that it's the only benchmark we have as to their abilities.
Yes, Ingo performed better relative to his opponents. I won't argue with that.

I didn't ever think Peter had vaunted power. I think I used the word 'clubbing' power earlier, and that's how I see it. Clubbing power from a big man which would certainly have to be respected.

Peter indeed does have weaknesses, and I think we both agree on that. In a distance fight, I simply think that his size and aggression is eventually going to tell. That's essentially what it boils down to. Ingo had some skills sure, but I just can't see him evading trouble, or being defensively responsible enough to thread his way to a decision. I think he'd have a hard time getting Peter's respect and keeping him honest enough to prevent from getting mauled, worn down and ultimately stopped.

I place value on Peter's loss to Wladimir because that may have been his best performance against not only a world-class fighter, but a world-class fighter soon to embark on a fantastic (though boring) run as heavyweight champion.
With a bit of polish and some luck, Peter could have beaten Wladimir.
Surely that has to be acknowledged.

 

That's reasonable enough.

The only things I'd say in return are that I think Wlad/Peter (I) is overrated as a contest and that Puritty, Sanders and Brewster didn't really need to rely on either polish or luck to get the job done until finish, once they had Wlad going.

But you make fair points, nonetheless.

 

The Peter fight was after those fights, when Wlad was getting into Steward mode.

 

As I mentioned earlier...

 

All good. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

 

Haye and Davaryll Williamson had him in some trouble off the top of my head.

 

You ignore me so well you're even re-editing these special comments you leave for me.

You're welcome to come to any boxing gym in London. I'm known in all of them. Most I can get you in for free. Please bring your friends too, if it makes you feel comfortable. you can sit in the corner giggling together over youtube clips of SRR. We'e non-judgmental here.

Like I said, your trainer/guru ("My name's Pat and I teach boxing in boxing gym, duh") act might impress the kids and easily-influenced here, or some folks who live in the sticks, but a lot of us here see right through it.
Good luck with that anyway.

 

I'll take another look.

 

Fair enough, you pick Peter and I'd pick Johansson.

I dsagree that Johansson was "Euro level". He was legitimate world level.
I think he was a better boxer than given credit for.

I also stand by the relevance of Wlad's losses to Sanders and Brewster in the years preceding the first fight with Peter, as someone else said Wlad was still in the process of perfecting the jab-and-grab style. The 2nd Wlad-Peter fight (where once more Peter got in good shape and weighed a good weight for him) was a better indicator of how Peter does against the best Wlad.
In my opinion.

 

No, not rewriting history.
Peter was very lucky to get the 'win' decision in a close fight, the first time with Toney.
It was a debatable, disputed and somewhat controversial decision at the time.

 

This forum has really gone to the dogs, hasn't it.