Where would Vitlai Klitschko’s comeback rate if he defeats Sam Peter?

Well he is considered the #2 or #3 by virtually everyone. He has been in the top5 for quite a long time now. Regardless of what you think of him, i think that alone qualifies him as a high quality contender.



And while i don't think it would compare to Foreman beating Moorer, let's not forget that it took him three tries to do that.

 

Untill he has actualy beaten Peter this discusion is irrelevant.

If he knows what is good for him he wont try.

 

No, it's just that Wlad is about the only high-quality contender out there, except possibly for Chagaev and maybe Povetkin or David Haye, but they haven't proven themselves one way or the other yet. Peter has now had enough major fights that we can make a fairly accurate assessment of him as a fighter. He's slow on his feet, his punches are crude and clubbing, he doesn't have a very good defense, his chin is clearly less than granite, his conditioning is mediocre, and even his power, while clearly formidable, has proven overrated and is not great. Aside from Wladimir Klitsckho, who he lost to, the only three name opponents Peter has fought were all guys in their late 30s who were some combination of badly out of shape, badly inactive and coming off injuries, and who were all far from great fighters even when they were in their primes. Peter nearly/arguably lost to two of them.

In short, Peter is just barely good enough to beat old, fat, injury-ridden, rusty versions of contenders who were never especially good in the first place. Vitali is certainly old, injury-ridden and rusty, but I do think he was at least especially good, so he will probably beat Peter. It will be a good mark for his career, but not by any means some kind of legacy-building feat that will vault him into legend.

Seeing how Foreman was much older than Vitali is, had a much longer layoff than Vitali has had, had to contend with much better opposition than Vitali is scheduled to face, and won the legitimate, linear world heavyweight championship while Vitali is going for a manufactured trinket belt, I think it's silly the two situations are even being compared.

 

Yet, this is considered as one of the better fighters, and one of the few in his 20's that Wlad Klitscko ever faced.

( just thought I'd make reference to the thread in the general forum )

 

"I think that alone qualifies him as a high quality contender."


I would say right now Peter stands about on par with Floyd Johnson, who came into the Willard fight on a winning streak with wins over Bob Martin, Bill Brennan, and Fred Fulton, and was considered by some a coming champ.
Beating Peter on any circumstances will be a real feather in Vitali's cap and would certainly improve his historical image, but if Peter's career went as far south after the defeat as Johnson's did, it will deflate the victory considerably.

 

Plenty of fighters have been "old enough to rank" when they were 27. Peter has now had five major fights against name opponents while in his prime. He lost to the only one who was an actual, prime, in-shape, elite-level heavyweight, and has just barely been able to get the win against guys who were never especially good contenders in the first place and were old, fat, injured, rusty

Yes, he is an actual contender, but as I say, he's not a seriously high-quality one, and he's certainly not a legitimate champion.

True, but the old guys those champions beat were at least great or very good fighters- unlike Toney, McCline and Maskaev, all of whom were fairly average contenders even in their primes- and were not disgustingly fat, rusty and coming off severe injuries like those guys.
And Peter is NOT a world heavyweight champion, nor will Vitali be if he beats Peter.

I'm not aware of any legendary champion who has beaten someone less formidable than Peter for the authentic world title (which Peter does not hold).

Vitali didn't have a 10-year layoff and isn't in his mid-40s, though, and doesn't have to contend with anything remotely close to an Evander Holyfield.

Maybe not, but Moorer certainly wasn't as slow, crude and fat as Peter, and Moorer was a legitimate, linear world heavyweight champion coming off a win over a prime or near-prime Evander Holyfield.

Outweighed overwhelmingly by all of the obvious differences in the opposite direction.

 

Snorlax--could you elaborate on why you put knockout in quotes. What are you implying? And why are you implying it?

 

Thats about the size of it , it will be noteworthy if Vitaly beats him but no more ,Peter is no great shakes.

 

Counter point, Walcott was obviously much better than Toney, McCline or Maskaev ever were, let alone when they were disgustingly fat, injured and rusty, which Walcott was none of when he fought Marciano.

It seems pretty obvious to me we do know. A serious high-quality contender is a guy who can dominate name fighters, a guy who is not quite great, but about whom you would say "he could be a dominant champ if not for X." That sure as heck isn't Peter.

I don't consider Corbett, Hart or Burns "legendary" champions (which was specified in my previous post). I don't think Peter is better than Braddock, who actually legitimately and cleanly beat several prime top heavyweights. Perhaps he's better than an old, rusty Willard, but then again, Willard later beat Floyd Johnson, who, unimpressive as he was, was still better than anyone Peter has beaten. Either way, I consider Willard an unimpressive title-claiming opponent for Dempsey.

Moore was old, but in his prime. He was a much better fighter than Peter, and yes, that includes at heavyweight. Peter can barely beat middle-of-the-line contenders when they are way out of their primes- Moore dominantly defeated several at-least-equally-good contenders while they were actually in shape, active, on top and coming off major wins.

Who considers that Holmes' title-winning fight? If it was, then yes, Peter is better, but saying that Vitali beat a guy who was better than a group of fighters who were not good and who I do not consider to create anything close to a great accomplishment for their conquerors is hardly an effective means of advancing your cause.

1. Exceeding Morrison is maybe within sight for Peter, but that's highly questionable.
2. Let me lay out the rather obvious and gaping differences between Vitali's situation and George Foreman's:
Vitali has been out for 3.5 years, a large portion of which he was not officially retired in and was still theoretically training for a fight. Vitali has never been retired in the sense of having left the fight game behind and become sedentary.
Foreman was out for 10 years, became a sedentary, fat, bald preacher with absolutely no thought of boxing, and then decided to make a comeback in his late 30s.
Vitali had his peak in his early 30s, and was in his peak up until the time of his temporary "retirement" three-and-a-half years ago. Foreman peaked in his mid-20s and regained the title at 45. When Foreman regained the title- and it was the actual title- it was 20 years after his peak performances. Vitali's claiming-of-a-plastic-belt (assuming it happens, which I have reservations about) will be less than five years after his peak performances, which is hardly unheard of.

The comparison you're spinning up here would be akin to saying John Ruiz's "two-time world heavyweight championship" is as great as Foreman's, or Ike Ibeabuchi's undefeated career is a rival to Marciano's.

Frankly, Ali coming out of a three-and-a-half year hiatus and beating Quarry is a better comparison for what we're talking about here, except that Quarry was better than Peter.

 

No instead of re-gaining his belt, Louis beat the #1 and #2 contenders in his first 2 bouts back after having 1 fight in just 4 years.

He then beat Jersey Joe Walcott, arguably a top 15-20 HW all-time. And toward the end of his career, he beat top 10 contender Lee Savold.

That's 4 top 10 Ring ranked contenders (including one top 15-20 HW all-time) after WW2 for Louis, more than Vitali has beaten in his whole career.

Vitali beating Peter would be like beating a top 3 contender like Louis did.

The fact that Peter is considered a top 3 heavyweight shows you how weak the division is today.

 

Vitali isn't fighting a great opponent hes fighting a good opponent. Sam Peter can't even throw a straight punch FFS. Ali's first fight after his 3year hiatus against Jerry Quarrey rates above Sam Peter as an opponent. Quarrey was infinitately more skilled, faster, better defense, but obviously not as big.

Ali was 7 years removed from Prime against an ATG HW in his prime. Foreman was 8-9years older than Vitali against Moorer. Leonard was recovering from a career debilitating injury and was out for 3years against a much bigger ATG

Bruno and Mercer are technically far better than Peter. Both had excellent jabs and both outjabbed Lennox. Peter would be shutout against Lennox and would lose to Mercer and Bruno.

 

Actually Louis went on to win a version of the World Title. Its just when Louis won that version it was passed to Charles who had already beaten Louis

Louis was as much a belt holder as Vitali would be