Lennox Lewis vs. Samuel Peter in 2004.

Yes you have veered off.

I'm trying to guide you to the answer that you already know but are trying to be obtuse about.

Evidence:

This content is protected

Your case is a logical dead end. You've made the assumption that Peter couldn't hit hard by saying that his KO % isn't impressive. But, there could be other reasons involved.

Here's my argument, answer this question to complete step 1:

"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?"

Have at it.

 

Seriously - Have you been drinking? I doubt you could guide a shopping trolley in the right direction, at the moment.

 

Was thinking the same all along. Any good fighter shouldn't get hit by that.

 

By implication, it seems someone considers Jeremy Williams to be a world class heavyweight boxer. Not sure about anyone else - but, I don't.

Moreover, I actually don't think the punch from Peter itself, was all that hard.


Here's another example of Williams getting caught, with a 1-2 (at 7:16):

This content is protected

 

Dude, it sounds like you have been huffing your mum's hairspray. Post your banking details and I'll send you 20 bucks so that you can afford something that won't kill you.

 

No thanks - You hang on to your pennies. Your need is far, far greater and the money would be better spent on initiating your psychiatric treatment fund.

Besides, I’m not sure your pocket money and paper round wages could cover anything worthwhile for me.

Thanks for the gesture though.

Now, you go and concentrate on trying to make sense out of yourself. There’s a good boy

 

Thanks for your magnanimous post.

Maybe I'll forgive you for being wrong about Peter not being a big puncher.

 

I rest my case...

 

The point is that fighters don't need a huge number of top level KOs to be considered a heavy puncher.

That is, I believe, what BCS8 is trying to get at.

The punch knocked him completely unconscious. I think it's safe to say it was hard.

 

I've no problem with stating that Sam Peter was an overrated puncher and that he was certainly not what I would refer to as a "monster puncher". I've explained my position adequately. If people want to misinterpret a clearly stated viewpoint, for whatever reason, that's an issue on their part.

Williams was about as durable as papier-mâché. His lack of chin had long been a questionable factor and his best days were behind him. How hard did he need to get hit to be sparked out?

In my opinion, Lewis would have withstood anything Sam Peter was able to throw at him. Moreover, I think most of Peter's low-workrate output would have been hitting air.

In 2004, Peter wasstill a prospect; not viable as a contender. That said, while he could get away with wild, clubbing-style punches against weaker smaller opposition, he looked like he could be powerful puncher. However, even later on in his career, with a fractionally more refined technique, Peter never did look comfortable trying to shift his weight behind a straight punch and this too, I think, reduced his effective power.

And, just for the record, I never stated that you had to have "a huge number of top level KOs to be considered a heavy puncher." I pointed out, in response to Peter being described as a "monster puncher" that, other than Maskaev, Peter had no other world level stoppages on his record. (Even Maskaev is a stretch, given that he was stopped in every seven of his losses). These are just facts, which support my opinion.

 

I think his raw power was quite evident in all of his fights, but I agree that if you want to call him a monster puncher his list of top rank knockouts is lacking. I just see him as a very heavy handed guy who, despite his sloth and crudeness of technique, was still able to have an impact on the division. He was also the last fighter to really give a prime Wlad real problems, and was the only man on record to come close to stopping the ridiculous chinned Toney. Granted that's not a huge body of evidence to go on, but had his power been overstated earlier in his career he wouldn't have had those sort of results at the top level.

Oh, I don't doubt that Lennox would have won had he fought his usual fight. But Peter was a dangerous guy who could take a lot and give a lot back, and that gives him opportunities against a past prime opponent known for occasionally dialling it in. That's essentially what I my argument boils down to.