Rex Layne vs Samuel Peter

Layne decision

 

Peter. Layne was too easy to hit, and Peter can really bomb. Early to mid round stoppage.

 

Peter crushes him.

 

Layne had a granite chin in his prime. He took huge bombs off Satterfield. Peter has no heart. Layne would take his best stuff then wear him down. Don't forget, Layne could hit hard too, had a big right hand. He also had a jab, fast hands, and a big heart. I think he could outwork Peter, and possibly get off the canvas 2-3 times to win a decision.

 

:roll:

 

I would have to go with Layne as being more proven, for all his limitations.

 

Peter in three or less ..

 

When did Peter KO any world class fighter in three or less?

 

Peter is big and strong but wasn't much for skills (see Toney make him look like a lumbering ape).

Could go either way really. Layne was a bit better for his day so I'd lean towards him.

 

You are off this planet He Grant - this guy beat Jersey Joe Walcott on a (admittedly questionable) decision - now way in the world is Sam Peter beating a guy who managed to beat Jersey Joe Walcott to a decision - peter was made to look like a rank amateur by a bloated fat anchient middleweight James Toney - come on HeGrant get real

 

Peter by KO

 

Layne wins

 

Peter wins inside 5 rounds. Layne could not stand and trade with him.

 

I don't consider Layne a world class heavyweight .. I consider him a plodding cruiserweight .. could not be more made to order . In addition, I never saw Sam in the ring against a man that small and that hittable. It would be ugly.

I appreciate that Layne was tough for cruiserweight size men ... I just feel he does not match up well with much bigger, stronger, heavier punchers ... it's a different fight than going against an older Charles or Walcott.