Can the People Who thought Samuel Peter Was a Good fighter admit they Got It Wrong?

[Ben_London.]

The only reason why Peter got the hype he did was because of Klitschko haters who were trying so hard to find another heavyweight to take Wlad or Vitali out that they for some reason jumped on his bandwagon because he had power in both hands and had a decent personality. But after his "Who Next" quotes, even his personality has suffered.

Exactly. The people who hated the Klitschkos, like Teddy Atlas and like Randall_Hopkirk here at boxingscene, wanted to see the Klitschkos lose so badly they built Peter up into something he is not.

Now some of those same people like Randall_Hopkirk are calling him a bum.

[Johnnybur]

Exactly. The people who hated the Klitschkos, like Teddy Atlas and like Randall_Hopkirk here at boxingscene, wanted to see the Klitschkos lose so badly they built Peter up into something he is not.

Now some of those same people like Randall_Hopkirk are calling him a bum.

Another thing about Peter, any fighter who fat nasty out of shape slob James Toney almost beat, does not deserve to be in any top 10 list. The second fight Peter did a little better but he still showed that he is a B list fighter.

[Welter_Skelter]

To this day, it baffles me how anybody ever thought the guy was any good. Some otherwise intelligent people even thought he could stay in the top 3 for years to come. Wasn't it fairly obvious that he could be outboxed by a decent fighter? Yes, he had some degree of success against Wladimir, but even that was nowhere near enough to qualify him as anything other than decent at best. He's a big, strong, crude guy with powerful, but not accurate punches. So here you have a guy with those qualities, as well as a supposedly good chin [which was later found out to be not as good as people thought], and that's supposed to be enough to be successful for years to come ?

Someone like Frank Bruno, who wasn't particulary skilled - he was strong and crude like Peter. Even he had better fundamentals than Sammy Boy . I mean, it's just one of those head scratching questions. Don't get me wrong, I've got things wrong when I thought a fighter would do better than they eventually did. But with Peter it seemed so blindingly obvious. Did anybody honestly ever look at the guy and think ''My God, it's like there's a new Ike Ibeabuchi''? I mean, did you?

I get the feeling some people knew he wasn't that great, but tried to convince themselves that he was because he seemed to have a nice personality. This Saturday we'll at least see somebody who can box take on Klitschko.

The people in marketing have perfected their ART... add in a generation of people who have no attention span.. and people Will believe anything if it's hyped enough..

[Scott9945]

Bruno had a better jab than Peter. It certainly gave Lennox Lewis a lot of problems.

Bruno was a much better ring technician than Peter. He just had poor stamina and no chin.