Riddick Bowe or Vitali Klitschko. Who ranks higher?

[NChristo]

Peter's style is not based around footwork, and of course there is often a confusion about what real footwork really is anyway which was promoted by certain American boxers in the past which to the now much more highly developed boxing communities world-wide now is better described as "running".

Seems you're one of the more confused ones who you just directed that at, Peter's footwork is better then Johnson's who you claimed strong suit is just that, if anything Johnson was making a failed attempt at what you just called ''running footwork'' except he couldn't pull it off at the time because he had 2 left feet and somehow in his career as a boxer hadn't learnt how to pivot or get away from the ropes, 2 minutes into the 2nd round he actually did a little run backwards away from him, there are times in the fight where he see's Vitali move in on him and you can see he want's to move directly back but his legs won't let him, he failed badly at this ''running'' but because he's a Heavyweight today you're goin too talk it up as a strength for him.

May seem to be taking it a little off topic just aiming at the part about Johnson's footwork but you actually claimed that if Bowe beat him it would be as good a win as Holyfield and Golota, if footwork was his strong suit then wouldn't that mean that it's at the very least on the level of Holyfields (****ing hell ) ? and if you can't back that up and all Johnson has after his spectacular footwork is reflexes and countering which you inadvertently claimed is on the level of Holyfields by putting them in the same category, which you probably can't back up either unless you want too show us another video which destroys your own argument, then you should not even attempt to put them in the same sentence let alone any kind of category, Johnson is not in the same ****in stratosphere as Holy.

I mean we already know you're full of it but you actually can't recognize skill at all can you ?.

I know by now I shouldn't waste my time with you but I'm extremely bored, don't just ignore my post and at least try too make some kind of rebuttal please.

[billeau2]

Peter also falls into the lazy camp, no argument on that score.

Peter was not especially technical at all, again we are not at odds.

Toney was certainly a legit HW when he fought Peter by definition of weight and he was able to be so effective at HW despite fattening up from much lighter because he was an exceptionlly crafty and skilled boxer. Mind you, for at the time Toney and PEter being about the SAME size- Peter beat Toney 2ce, once by a smidge, next convincingly! That tells us that there are SOME qualities about Peter that are much better than you'd like to believe.

Peter has some terrific power but also high aggressiveness, tactical manuevers to minimize or avoid damage whilst applying pressure, heart and guts to execute such a risk style and also granite chin to be able to absorb punches from the harest hitting eras opponents on record.

Your quip about Peter only being an opponent half the time is challenged by his actual record which shows he rarely ever lost and then only to upper eschelon fighters.

Peter's style is not based around footwork, and of course there is often a confusion about what real footwork really is anyway which was promoted by certain American boxers in the past which to the now much more highly developed boxing communities world-wide now is better described as "running".

Armed with this type of running footwork we could imagine weaker boxers running for their lives against Peter, yet history shows that this is not the best strategy to effective deal with such an opponent (like Ali vs Frazier for example). Watching how VK, with what American style viewers might also consider t have poor footwork, dispatched Peter we see how the job can be done far more effectively.

Control of distance is the key to fighting a guy like PEter, which is sometimes only masked by running away which smetimes goes hand in hand but the true cause should be sought f course.

First of all "heart and aggression and a granite chin" are universal qualities, they do not get better any more than a fighter like Amir Kahn can improve his chin. Put another way: Artie Donovan probably had as much heart and aggression as any elite Defensive player has today....thats not what makes them different.

look in all seriousness... I don't want to tear you down, your quite amusing, but Elroy... what you presented above is not a technical analysis and gives no infomation on what makes Peter a decent fighter. You cannot say regarding a professional fighter that footwork is not his forte.

But this observation of yours dovetails well because let me tell you something, a professional fighter who moved as Peter did, in a strong heavyweight division would never get anywhere. The guys you disparage all at least had basic footwork, and actually...most basic skills, even skills that were not their strong suite. What you see with Peter is a guy who was half baked. He developed no skills, just a big punch and little else. Even guys like Canera didn't stand still like Peter.

If you were to technically analyze Peter here are some things you would notice: Nobody taught him about distance, he rabbit punches and swings punches randomly. some one taught him how to at least work off his jab for the Toney fight which is 101. Peter has virtually no head movement to speak of. Shavers who was limited could move his head side to side like Larry holmes compared to Peter!

I can hear you saying one of your absurdities like "Liston was a poor man's Peter." Liston was trained, as he worked with Foreman on, to step with his punch so that when he stepped towards an opponent, by the time the blow hit he was set....when your foot hits with the hand it puts your body weight into a punch...These principles are timeless, they are in Chinese boxing arts like Hsin Yi...they are in boxing. Peter has no concept of coordinating his feet with his hands Elroy. Peter is slow, and his punches loop. This is a basic technical analysis of sorts....

British fighters have been admiring American ingenuity since the gloves first came on. I could show you passages from a book written around 1900 that technically praise American fighters for the same qualities that they are praised for now. Where do you get this ridiculous chauvanism? Before American technique fighters were holding the right cross while fighting 90 percent with the left hand lead. The excuse was for defensive purposes!
american fighters were already knocking people out using the cross. This info comes from British trainers btw.

Come into this section and have an open mind, learn something.

[billeau2]

LOL @ Sam Peter being a measuring tool for dominance.

Hush you! Liston was a poor man's Sam peter...and Foreman was a welfare recipients Butter Bean Esche.

[KnockoutNed]

LOL at anyone trying to big up turtle footed sloth Sam Peter. The fact that bum won a version of the title (against a shot to bits mid tier 90s contender no less) goes to show what a dog era he competed in. In a previous, better era guys like Peter and Byrd wouldn't be champions, they wouldn't even be contenders.

[Weltschmerz]

A better question would be, how would Vitali fare in the seventies?

[ShoulderRoll]

British fighters have been admiring American ingenuity since the gloves first came on. I could show you passages from a book written around 1900 that technically praise American fighters for the same qualities that they are praised for now.

Would you mind posting those passages, Billeau2? I'd be curious to read what others had to say about American fighters at that time.

[Elroy1]

U huh... Okay, sure..

So just to recap, your telling me that guys like THIS...

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/G2OMRVwYV7s/maxresdefault.jpg

http://www.worldwidedojo.com/traditi...shavers-hd.jpg

Are a match for someone like this..

http://img.spokeo.com/public/900-600...2007_10_04.jpg

http://www.doghouseboxing.com/Media/SamuelPeter_Big.jpg

Interesting concept...

The weaker the boxer, the better they are LOL.

To someone like Bill, the statement "this mouse can beat that cat because of his superior footwork" sounds MORE reasonable than "cat eats mouse"...

There's nobody in the 70's who could have competed with Samuel Peter.. Get real!

And here's the biggest conundrum...!!!

Earnie Shavers, who those old guys get a TONNE of credit for beating, was basically a washed out, weaker version of Peter with only about 1/3 the punch power and none of the chin.

And continuing, nutbags try to sell that Peter's power dropped off against good opponents where it can be shown DIRECTLY that Shaver's power was rubbish against not only non-bums but non-cruisers as well.

A very biased view indeed.

As usual, the nut bags totally neglect the history of the sport.

[Eff Pandas]

Both of their careers seem a lil underwhelming vs their potential. Bowe had a very short period of fighting at the world class level (90-96) & Klitschko, while not really peaking til after an age Bowe was done, doesn't really have a defining win (I guess part one of his career his best W would be Corrie Sanders & I guess overall Peter is probably his best W). I think I'd have to give Bowe the edge historically with the Holyfield trilogy that included 2 W's vs Klitschko's longevity doe.

H2H I feel like prime Bowe vs prime Klitschko probably goes much like Lewis vs Klitschko. Maybe Lewis vs Klitchko lite doe. Klitschko starting off good early & Bowe taking things late. I don't think a stoppage would have happened here or it'd have happened much later. I think prime Bowe was a much better fighter than prime Klitschko & usually when Klitschko got asked questions in the ring he hadn't been asked before he came up short.

[Pugilist_Spec]

U huh... Okay, sure..

So just to recap, your telling me that guys like THIS...

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/G2OMRVwYV7s/maxresdefault.jpg

http://www.worldwidedojo.com/traditi...shavers-hd.jpg

Are a match for someone like this..

http://img.spokeo.com/public/900-600...2007_10_04.jpg

http://www.doghouseboxing.com/Media/SamuelPeter_Big.jpg

Interesting concept...

The weaker the boxer, the better they are LOL.

To someone like Bill, the statement "this mouse can beat that cat because of his superior footwork" sounds MORE reasonable than "cat eats mouse"...

There's nobody in the 70's who could have competed with Samuel Peter.. Get real!

And here's the biggest conundrum...!!!

Earnie Shavers, who those old guys get a TONNE of credit for beating, was basically a washed out, weaker version of Peter with only about 1/3 the punch power and none of the chin.

And continuing, nutbags try to sell that Peter's power dropped off against good opponents where it can be shown DIRECTLY that Shaver's power was rubbish against not only non-bums but non-cruisers as well.

A very biased view indeed.

As usual, the nut bags totally neglect the history of the sport.

Ali versus Peter would be the most embarassing, one-sided beatdown in the history of the sport. There is literally nothing Peter brings to the table that can trouble Ali. Nothing.

[Elroy1]

Ali versus Peter would be the most embarassing, one-sided beatdown in the history of the sport. There is literally nothing Peter brings to the table that can trouble Ali. Nothing.

I KNOW how Peter vs Ali would go...

Do you remember that GREAT old FOTC?

You remember the first few moments of that fight? Rewatch it now. Except I ONLY want you to watch the first 30 seconds.

See that first time Frazier connected with Ali?

Similarly with the Shavers fight.. See the first moment of the first round that Shavers connected with Ali?

That's it...

That's the entire fight!

A fight with Ali and PEter is measured in how many seconds Ali can survive, not in rounds.

There is no version of Ali who could possibly hang with PEter under ANY circumstances! All the poisoning and rope loosening farcial judging and reffing in the world could save him.

I am sorry but it is simply physicaly impossible for Ali to even fight Peter let alone win.

This is just a fact.