HBO's OVERHYPING OF SAM PETER IS DISGRACEFUL!!!!!

:: Morrison was all but washed up when Lewis fought him. If you only just favour Wlad over that semi-corpse, you're nuts. Wlad would have punched holes in him.

 

I wasnt really talking about versions of Morrison, more of the approach Lewis used against him. Yes Wlad would beat the 96 version of Morrison.

The Morrison that fought Mercer however(even though he lost) would have had a great chance of blasting Wlad.

 

I want to see full unification, so either Wlad-Chagaev or Wlad-Peter 2 is fine with me.

Naturally, HBO would hype the latter fight.

 

I wouldn't call that fight "shameful", but it had questionable meaning because Brewster was not the same fighter he was when he fought Wlad the first time (and as it is, he only barely beat him the first time). He had been forced out of boxing because of an eye injury, and most people figured he was basically coming back just for one last payday (which it turned out, he did).

But like I said, that fight still was justifiable for Wlad, because Brewster had beaten him. It was a fight Wlad needed for his legacy, so he could have some fight to point to to prove that he was capable of coming back and beating an opponent that already beat him.

What is the purpose of beating Sam Peter again? NOTHING, at this point.

It might be different if Peter was winning his fights spectacularly, or showing some new wrinkle in his game that he didn't have before that has the potential to threaten Wlad... but he hasn't. IMO, he looks shittier with each passing fight and his stock actually DROPS with each passing fight, even if he wins.


And PS, it's funny that HBO is all-out to stop a Vitaly-Peter fight. IMO, if Vitaly still has any of his old ability, I think Vitaly would beat Peter too.

 

Agreed there.

Wlad might not be on the level of Tyson, Holyfield, and (especially) Lewis, but he was better than the shitload of mediocre alphabet titlists that were around then.

 

Only when it went from Showtime to HBO.

 

ok. sorry. he was twice brutally stopped though. especially by sanders.

 

What exactly are you arguing here?

Klitschko and Peter have already fought and Peter was completely outclassed.

How is it some huge bragging right on the part of Peter to say "well, I haven't been knocked out...just completely outboxed and outclassed"?

Also, let's put their careers in perspective...Klitschko's been a pro for about 5 more years and had over 20 more fights (more than 10 more title fights).

Let's see if Peter can make it to 53 fights with only 3 losses (not including that favorable decision he recieved in the first Toney fight).

If Klitschko-Peter II happens, I think it's a pretty good bet to take the younger brother inside the distance. That's if he can beat the geriatric older brother.

 

Morrison should not be mentioned in the same page as Wlad.

Wlad = mulit-dimensional two-armed fighter with No chin.

Morrison = one dimensional one-armed fighter with No chin.

Wlad by logic.

opcorn:

 

Good points there.

 

Brewster was the same fighter. Wlad just improved and basically didn't repeat his mistakes (including fatiguing desperately).

He could see in the fight, he had defended the title three times before losing it to Lyakhovich.

The rematch happened only 3 years after the first fight...and the most that can be said is that Lamon was coming off a 1-year layoff.

I hear you on Wlad-Peter II and in principle I don't agree a rematch is needed. BUT...Peter is still young, he just won a belt, and he did put Wlad down three times...and has continued to win after.

I get why you're nitpicking at it and agree - but the storyline is there and a rematch does have legitimacy to it.

Add to that that Peter now has the WBC belt...and it's part of unification.

That being said, I'd love to see Wlad-Thompson.

And yes - I think Vitali could beat Peter too, even in his present condition.

Peace.

 

Peter is at worst, a top three heavyweight and now a rival beltholder. I don't care if they've fought before; it's a meaningful fight.

Anyway, it's not like Wlad dominated and knocked him out. That was a competetive fight, regardless of the spin some of you guys wanna put on it.

 

:cheer:

 

wheree you going? Wlad's win over Peter was hardly viurtuoso. His legs were 50 GONE AFTER ROUND 6, HE HURT pETER OPNCE, AND BASCIALLY WON WITH HIS LEFT HAND. sO THE FUCK WHAT? pETER'S THE PONE WHO PUNISHED HIM. HBOO is hyping Peter because they no damn well they can't in good conscious continue to hype Wlad u8nles he beats Peter in a less than life and death fashion./

 

I agree that Wlad-Peter II has legitimacy because of what I outlined...but your depiction of the fight is inaccurate.

 

dsimon writes:

How dare you take Double's coherent and clear post and distort it! :: Double and Querty are competing for retard of the month and Double is showing his heart.::

 

Peter Mccline 2, has legitimacy aswell I guess?..:dunno:

 

And a detached retina. And a loss.

 

Someone needs to remind these fools...

Last five fights:

Wlad - 5-0, 4 KO
Peter - 5-0, 2 KO

 

So?

Since when does ONE loss all of a sudden transform fighters into faded, shot has-beens, bro?

That's precisely part of what is wrong with the sport today.

And yes, he had a detached retina - but last I heard he doesn't punch, block or move with his eye.

And he could see out of both eyes for his rematch with Wlad.

He was the same guy as in the first fight. People forget that pretty much all he did the first fight was cover up, grimace and bear it until he landed that left hook in the 5th.

It's not as if he was dominating the fight and boxing and moving.

Brewster was/is Brewster.

Peace.

 

HBO are smart to try and hype this shit up. Most people will believe whatever announcers tell them.