Samuel Peter replacing Earnie Shavers in the 70's...

Let's do an exercise.

For most nostalgist posters like @brocktonblockbust the thought of Samuel Peter whacking out and dominating the entire 70's division or "golden era" is a joke.

I would like to make the simple observation that Samuel Peter whom I often term a "Super-Frazier" can also be described as a "Super-Shavers", stylistically similar except bigger, stronger, more powerful and more durable than any version of Shavers that existed and with a much better performance record, and I mean MUCH much better.

So let's assume the following...

Peter vs Ali that Shaver fought, Shaver, who already beat Ali by decision and managed to paste Ali badly during the fight with a punch which Muhammadf would go on to claim that it was the hardest shot he had ever been hit with, but was robbed. Stands to reason that Peter would have clearly knocked him out.

PEter vs Norton, whom Shavers managed to finish in 1 round, it is unimaginable what Peter would do with Norton.

PEter vs Holmes, whom Shavers fought competitively with. One can only assume Peter would do much better atleast.

Foreman and Frazier apparently avoided Shavers as he was too risky. Therefore it stands to reason that they would have not wanted to risk a fight with Peter under voluntary circumstances definitely.

Pretty good outlook for Peter in the golden era if you ask me. That's what I would say.

So much for your Earnie Shavers! LOL

I agree Sam Peter is just like those 70s whackers. He fits right in with the 70s Golden Era of Ron Lyle (top 20 ATG), Earnie Shavers (#21 ATG), George Foreman (#6 ATG), Joe Frazier (#8 ATG), Jerry Quarry (top 25 ATG), Joe Bugner (top 25 ATG), Kenny Norton (#17 ATG).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

Let's do an exercise.

For most nostalgist posters like @brocktonblockbust the thought of Samuel Peter whacking out and dominating the entire 70's division or "golden era" is a joke.

I would like to make the simple observation that Samuel Peter whom I often term a "Super-Frazier" can also be described as a "Super-Shavers", stylistically similar except bigger, stronger, more powerful and more durable than any version of Shavers that existed and with a much better performance record, and I mean MUCH much better.

So let's assume the following...

Peter vs Ali that Shaver fought, Shaver, who already beat Ali by decision and managed to paste Ali badly during the fight with a punch which Muhammadf would go on to claim that it was the hardest shot he had ever been hit with, but was robbed. Stands to reason that Peter would have clearly knocked him out.

PEter vs Norton, whom Shavers managed to finish in 1 round, it is unimaginable what Peter would do with Norton.

PEter vs Holmes, whom Shavers fought competitively with. One can only assume Peter would do much better atleast.

Foreman and Frazier apparently avoided Shavers as he was too risky. Therefore it stands to reason that they would have not wanted to risk a fight with Peter under voluntary circumstances definitely.

Pretty good outlook for Peter in the golden era if you ask me. That's what I would say.

So much for your Earnie Shavers! LOL

---

That''s a lot of typing to have not made a single point with. One can only assume, it stands to reason, would have clearly, unimaginable, and not a single breakdown of why in any case? Why do you do this. Your stance on this stuff is just as exclusionary as you could possibly accuse anyone else of being towards older fighters, is that lost on you? How about; If an old fat ex middleweight beat Peter over 12 rounds, then clearly all of those guys could. Unless you actually think James Toney somehow represented the new generation of HWs:D

I thought Chisora was super Frazier?

Peters was outboxed by fat James Toney. That Peters?

The one who got outboxed and lost every round to Vitali who had not fought a competitive fight for 100 years?

Joker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

Let's do an exercise.

For most nostalgist posters like @brocktonblockbust the thought of Samuel Peter whacking out and dominating the entire 70's division or "golden era" is a joke.

I would like to make the simple observation that Samuel Peter whom I often term a "Super-Frazier" can also be described as a "Super-Shavers", stylistically similar except bigger, stronger, more powerful and more durable than any version of Shavers that existed and with a much better performance record, and I mean MUCH much better.

So let's assume the following...

Peter vs Ali that Shaver fought, Shaver, who already beat Ali by decision and managed to paste Ali badly during the fight with a punch which Muhammadf would go on to claim that it was the hardest shot he had ever been hit with, but was robbed. Stands to reason that Peter would have clearly knocked him out.

PEter vs Norton, whom Shavers managed to finish in 1 round, it is unimaginable what Peter would do with Norton.

PEter vs Holmes, whom Shavers fought competitively with. One can only assume Peter would do much better atleast.

Foreman and Frazier apparently avoided Shavers as he was too risky. Therefore it stands to reason that they would have not wanted to risk a fight with Peter under voluntary circumstances definitely.

Pretty good outlook for Peter in the golden era if you ask me. That's what I would say.

So much for your Earnie Shavers! LOL

---

That''s a lot of typing to have not made a single point with. One can only assume, it stands to reason, would have clearly, unimaginable, and not a single breakdown of why in any case? Why do you do this. Your stance on this stuff is just as exclusionary as you could possibly accuse anyone else of being towards older fighters, is that lost on you? How about; If an old fat ex middleweight beat Peter over 12 rounds, then clearly all of those guys could. Unless you actually think James Toney somehow represented the new generation of HWs:D

---

James Toney did not beat Samuel Peter, Peter landed the more decisive shots in their fights. He did however fight him closely with his better skillset like the better skilled opponents than Shavers fought him with.

Of course I consider James Toney a representative of the modern era of boxers. James Toney started his professional career in 1988 and fought through to very recently. How is Toney NOT representative of it?

Want to look into the opponents that Samuel Peter struggled with and lost to? Difficult to imagine Peter having struggled with those opponents isn't it ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

I thought Chisora was super Frazier?

Peters was outboxed by fat James Toney. That Peters?

The one who got outboxed and lost every round to Vitali who had not fought a competitive fight for 100 years?

Joker.

---

Yes, because James Toney and Vitali Klitschko are far worse than the what is it, 14 or so opponents that Shavers lost to aren't they?

By the way Shavers never managed to outbox any decent opponent, he was always just a punch. Who won the Toney fights again btw?

"Super-Frazier" is a term I use to describe any boxer like Chisora, PEter, Bert Cooper etc that employ a come forward swarming style with little regard to defence but applying pressure (like Frazier) and are shorter than their average competition, often with a minimal skillset (but not always, sometimes I apply it to Tyson). The "Super" bit comes from the fact they are physically much stronger, more durable and come with a much harder punch.

I have only now used "Super-Shaver" exclusively to refer to Samuel PEter who is clearly stylistically very similar, simply enormously stronger.

Bert Cooper/Chisora is not super Frazier.

Peters is not Shavers.

These fighters are far from super or superior.

I think Toney should have won the first fight and the fact that Peters struggled with a blown up great middleweight says quite a lot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Bert Cooper/Chisora is not super Frazier.

Peters is not Shavers.

These fighters are far from super or superior.

I think Toney should have won the first fight and the fact that Peters struggled with a blown up great middleweight says quite a lot.

---

I think it was how it was analysed at the time. Toney out-worked Peter. Peter landed the more effective punches on Toney. I think it was close. I called it for Peter.

Peter struggling with Toney tells me this much.

Toney is skillwise better than PEter. As were basically all of Shavers decent opponents. Toney and Peter are range-wise fairly comparable, hence Toney being capable of out-boxing Peter who as a natural HW and slugger style should not be expected to win by out-skilling Toney.

Punching power and strength won the fight for Peter.

James Toney who fought Peter in the first fight weighed 233lbs. Bigger than ANY decent competitor in the 70's by far! Obviously this was not a "middleweight" anymore. Food and Steroids fixed that!

Yes, the extra muscles AND the extra lard on Toney is what enabled him to survive Peter, were he to have come in at even, say, 200lbs, the CW limit, he would have imo been knocked out without the added resistance.

No body stops Toney too ring wise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

Let's do an exercise.

For most nostalgist posters like @brocktonblockbust the thought of Samuel Peter whacking out and dominating the entire 70's division or "golden era" is a joke.

I would like to make the simple observation that Samuel Peter whom I often term a "Super-Frazier" can also be described as a "Super-Shavers", stylistically similar except bigger, stronger, more powerful and more durable than any version of Shavers that existed and with a much better performance record, and I mean MUCH much better.

So let's assume the following...

Peter vs Ali that Shaver fought, Shaver, who already beat Ali by decision and managed to paste Ali badly during the fight with a punch which Muhammadf would go on to claim that it was the hardest shot he had ever been hit with, but was robbed. Stands to reason that Peter would have clearly knocked him out.

PEter vs Norton, whom Shavers managed to finish in 1 round, it is unimaginable what Peter would do with Norton.

PEter vs Holmes, whom Shavers fought competitively with. One can only assume Peter would do much better atleast.

Foreman and Frazier apparently avoided Shavers as he was too risky. Therefore it stands to reason that they would have not wanted to risk a fight with Peter under voluntary circumstances definitely.

Pretty good outlook for Peter in the golden era if you ask me. That's what I would say.

So much for your Earnie Shavers! LOL

---

That''s a lot of typing to have not made a single point with. One can only assume, it stands to reason, would have clearly, unimaginable, and not a single breakdown of why in any case? Why do you do this. Your stance on this stuff is just as exclusionary as you could possibly accuse anyone else of being towards older fighters, is that lost on you? How about; If an old fat ex middleweight beat Peter over 12 rounds, then clearly all of those guys could. Unless you actually think James Toney somehow represented the new generation of HWs:D

---

James Toney did not beat Samuel Peter, Peter landed the more decisive shots in their fights. He did however fight him closely with his better skillset like the better skilled opponents than Shavers fought him with.

Of course I consider James Toney a representative of the modern era of boxers. James Toney started his professional career in 1988 and fought through to very recently. How is Toney NOT representative of it?

Want to look into the opponents that Samuel Peter struggled with and lost to? Difficult to imagine Peter having struggled with those opponents isn't it ;)

---

In the first fight? I mean you obviously don't have a very good eye for boxing, didn't realize you were that clueless though. Toney isn't representative of what you always preach on about modern HW's, surely even you could admit that? He was tiny by comparison and weaker than nearly everyone he fought, he wont fights by being a better fighter. Just like HOlmes or Ali would have beaten Peter easily by way of being, it's insane to even be having to type this.
I'll assume you meant who Shavers struggled with and lost to in your last sentence, and no it's not difficult to imagine Peter struggling with pretty well any of them. He obviously had a better chin than Shavers, but that's really about all I see him doing much better and for the record, I don't think Shavers was much good. Peter just wasn't either.

I've heard it all now. And Wlad replaces Primo Carnera only Primo grappled less.

Oh so now my argument has never included a boxers skillset does it?

Toney doesn't represent my viewpoint at all because he fights with skills and not strength?

If you followed me and watched with you own eyes open you will see that skills have always been a priority in my analysis.

If a shot, blown up MW was able to outbox Peter, it's not too much of a stretch to suggest that Ali would be able to as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p4pking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

Let's do an exercise.

---

That''s a lot of typing to have not made a single point with. One can only assume, it stands to reason, would have clearly, unimaginable, and not a single breakdown of why in any case? Why do you do this. Your stance on this stuff is just as exclusionary as you could possibly accuse anyone else of being towards older fighters, is that lost on you? How about; If an old fat ex middleweight beat Peter over 12 rounds, then clearly all of those guys could. Unless you actually think James Toney somehow represented the new generation of HWs:D

---

Interesting to note that the 70's fighters made the claim Shavers punched hard, (fans accepted those were in the ring with him).
But I am hard pressed to find the line of boxers who fought Peters saying the same.

Peters right hand is looping & choppy, which is why he hit Wlad on the top of the head, same with Toney. Shavers landed his shots flush.

Maskaev & then the Aguilera that Tarver beat are his highlight reel of KO's bar Jeremy Williams. Now that was a knockout, but against a 200lb a weight that some here call CW by todays standards. Or at least I thought Williams fought his amatuer career as a LHW, then got his name recognized by fighting on the reality show: the contender.

Peters overhand right is pretty strong, but to pit him in the 70's era because it landed on maybe 3 or 4 decent fighters flush, wow thats not just a stretch, thats stretch arm strong, stretching...

People think Shavers was robbed against Ali? What?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VG_Addict

If a shot, blown up MW was able to outbox Peter, it's not too much of a stretch to suggest that Ali would be able to as well.

---

That could be true.

Except when Ali DID in fact fight the 70's analogue of Peter in Shavers, a much weaker version, very poor mans version of Peter, Ali did NOT school him. He got fuckin pasted!

Therefore I would argue that it's not TOO much of a stretch to assume that Peter knocks Ali the fuck out!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VG_Addict

People think Shavers was robbed against Ali? What?

---

It is generally accepted, even among nutbag circles, that Shavers beat Ali.

If we could go back in a time machine, bring all those guys in their prime and put them on Sport Science to measure their punching power in PSI, Peter would blow them all out of the water.

Sam Peter would have KTFO all of the bums Earnie rolled, he would have KTFO the washed up Ken Norton that Shavers did, and I'd say he would have whipped a lot of the guys Earnie lost to (Quarry, Cobb, Mercado, ect.)

It's just a different time, different caliber/size athlete. Peter had about 40lbs on those guys, and Sam Peter was a better fighter than Shavers was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VG_Addict

People think Shavers was robbed against Ali? What?

---

It is generally accepted, even among nutbag circles, that Shavers beat Ali.

---

I remember the fight and I thought Ali deserved the nod. Shavers had some good moments but he just couldn't sustain them because he was a shit fighter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Peters is not Shavers.

---

You're not seriously suggesting that Shavers was a better fighter than Sam Peter?? ;D

I think Shavers has to be the most overrated guy in boxing history. I don't think the people heaping so much praise on him have actually seen his fights, aside from maybe a KO montage on Youtube.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Peters is not Shavers.

---

You're not seriously suggesting that Shavers was a better fighter than Sam Peter?? ;D

I think Shavers has to be the most overrated guy in boxing history. I don't think the people heaping so much praise on him have actually seen his fights, aside from maybe a KO montage on Youtube.

---

Unfortunately that's all most ppl have seen, and the oldies here that know better rely on the fact that most youngsters haven't or wont watch his complete fights to know any better.

They are for the most part pretty safe because his fights are basically "unwatchable" for any reason but study purposes.

But YouTube caught up with them and the evidence is now at the fingertips ;)

For the record, the Shaver/Ali fight was a close call, and for an objective fan like youself Beanz it's fine to call it for Ali, my main point being that for Ali to have such a close competitive fight with a guy like Shavers makes a Peter/Ali confrontation a highly relevant question.

The usual OTNB mantra of "Peter wouldn't win a round" or "Ali wipes the floor" against Peter simply doesn't hold up to proper analysis with Ali's ACTUAL performance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IamInuit

I've heard it all now. And Wlad replaces Primo Carnera only Primo grappled less.

---

I would call LEnnox, Wladimir and Vitali

"Super-Holmes" ;)

And Tyson Fury a "Super-Ali" haha

Head to head, Peter would have beaten shaver's ass...

Also, this notion of shavers being the hardest hw puncher of all time is false..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EL DINAMITA

Head to head, Peter would have beaten shaver's ass...

Also, this notion of shavers being the hardest hw puncher of all time is false..

---

Welcome back!! ;)

Yeah and Dereck Chisora is good. Bwahaha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brocktonblockbust

Yeah and Dereck Chisora is good. Bwahaha

---

He is what he is.

I would say he is a decent opponent. A gatekeeper.

Nobody walks over Chisora, that's really all I have to say about him. He looks good on a resume.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

And Tyson Fury a "Super-Ali" haha

---

max powers been on the eggnog! this is going to be good !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palmerq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

And Tyson Fury a "Super-Ali" haha

---

max powers been on the eggnog! this is going to be good !

---

It's Christmas LOL ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by palmerq

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Max Power

And Tyson Fury a "Super-Ali" haha

---

max powers been on the eggnog! this is going to be good !

---

It's Christmas LOL ;D

---

Yes not April Fools.