Foreman (Moorer fight) vs. Peter (Klitschko fight)

Foreman's 1994 KO over Moorer is the GREATEST sports comeback in history..

MR.BILL

 

I can't see any way 70's or 90's Foreman loses to Sam Peter.

 

forman beats peter up bad even at his advanced age then

 

90s Foreman looks like a master boxer against Slugger Sam

 

all sam peter has is a big punch no skill to be fair and foreman at that age had a big punch and his brain and was relay clever


look at the left hook he caugth moorer with to make him circle into his straigth right it is class

 

Peter does'nt even seem to posess a big punch at the elite level.He's just a tough clubbing fighter imo

 

Rough for Peter. Toney II showed he can box a bit but he's really not a boxer like Moorer. He'd end up slugging, and Foreman is just so wrong for him in that regard.

 

i don't think peter can box well enough to beat foreman. briggs and morrison did though but Peter being 6' I think he gets knocked out sometime in the middle to later rounds.

 

What is the question here?

Which fight was better or which winner dominated more?

Oh, its the Foreman who lost to Morrison, vs Sam Peter.

I dunno, Foreman got busted up badly vs Alex Stewart, and was lucky to beat the likes us Shultz.

Foreman beat Moorer because Moorer could not take a punch. Peter can, and Foreman was slow and not to hard to hit.

Pick em.

 

I see I'm one of but three voters who said Peter would last the distance. As such, I'll defend the position:
Fact is, Foreman just wasn't knocking out many serious opponents at that stage. Alex Stewart went the distance, Holyfield beat him, Morrison beat him, and all four of his post-Moorer fights went the distance. The Moorer fight was pretty much the only time Foreman stopped a credible opponent in his comeback, and it must be admitted that Moorer's punch resistance was no marvel. At that stage, Foreman didn't really have the speed or athleticism to mount a sustained attack on a top fighter, and Peter has proven capable of withstanding even sustained batterings from pretty hard-hitting opponents. That said, he was still better than Peter in nearly every way. Foreman UD.

 

Peter is an under rated boxer. While he's no fancy dan, he has a solid jab, can combo a bit, and can land the right hand. Peter was just up against a much bigger and faster mover in Vitlai, who did not fear him.

Foreman in the 1990's was there to be hit, and he was slow, and not very active.

Anyone who saw Stewart vs Foreman felt Foreman should have retired. The fight was close, and Foreman's face was like a red balloon after the fight.

I would not discount Peter winning on points. I need to see a bit more on Peter to make a call here, but he did out box Toney, and seemed to be able to win rounds a bit easier than Foreman did vs grade B opponents.

 

Blimey! You've changed your tune.

That's the biggest turn around since Zakman started cheering for Obama.

 

Nah, read my post long before Peter meet Maskeav. Peter has a solid jab, and without going over board some skills. Credible announcers such as Al Bernstein point this out, and he is right.

Peter had a very hard time landing on Vitlai because Vitlai moves around, has good reflexes, and kept the fight in the best area for him. This was the lone fight where Peter really struggled to land his money punches. In his other fights ( Omit Wlad, and 1st Toney fight ), Peter was well ahead. To cast Peter as a David Tua type is not fair. He can win on points.

 

Foreman by TKO in the latter rounds, they stop it by the towel being thrown in due to foreman's big right hand...