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

[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

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

[p4pking]

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

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.

[IamInuit]

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

[Max Power]

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.

[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.

[Max Power]

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!

[brocktonblockbust]

Yeah and Dereck Chisora is good. Bwahaha

[Max Power]

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

[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..

[Max Power]

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!!

[palmerq]

And Tyson Fury a "Super-Ali" haha

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

[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

[Master]

And Tyson Fury a "Super-Ali" haha

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

It's Christmas LOL

Yes not April Fools.