Mike Tyson (2000) vs Samuel Peter (2004)

Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Showstopper97, Jun 23, 2022.

Who Wins?

  1. Tyson (2000)

    56.3%
  2. Peter (2004)

    43.8%
  1. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,470
    5,353
    Jun 9, 2010
    I guess this is one of the areas we can agree on.


    Peter certainly went on to achieve more, after 2004, primarily around the 2006 to early 2008 mark. But, in terms of ability level, that is certainly up for debate. I mean, I happen to think Peter, relative to the hype that surrounded him, was actually quite woeful, throughout his career.

    I think it would be reasonable to suggest that he looked improved against Toney (II). Although, it's difficult to say whether this was actual improvement or simply a manageable change in tactics, which served him well against an aged opponent, whose own meaningful career had come to an end.

    His period in the sun would be all too brief and Peter himself would unfortunately go downhill from there (at only 28 years of age), which perhaps muddies the waters further still.


    I think this is the speculative area on which we will most likely continue to disagree on.

    Yes, without doubt, Tyson's post-prison career paled in comparison to his pre-prison career. But, in 2000, I would contend that Tyson was still quite capable of knocking over just about any heavyweight, at the time, who was not called Evander Holyfield or Lennox Lewis.

    So, I don't see the parallel between post-Manila Ali and post Holyfield Tyson, as you do.
     
  2. cross_trainer

    cross_trainer Liston was good, but no "Tire Iron" Jones Full Member

    14,736
    8,628
    Jun 30, 2005
    I would actually contend that post-Manila Ali was better than 2000 Tyson. Ali could still tangle with the best fighters in the world, and win. Or at least squeak so close to a win that the judges would pull him through. Tyson couldn't beat either Holyfield or Lewis in 2000, as you note, and it wasn't a particularly close thing. It's debatable who else he could beat.

    Like you, I don't see a clear or decisive difference between the various incarnations of Peter. I agree that it's hard to tell whether he was better in Toney II or not. It remains debatable. I go with, "maybe a little bit, if you squint hard, but he's also a little less tenacious."

    As far as I'm concerned, a relatively unchanging version of Peter was a solid contender who held a belt. That's about it. But that's also roughly what Tyson was accomplishing by 2000.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2022
  3. Man_Machine

    Man_Machine Boxing Addict Full Member

    6,470
    5,353
    Jun 9, 2010
    You could argue that. Ali was about as high as it gets in terms of levels in class.
    But, then again, he wasn't facing all-time greats in the shape of Holyfield and Lewis, by 1976, either.
     
  4. Fergy

    Fergy Walking Dead Full Member

    17,521
    17,054
    Jan 8, 2017
    Peter, I think, gets the win.