Lennox Lewis vs. Samuel Peter in 2004.

He avenged the defeats but it still doesn't erase the fact that big punchers could land on lewis and could put him away. And we're talking about a worse version of Lewis than those two faced.

That's a fair observation and it might be that Peter was too green at the time to hang with a depleted Lewis. I'd have to check the timelines to be sure though.

 

Peter had power and he should have had, as an athlete of seventeen and a half stone. But, how often did he turn that into explosive punching? Generally, quite rarely, and that's why he cannot be considered a monster puncher, in my opinion - see below for an explanation and why you've gone right off track.

Errr - there is no "yes, but"-ing required, here. You've entirely missed the point, to the extent that the examples you have given are counter-intuitive to your own position.

You've referred to Peter as a "monster puncher". His record strongly suggests otherwise. Other than Maskaev, who was stopped often (and stopped on his feet against Peter), he has no other world class KO/TKO on his ledger. His stoppages were often associated with a barrage of wild swings; an opportunity afforded to him by lesser opposition.

I would expect someone regarded as a "monster puncher" to have brought more world level bouts to a close, inside the distance, than Peter managed. I would have expected a "monster puncher", who had landed clean on Wlad Klitschko (like Sanders, Brewster and Joshua), to go on and finish the bout a winner - Peter didn't.

Thus, one doesn't necessarily need to be a skeptic about Peter's punch power, do they? Just look at his record and the fights themselves. If I apply the same assessment to Ali (who no one refers to as a "monster puncher") and VK (who demonstrated very heavy hands consistently throughout his career but, even then, "monster puncher"?) - well - they actually have recorded relative world class stoppages in their respective careers, haven't they? And, in Ali's case, without being a renowned puncher.

If Peter was this "tremendous" puncher you consider him to have been then why was he not able to demonstrate this, even against opposition not known for their strong whiskers?


What makes you think 2004 Peter lands regularly on even a faded Lewis. Peter's output and accuracy would be about half of what VK's was in 2003 (a genuine puncher, which 'old' Lewis withstood), whilst he was most likely to have been out-landed by Lewis, in the range of somewhere between 2-1/3-1?

The 'Peter Bandwagon' left the station a long time ago, chap. You should have waved goodbye to it, by now.

 

Good question. You're getting warmer.

 

Terrible retort.

As usual, you start out by making a sweeping statement about a Boxer - that you need to be regarded as being better than he actually is, despite the facts - and then you cannot answer any sensible challenge to your belief (because you have no argument).

How typical of you when it comes to Sam Peter...

 

Other than Ken Norton and Jimmy Ellis who did Shavers ever stop?

 

Peter does not have the defense to deal with Lewis. And he sure does not have fast enough feet to get himself in range to land much. He'd need to be a better counterpuncher against an opponent like Lewis and it just isn't there.

 

Well - this thread has nothing to do with Earnie Shavers but, since you ask, Ken Norton and Ellis already double Peter's numbers and both men are levels above Maskaev.

In addition, I think Shavers is the only guy to floor Jimmy Young (which I believe he did in both their fights). He also floored Lyle, Holmes, Bugner and Tillis. Staggered Ali and Cobb. All very durable fighters, which is probably why Shavers has the reputation he does.

 

^Opinion. Wrong, at that.

Sure.

Wrong.

Try again.

You were on the right track, but have now veered off it into a mudhole.

 

It would be kind of like taking Mercer and Lewis from 96, giving them each ten shots of whiskey, and then telling them to fight.

 

I needn't try again and I haven't veered off anywhere. You dug your own mud hole with a big statement you couldn't back up with any substantial evidence.

I've stayed on point and made a case, whereas you've just avoided answering valid questions and instead become a Random BS Generator.

Have you thought about trying to construct an argument - about the topic, at hand?

Oh... ...wait...

 

If you want to know what it looks like to get with a fully leveraged punch from Sam Peter, watch the Jeremy Williams fight.

 

That punch wasn't fully leveraged.

 

That's the benefit of fantasy outcomes from a fantasy match-up - very little is out of the question. But, in a sensible discussion, we should perhaps favor dealing in likelihoods.

 

I wouldn’t want to get hit with it either way.