Corrie Sanders vs Samuel Peter..

So, three things.

First, yes, Peter is probably a worse offender than Lyle when it comes to credit from a single defeat. I wasn't saying Lyle is the most spectacular example of the phenomenon. Merely another example of the same type of thinking. Peter may be more extreme, but he is not unprecedented.

Second, very few modern fighters look worse than Peter on film. The guys Peter beat look worse on film than Peter, IMO. At least in my inexpert opinion. So that alone may not tell us much.

Third, it just occurs to me that Shavers is another example of a fighter who gets a lot of credit from losing efforts. I'm thinking here of Ali, Holmes, and Shavers's general tendency to be given (justified) credit for punching power because he knocked down or hurt so many people. Even though most of them beat him.

Fair point. I largely agree.

I think Peter's performance against Klitschko is relevant for a few limited purposes in this thread:

1) For his ability to absorb punishment without cracking.

2) For the analogy of Peter marching forward against a sometimes-fragile puncher with questionable stamina who mostly relied on straight punches.

 

1) well yes Lyle does sometimes fall into that category. I don't disagree.

2) Peter's resume is hot garbage. When the best opponent you beat is a fat old James Toney, and your win over this boxer is disputed over a decade later, it says a lot about your overall boxing ability. As for the guys Peter beat who looked worse than he did, this is basically an award for shiniest turd.

3) yes and no. If we look at shavers best opponents, his record isn't that bad as far as stoppages go. Norton, Young, Ellis, Williams, Bugner, Quarry, Sims, Cobb, Mercado, Tillis, Lyle Ali, Holmes, Clark. Shavers went 8-1-8 against them (6 KO wins). 3 of those losses were when he was far past his prime. He managed to score knockdowns in every loss except Ali and Quarry. He also had a very unforgiving schedule having fought Ali and Holmes back to back, Mercado right after the second Holmes loss, etc.

The record is far from glamorous, but in terms of being able to affect other people with your punches, it's pretty good considering he was a limited seek and destroy guy with limited stamina in a highly competitive era. He's technically dead even for opponents beaten vs opponents he lost to (8-8), as opposed to the idea he always lost when he stepped up. Just like shavers himself, the record goes to show you never knew what was gonna happen, he was a loose cannon.

1) here's my issue: people filter out that version of Peter for h2h discussions while ignoring the rematch where he got KOd by the very same guy he builds his reputation on as a durable guy.

Imagine if Lyle rematched Foreman and was brutally destroyed in 1 round with Foreman taking no damage. I would think there'd be a lot less people holding Lyle up as some amazing h2h threat. Peters reputation never declines despite how often he has gotten stopped.

2) you could give almost any decent chinned, come forward aggressive guy the same chances you'd give Peter against such an opponent.

 

You mean how Sanders had Hasim Rahman another boxer who couldn't box off the "back foot" sprawled out for the count? Peter at his prime was more durable and had a better chin compared to Hasim Rahman. He also probably had more power. He would knockout out Sanders too.

 

One correction: What I meant above was that Peter's opponents looked better than he did, but nevertheless lost to him. Peter was very bad looking.