In what is sure to be a highly physical & entertaining fight (regardless of how long it lasts), who would won in the battle between Tyson of the Golota fight, & Peter of the WIlliams fight?
I think I take Peter. Tyson was no longer the prime fighting machine that he was and had come to rely a lot on his power as opposed to his skill, speed and power. Peter was always crude but he was not the guy that you wanted to slug it out with, which would basically be Tyson's gameplan. Peter had huge power and a great chin and a significant size advantage on Tyson. That version of Mike was not guaranteed to land first, which I think the prime version would have.
The ESB-Avid-K-Bro-Fans version of Peter, promulgated as the era’s answer to Big George Foreman, might stand a chance against Tyson 2000. The real, objectively viewed version of Peter gets thoroughly outclassed.
Tyson in 2000 was still better than Prime Sam Peter would ever become. Tommy Brooks was getting Tyson on the right track but circumstances from the Golota bout seemed like it took some steam out of Tyson's third comeback. I liked Peter. I like guys with good power who go for the gusto.
Agreed Tyson had his weight in a good place and he looked pretty good in the Golota fight. The gas tank was running low but it wasnt at empty yet. It was downhill though after the year 2000.
Both men suffered from overhyping. Peter was a hard-hitting but crude fighter who seemed to turn in oddly boring fights. Tyson was a shadow of what he'd been.
Even if this is true, it does not put them on a par with each other. Even the shadow of Tyson was orders of magnitude more skillful; more dynamic and harder-hitting than Peter, whose power is vastly overrated.
Peter and shot Tyson reached similar levels in the sport. Peter was cruder than shot Tyson, but was effective, and remained so for longer than the first couple rounds. They probably had similar levels of power; Peter just had a much slower and cruder delivery. Although I'm not sure how much stock one can put in the usefulness of measuring power beyond the "hits very hard" level anyway.
You're talking about the guy that had received a boxing lesson from Frans Botha? Maybe you need to rethink your position if that's the case.
More or less what I think. Tyson suffers from the same problem that Ali suffers from: his fanboys are frothing at the mouth fanatics who can't accept how much their hero had slid in his twilight. Tyson always had a bomb of a punch but what had made him great was his defence, peekaboo style, speed and polished accuracy. Old Man Tyson was basically a brawler with a huge punch and if that's the case I'll take the younger bigger brawler who still wanted to win.
Tyson was finish washed on 2000. with Julian Francis & Lou Savese & Andre Golota . not good fighter by now. can he win with Sam Peter? maybe & maybe not. it could be close one or of either way winner. maybe fight draw!
If you're referring to the eventual heights Peter would reach vs your idea of a shot Tyson, then the comparison I think you are attempting to make here has some merit. But Peter hadn't really achieved anything, other than a highlight-reel moment against Jeremy Williams, by end of 2004, and, while few would argue that, by 2000, Tyson was diminished, I don't consider him to have been "shot" by then. Even in Peter's pomp, there remains a gulf in class between the two. Re Punching Power, I too tend towards there being a point at which the 'who hits harder?' question reaches being an irrelevance, but I also think Peter's punching power gets grossly overstated by many. Technique of delivery has a considerable input into this question and Peter's slower and cruder delivery led to him achieving only one stoppage victory over a ring-rated opponent, during the entirety of his career - and rather unimpressively, at that. I don't think, in this facet, they can be realistically compared. Peter, for all his raw strength and competitive spirit was never really that good and Tyson would need to have fallen to somewhere closer to the level of his post-Lewis defeat, before Peter could be considered a genuine threat, in my opinion.
I agree at parts and disagree at parts. The main problem with Peter's "technique of delivery," IMO, was that he just didn't tend to hit people very cleanly. Because he just wasn't that skilled. I don't see much improvement between 2004 Peter and later Peter. He might have gained a little skill. He also lost a bit of tenacity, IMO. But he looks like the same Peter to me. That said, perhaps I'm wrong. Do you really see much of an ability gap between 2004 Peter and some other version of Peter? What did the later version do better? Finally, I think Tyson was running on nostalgia, intimidation, and 3 rounds of aggression even before Lewis got him. Could he beat Peter even at that stage? Sure, it's quite possible. But Ali from the Young fight might stand a chance too, despite that version of Ali also being shot.
