Quote Originally Posted by Max Power View Post
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