I know hating Peter is in right now, but I think this would actually be a tough fight for the far greater fighter. Frazier didn't like to be pushed back and I don't think Oscar Bonavea (who troubled him) was any better than the much bigger and stronger Peter.
This is by far the dumbest thing I've heard from you, and that's saying something. Sam Peter isn't even Oscar Bonavea good.
Well, Peter did push Wlad back and that's gotta count for something, since Wlad is this unstoppable vicious monster, with iron will and endless stamina.
Peter showed little or no ability to stop Wlad from getting in the clinch. What's he going to do against a prime Joe Frazier? Jesus, only a FUCKING IDIOT would be arguing that a morbidly obese Peter has a chance.
Bonavea got slapped around by Ellis and Patterson, both who wouldn't even get licensed for heavyweight fights these days. He was clearly smaller than Peter, not faster and not even more skilful. Big and strong guys troubled Frazier
Bingo. My point exactly. This is based on a misperception of Peter as this come-forward, swarming pressure fighter who fights inside. That's simply not true. Peace.
But he was a different fighter entirely from Peter. And I would argue he WAS more skillful. Where does this overrating of Peter's skill come from? I'll tell you this...once Frazier got close/inside, Peter can do little. Sam is very vulnerable/passive in a clinch and he lets his hands go at times, but doesn't shorten well at all so he needs alot of room/extension to let go his clubbing shots...and he's not exactly Mr. Accurate. I would say Bonavena had just as much power if not more than Peter, could deliver his shots better, was more unorthodox/awkward, and WAS a swarming pressure fighter. You've also picked the one fight Joe struggled in...in his 12th pro fight and his first step up. What about the fights with Machen, Chuvalo, Mathis, and the rematch with Bonavena which Frazier won quite easily? Looking at all things considered....Frazier wins this and widely. Peace.
Up close, Peter could pretty easily push Frazier off just like Foreman and Bonavea did time and time again. Guys you listed, Machen, Chuvalo and Mathis didn't have this ability because they were not physically strong guys. Sports do develop, men are bigger and stronger than they used to be.
Peter fought nothing like either Bonavena or prime Foreman...so I don't understand how those comparisons are made. Nothing personal, but I don't buy into the idea of how "bigger is always better." IF Peter ever shows that he can fight in the manner of Foreman (and anywhere as effectively), then MAYBE I can see picking him over Frazier. Frazier gets inside of Peter and works him over on the way to a late TKO or comfortable decision win.
Ok, lets put it this way: when did Frazier face or beat anyone who was as big and strong as Peter? Dodn't be fooled by videotapes: he looked awesome marching through some of his opponents, guys who wouldn't be allowed to fight at heavyweight anymore. Why has the cruiserweight limit been risen if weight does not help and furthermore, where are the 200 lbs Jerry Quarries of today?
My response to this would have to be...when did Peter beat a legit top 10 heavy who WASN'T an overweight former Middleweight champ? If Peter ever had a quality win over a good heavy in which he fought in the style that most troubled Frazier, then maybe I could see your point. Right now...the best you can say about Peter is that he is a little better than James Toney at heavy (who I would NEVER pick to beat Frazier). And as for size...Peter isn't one of these Lewis/Wlad/Vitali type super heavies. He is only 6 ft or so...and a lot of his weight "advantage" over Frazier is fat. He is bigger than Frazier...but has limited skills, average (at best) stamina, and overrated punching power. You would think with the kind of power he is reputed to have...there would be at least ONE impressive KO over a good opponent. For the life of me...I don't get why folks are so impressed with Peter. If you picked Wlad or Vitali over Frazier...that I could see. But not Peter.
If Ellis and Frazier fought today, they'd be morbidly obese. Ali was taller than Sam Peter, and hit harder. Who the hell has Peter knocked out? Jeremy Williams? Mel Turnbow was bigger than Peter, and hit harder.
People seem to forget that Peter struggled with a guy who's naturally much smaller and even shorter than Joe Frazier...James Toney! If Peter's size and strength would have been so important against Frazier...he would have KOed Toney. "Like I said before" Frazier by mid rounds TKO! No brainer.
Jesus, Ugo. Anyway, it's been explained to you in the rest of the thread from Rubio and B'way Joe... But your persistence in making this point IS admirable. :: BTW, Frazier and Peter are basically kind of in the same era. Peace.
Jesus Donny. There is no other sport that hadn't changed in 40 years. Or if there is, name me one where a star of 1960s would be a star now Individual physical sport that is.
Ugo, that's fair. But what I'm thinking of is in terms of "eras"....and in this thread you are trying to make a MAJOR distinction in eras....amongst two guys that are basically fighting 30 years apart. To begin with, I think you waaay overrate how much decades can mean in terms of differences/advances in physical development, for starters. There is a reason why speed/distance/strength records are measured in decimal-place, minimal increments. And I would dispute that in boxing the disparity is as pronounced as in other sports, where you are measuring results by nano-seconds. Here, it's about a fist and a jaw. :: It is, in many ways, very, very different. You are saying that guys in the 60's/70's "weren't phyiscally strong"....simply because well - they are from the 70's; without even looking at the evidence (such as the fact that weight classes weren't nearly as incremental or regulated; that these guys fought way more often; and that they consistently went up against much bigger opposition). It just MUST be true that they weren't as good....'cause, well, they happened 40 years ago...instead of looking at it on a case-by-case basis. That is ASTOUNDING to me. It doesn't hold up to the evidence. And strength is by no means the be-all-end-all in boxing. Peace.
