Sam Peter : Could he have picked up a belt in the 80's?

Chambers and Helenius were fringe contenders nothing more and therefore, by definition ordinary.

He didn't flatten Hawkins,Pudar,Wilson,Shufford, or Smith, and they were definitely ordinary!

 

Hey, I know your good with a tape measure, did you manage to measure Peters waist measurement? Or did his boobies get in the way?

 

Chambers was top 5 at one point and prime. Peter was fat for that fight but would’ve lost regardless.

tSam was finished when Helenius got him.

 

Vintage BCS8. Dodging the salient information presented to him and digging his heels in with sheer and utter opinion, as well as still irrelevant records.

Fact: The fights you cited, in order to cast a shadow over Witherspoon and Tubbs, took place in the '90s.
Fact: The Title of the Thread clearly asks: "Sam Peter : Could he have picked up a belt in the 80's?"

If, according to you, Sam Peter hangs in the '80s with the likes of Witherspoon and Tubbs, how is he letting guys like Helenius and Chambers beat him, whilst in his relative prime. Helenius was a novice, at 14-0-0 and Chambers got beat any time he stepped up in level. He never beat any of his world class piers (unless you count Peter, which you probably do - the ordinary propping up the ordinary, in a never-ending circle, much like your non-argument).

Neither Helenius nor Chambers were world-beating Heavyweights. In the context of world-level Heavyweights, these guys weren't "somebody" - they were "ordinary".


But - You have to maintain the 'Peter was World Class Heavyweight' narrative to underpin your opinions on Wlad. It's all too sadly transparent.

 

I know I haven't got one long enough to go around me now.

 

At "one point."That covers a lot of ground!

 

I know the feeling!

 

He was number 3 in 2009, 6 in 2010, 4 in 2011.

He beat two top ten fighters in Dimitrenko and Peter in 2009.

Go construct a list of heavyweight fighters since 1980 who have been top five in two separate years and beaten two top ten contenders in one calendar year and tell me what kind of company he keeps.

 

In that case, yes.

Peter's losses and decline as a HW really began with the loss to Vitali Klitschko. He'd only lost to Wlad who would have certainly have drubbed Tubbs, Weaver and that lot with minimum hassle. I see nothing so exceptional about guys like Tubbs, Witherspoon et al as to make them unbeatable by somebody of Peter's calibre.

He lost to these guys in the tail end of his career. So sorry, if you want to ignore losses to scrubs like Butler, then I'm going to ignore losses to guys like Chambers and Helenius.

Yeah, Toney, Maskaev, Williams and McCline were all bums Some of them were world champions, but, still, they were not world class.

Helenius is a multiple European champion and intercontinental champion and IBF titelist
Chambers is a little less polished but still holds a record of 42-5 and useful wins over Brock, Peter and Puritty.

If these two are "ordinary boxers" then 90% of boxers are "below average" and suck

Let's compare, since you insist, to:

Lionel Butler 32-17-1
Jimmy Thunder 35 - 14
Orlin Norris 57-10
ST Gordon 20-7 (Berbick)
etc ...

THOSE guys were "ordinary" - or, to be fair, decent journeymen. Helenius and Chambers would take them out to school.

Theeeeerrreee we go.

So you're a member of the Wladimir Klitschko Sucks Club and this is what it's all about.

Clear as glass now.

 

Its like asking would Chirs Arroela pick up a belt because both him and Peter were the exact same caliber of fighter.
The only thing that separates them is an advantage in power to Peter and an advantage in speed and stamina to Arroela.

The only reason Peter gets propped up is because of how badly Wlad struggled with him. Anybody who can see the wood from the trees can see that it was Wlads shortcomings rather than Peters strengths that caused him to flee in fear and bear hug consistently in BOTH fights. Thats the reality based perception backed up by how poor Peter looked against the other ranked opposition he faced.

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/EtMyb0ohY6E/hqdefault.jpg

Look at that for an embarrassing stat.^^

If Peter was a Wilder victim he'd be the worst boxer to ever have laced up gloves , just like how Stiverne is made out to be.
While Stiverne isn't anything to write home about , he'd likely knock Peter out like he did Arroela.

The closest guy i would compare to Peter from previous era'a was Samson Pu'ha from the 90's.

 

Not content with a crap argument, you have put your own words into mine. You're getting worse, chap. Much, much worse!

Peter at 30 was at the end of his career, according to you. If you say so...


Still not getting the title of the thread, are you?

You should give up. You'll catch a chill with your pants down for as long as they have been, in this thread.

I'm off out.

 

He could have done it, but he would have needed to be lucky with the draw, and he would not have held onto it for very long.

 

*******! Beat me to it!

 

Peter wouldn't of held a belt in the eighties.not good enough.

 

Well Trevor Berbick won the title....