Sonny Liston & Sam Peter Who Was The Harder Puncher?

Pointless post.

 

for you, yes.

not for foreman and liston. but u know better than them....

 

Perhaps. Don't think you'll ever learn.

 

Here is a useful thread on Sam Peter's punching power:

https://www.boxingforum24.com/threads/samuel-peters-power.546626/

 

I don't get why Peter gets so much hate on this forum.
He was a hungry lion in the first Wlad fight, strong as an ox with a helluva chin.
Obviously could hit very hard.
He was bigger and stronger than Liston and possibly a bigger puncher.

Liston would probably beat him.

 

noone needs you to write that for liston to easily stop peters.

 

Great post.

Let me explain the hate. It's manyfold.

1) Some posters, aka the Klitschko hater brigade, feel it necessary to denigrate any Klitschko opponents. The usual suspects instinctively spew their bile when faced with anything Klitschko-related. They're like a dog barfing up a half digested meal, contemplating it, and slurping it back up for a second go. Dino and Herol are the chief instigators, but there are some others around.

2) This is Classic. There's an automatic 1% adjustment to a fighter's actual worth for every year you go back. Liston was the 1960's so he gets +60% to his actual worth, rounded up. Some posters can't bear to contemplate that their hewoes could be flattened by a guy like Peter. So Liston has the best chin, the best jab, the best power and the biggest dong of all time and could out-brawl anybody (save little Leotis Martin but let's not talk about that) and he could liquify anybody with his menacing stare. Yet he managed to defend his world title ... ummmmmm ... ONCE, against cruiserweight Floyd "Mah chin is papier mache" Patterson.

3) Guys that are Ali ball-danglers like to big Liston up too, because he was an excellent win for MA, and can be used as a basis for arguing that Ali hit hard, given that Liston was reputed to have a good chin.

4) Peter really was pretty darn crude. It's embarrassing for boxing to admit that a guy made it so far based on pure physicality and minimal skills. But, that's the truth and I find it embarrassing that grown-ass men can't face up to the fact. He's the last guy that you want to get into a wild brawl with, because he could really turn off the lights with one shot. He had a great chin and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if he'd KO Liston in a shootout.

As I stated in the start, in an actual fight, Liston would have to be stupid as a plank to lose to Peter, given his skills and jab. But, that's not enough for some folks. He has to be bigger, stronger, harder hitting and Peter has to have a sub-zero chance of winning before some folks are satisfied. Even if Peter had a real-life 30-35lb weight advantage on him, Liston simply has to be the more powerful guy.

Yeah ... uhh ... real life doesn't work like that, sorry, chums.

 

Ticar is talking about tHIS forum.

Excellent. We're getting somewhere.

Your not knowing that Liston was on a 14-0 (13 KO) win streak and was favoured almost 3-1 to win makes you look silly.

I'm about 6 ft and 205lb and I wouldn't go anywhere near a genuine heavyweight. That's SMALL.

Not true. There are some other folks that are interested in genuine analysis and the truth, as well as myself.

 

s'up sonny.

u STILL using a near 50something as your primary argument? haha.

 

So all the guys he beat after Ali sucked, then? Wow, talk about a cherry picker. Alright, you win, his resume is vastly inflated.

I don't understand how he was such a favourite against Martin, clearly the pundits of the time had no clue.

I guess Peter has a much better chance against him than I thought.

Not by today's standards. By modern standards they were cruisers, and not very big ones at that.

Since we're comparing a genuine modern 245lb HW like Peter to Liston, I'd say this is relevant.

Au contraire, I am feel, very feel.

 

You evidently missed all the video evidence that I posted in this thread and others. I think that the eye test amply demonstrates that Peter hit exceptionally hard. If that's not enough there's testimony from former opponents and sparring partners as to how hard he hit. Furthermore the facts are that he was 30-35lb heavier than Liston and achieved his KO's in an era of bigger men.

That's enough evidence to me to show that he hit as hard as, or harder, than Liston. That seems reasonable to me.

I resort to mockery and hyperbole when it's evident that the people I am talking to have fossilised in their opinions.

Nevertheless, it is true to say that if you write off half of Liston's resume as sub par, you are decreasing his value. Likewise, if you agree that a 14-0 (13 ko) streak is good, then the version of Liston that fought Martin couldn't have been so bad.

Anyhow, I get the feeling we're going round in circles.

I feel that the argument I have posted stands for itself and that I've been objective in my approach.

I'm going to leave it at this.