Peter is not a fraud but proves his chin is only C+

When did I ever say Ruiz, Foreman or Tyson was trash? I don't see how this fits into our discussion

 

Bull****. ANYONE can get caught unexpectedly by another pro and get hurt and go down. He took plenty of big punches from Wlad and kept going, so either he has decent chin or Wlad can't punch, which we know isn't true. All this "so and so has a bad chin" stuff is crap. There are ****ing clowns all over this board who just like to blab and blab and blab about guys having bad chins because it makes them feel like they "know" something. They don't.

 

Even when badly hurt and recouperating with a full 2 minutes left he stayed till the end of the round doing what he needed to in order to survive..

He proved to me that his chin is very good, he recovered from almost devestation against a giant heavyweight (in major trouble) and stayed until the end..

His chin stood up to a major crisis, whilst preparing for a series of different opponents.... The man did very well.. He adapted very well..

 

Petey showed he can fight back from adversity.

 

Wlad was the favorite against Peter. Peter Knocked him down three times. However, Wlad didn't panic. He stuck to the gameplan and won the rounds where he wasn't KD. Good win for Wlad. The same thing happened in this fight with Peter. No if you're are going to say Peter is no good because he got KD by a guy he was favored to beat, then what does that say about Wlad? Wlad was favored to win and now you're arguing that Peter isn't even that good.

Ali got credit for beating Foreman for precisely the reasons you listed. Ali was a big underdog, yet he was winning the fight before KO'ing his opponent. Even though Foreman was supposed to win, there's no shame in losing to Ali.

Douglas gets credit because he was like a 40-1 underdog, and beat the undisputed champ. Tyson not being prepared does not negate the significance of the win for Douglas.

Jones gets credit because he went up two divisions and beat a solid heavyweight who held the WBA strap.

Holyfield gets credit for beating Tyson, because in this fight, Tyson was expected to wipe the floor with Holyfield. Anytime the underdog wins, it's impressive. Wlad was not the underdog against Peter. The win is only impressive if you believe Peter is a worthy challenger. I thought Peter's win against McCline was a nice win, and in some ways it was impressive, but he'll never get much praise for this win because McCline was not viewed as a worthy challenger

 

Samuel maintained his composure and made the best of a tough place to be. McCline offered an irrisistable force, and Samuel stood up as the immovable object.. Got off the floor hurt, and stayed solid , like a real champ..

 

Samuel has done nothing more than what Larry Holmes was revered for , having great recouperative powers.. He stood up against a terrible storm and weathered it... and remained solid....

 

:huh

Dude, are you completely incapable of critical thought. His point is that you can't say Peter is garbage then exalt Wlad for beating him. Whether or not other people think (or thought) that Peter is/was good is not relevant. YOU don't believe that he's a quality fighter; therefore, YOUR assertion that Wlad should get credit for failing to even drop a guy with a "C+ chin" is absurd.

 

Either Peter is garbage by your contention or he's not. "The hype machine that meant to destroy Wlad" really doesn't have anything at all to do with the logical consistency of your argument. If Peter is garbage (regardless of what anyone thought of him), then Wlad deserves very little credit for struggling with him at certain points in their fight, running from him a few times, and failing to match Jameel McCline's ability to dent that "c+" chin when the guy was totally gassed and unable to defend himself.

Either Peter is a good fighter, and was a decent scalp for Wlad. Or Peter is ****, and Wlad did what he was supposed to. Pick one, because you can't make both arguments.

 

I don't know why I even wasted my ****ing time. The buzz on the forum from the Klit nuthuggers today proves once again what a brainless cadre of sycophants they really are. Apparently, pointing out the fact that diminishing Peter's status as a fighter should logically diminish the credit that Wlad received for that particular victory is just too tough for these ****ing people to grasp.

For the record, I didn't pick Peter to beat Wlad, and I don't even ****ing like the guy.

 

In terms of Wlad's maturation, that was a huge win. It was also a huge comeback win when a lot of people had severe doubts about Wlad's abilities and mental fortitude. Those points, I agree with.

If that's what you meant and you didn't make yourself clear, I apologize. But there are plenty of other people who trashed Peter while talking up Wlad for beating him long before last night. It's not about whether I like Peter or Wlad as fighters (and for the record, I like Wlad a lot more). It's about the fact that expressing those two opinions in concert is self-contradictory and silly.

 

Like him or not WK is the only one to notch a win over Petey.