The Greatness of Wladimir Klitschko

[LacedUp]

Samuel Peters in his prime no doubt in my mind would probably KO Joe Frazier, Joe would try to go toe to toe and he'd be on the receiving end of a guy who clearly outweighs him and is much stronger than him...
Besides we all make out as if Joe Frazier was this slick guy but was he **** he did all that bobbing and weaving but his opponent was still smacking him about can he do it in this era where heavyweights hit arguably harder?
Doubt it...

Samuel Peters is a better win than Joe Frazier, Frazier is derived off nostalgia hunters who can't let go of the past...
Fact is Joe Frazier only has one good win on his record!
Samuel Peters schooled James Toney twice when Toney was still game and wins over Oleg Maskaev with a somewhat close first fight with Wladimir Klitschko is much better than beating Muhammad Ali who was not up to speed with his training after the long time off and not also forgetting those guys back then were light as hell.

Wow this was ******ed all the way through.

[PACnPBFsuck]

Thread is full of gems

[BennyST]

Samuel Peters in his prime no doubt in my mind would probably KO Joe Frazier, Joe would try to go toe to toe and he'd be on the receiving end of a guy who clearly outweighs him and is much stronger than him...
Besides we all make out as if Joe Frazier was this slick guy but was he **** he did all that bobbing and weaving but his opponent was still smacking him about can he do it in this era where heavyweights hit arguably harder?
Doubt it...

Samuel Peters is a better win than Joe Frazier, Frazier is derived off nostalgia hunters who can't let go of the past...
Fact is Joe Frazier only has one good win on his record!
Samuel Peters schooled James Toney twice when Toney was still game and wins over Oleg Maskaev with a somewhat close first fight with Wladimir Klitschko is much better than beating Muhammad Ali who was not up to speed with his training after the long time off and not also forgetting those guys back then were light as hell.

Ok ladies and gentlemen, here we have the logic of delusion.

Sam Peter is a better win than Joe Frazier because Joe Frazier only beat the consensus greatest heavyweight of all time, while Sam Peter beat Oleg Maskeav and former middleweight champion James Toney.

****! You're right! That proves it!

Oh, by the way, you wanna know why Sam Peter outweighs Frazier.....

http://www.boxnews.com.ua/photos/332/Samuel-Peter27.jpg

That's why.

But, that's besides the point. What matters is whether someone is great, good, or mediocre. Peter proved to be a smidge better than mediocre and that's being generous.

A ****e, fat, weak, feather fisted Eddie Chambers beat Sam Peter and he was one of these 'small' heavyweights you keep raving about and he had no power at all. He owned Peter, so size or power isn't going to mean **** when you're just not very good. You think someone who hit ten times harder, had ten times the stamina, was just as fast, and was simply ten times better would have much trouble? Anyway, Frazier beat enough top big men who were as big or bigger than Peter, so your point is obsolete either way.

Having ten extra pounds of fat doesn't help. It makes you slower, have less stamina, which means less power, and makes you easier to hit and then hurt.

I'm sure before Haye moved up to heavyweight, you'd also have argued that Chisora was a big, proper heavyweight and that Haye would stand no chance against a real heavyweight who's so much bigger. Well, we all saw what happened there and Chisora's fat didn't help him. Or what about when Haye fought the 7 foot giant? Size doesn't matter when you're better and thats a nice 'modern' colour TV version for you to digest. No nostalgia needed.

The only thing Toney got schooled on from Peter was rabbit punching. Toney won that first fight clearly, well by any unbiased standard anyway.

It just hit me....I'm actually responding to people that think Sam Peter is better than Joe Frazier, a better win on a record than Joe Frazier, has better wins/greater career than Joe Frazier and would knock him out if they were to meet prime for prime. What has become of my life and this place that I'm even responding to such lame, ignorant, pitiful buffoonery....

I feel a whole lot ******er just for reading these ****eful posts.

[LacedUp]

Ok ladies and gentlemen, here we have the logic of delusion.

Sam Peter is a better win than Joe Frazier because Joe Frazier only beat the consensus greatest heavyweight of all time, while Sam Peter beat Oleg Maskeav and former middleweight champion James Toney.

****! You're right! That proves it!

Oh, by the way, you wanna know why Sam Peter outweighs Frazier.....

http://www.boxnews.com.ua/photos/332/Samuel-Peter27.jpg

That's why.

But, that's besides the point. What matters is whether someone is great, good, or mediocre. Peter proved to be a smidge better than mediocre and that's being generous.

A ****e, fat, weak, feather fisted Eddie Chambers beat Sam Peter and he was one of these 'small' heavyweights you keep raving about and he had no power at all. He owned Peter, so size or power isn't going to mean **** when you're just not very good. You think someone who hit ten times harder, had ten times the stamina, was just as fast, and was simply ten times better would have much trouble? Anyway, Frazier beat enough top big men who were as big or bigger than Peter, so your point is obsolete either way.

Having ten extra pounds of fat doesn't help. It makes you slower, have less stamina, which means less power, and makes you easier to hit and then hurt.

I'm sure before Haye moved up to heavyweight, you'd also have argued that Chisora was a big, proper heavyweight and that Haye would stand no chance against a real heavyweight who's so much bigger. Well, we all saw what happened there and Chisora's fat didn't help him. Or what about when Haye fought the 7 foot giant? Size doesn't matter when you're better and thats a nice 'modern' colour TV version for you to digest. No nostalgia needed.

The only thing Toney got schooled on from Peter was rabbit punching. Toney won that first fight clearly, well by any unbiased standard anyway.

It just hit me....I'm actually responding to people that think Sam Peter is better than Joe Frazier, a better win on a record than Joe Frazier, has better wins/greater career than Joe Frazier and would knock him out if they were to meet prime for prime. What has become of my life and this place that I'm even responding to such lame, ignorant, pitiful buffoonery....

I feel a whole lot ******er just for reading these ****eful posts.

lol didn't you know that being overweight is an advantage in boxing?

Jeez, you must not know anything.

[GeneralZod]

GOAT Thread

[LacedUp]

If anyone else feels the need to discuss this very open question: What would happen if Sam Peter and Joe Frazier ever met?

Feel free:

http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/sh...d.php?t=641003

[M Bison]

Ok ladies and gentlemen, here we have the logic of delusion.

Sam Peter is a better win than Joe Frazier because Joe Frazier only beat the consensus greatest heavyweight of all time, while Sam Peter beat Oleg Maskeav and former middleweight champion James Toney.

****! You're right! That proves it!

Oh, by the way, you wanna know why Sam Peter outweighs Frazier.....

http://www.boxnews.com.ua/photos/332/Samuel-Peter27.jpg

That's why.

But, that's besides the point. What matters is whether someone is great, good, or mediocre. Peter proved to be a smidge better than mediocre and that's being generous.

A ****e, fat, weak, feather fisted Eddie Chambers beat Sam Peter and he was one of these 'small' heavyweights you keep raving about and he had no power at all. He owned Peter, so size or power isn't going to mean **** when you're just not very good. You think someone who hit ten times harder, had ten times the stamina, was just as fast, and was simply ten times better would have much trouble? Anyway, Frazier beat enough top big men who were as big or bigger than Peter, so your point is obsolete either way.

Having ten extra pounds of fat doesn't help. It makes you slower, have less stamina, which means less power, and makes you easier to hit and then hurt.

I'm sure before Haye moved up to heavyweight, you'd also have argued that Chisora was a big, proper heavyweight and that Haye would stand no chance against a real heavyweight who's so much bigger. Well, we all saw what happened there and Chisora's fat didn't help him. Or what about when Haye fought the 7 foot giant? Size doesn't matter when you're better and thats a nice 'modern' colour TV version for you to digest. No nostalgia needed.

The only thing Toney got schooled on from Peter was rabbit punching. Toney won that first fight clearly, well by any unbiased standard anyway.

It just hit me....I'm actually responding to people that think Sam Peter is better than Joe Frazier, a better win on a record than Joe Frazier, has better wins/greater career than Joe Frazier and would knock him out if they were to meet prime for prime. What has become of my life and this place that I'm even responding to such lame, ignorant, pitiful buffoonery....

I feel a whole lot ******er just for reading these ****eful posts.

'Self proclaimed' greatest heavyweight of all time who had a long lay off then Joe came running to take the fight both these guys prime weight was barely 200lbs, they are small heavyweights the smallest of small and when you get your face pounded in by a slow plodding heavyweight like George Foreman (legit heavy) it kills your point who did Joe Frazier beat that is equal in size to Foreman and/or skill?



You seem to do a lot of talking about physical shape why don't you post a picture of yourself If you're any better off.


Joe Frazier was knocked down by Mike Bunce a feather fisted bum who has only 10 wins but 30 losses, atleast Eddie Chambers was a real heavyweight and if you actually took the time to watch the Eddie Chambers vs Samuel Peters fight you'd realize the 'fat' boxer Peters was the more active through the entire fight and the fight was alot closer than an absolute beating...
Why don't you watch fights instead of hunting them up on boxrec?
And to also note Chambers weighed in at 230lbs... Whilst Frazier prime weight was 205 - 215lbs
Try again

Proves once again the idiotic nostalgia ******s don't know much about the heavyweight division, simple put if you don't watch the current division don't compare with the past.

[BennyST]

In September 2005 before the first fight with Wladimir Klitschko, Teddy Atlas compared Sam "The Nigerian Nightmare" Peter to Joe Frazier.

Teddy predicted Sam would KO Wlad.

Sam Peter was highly regarded before losing to Wlad. Several others like Jameel McCline were considered to be very good HWs until they lost to Wlad.

Well, considering you always bet on the opposite guy to who Atlas predicts will win, it's not surprising is it?



Peter, before losing to Wlad, had fought precisely....oh yeah! Thats right! Absolutely ****ing no one. That's why he was highly regarded. His best win was Jeremy Williams....What do you mean who? That's my point. No one.

Sam Peter wasn't a bad fighter. He wasn't exactly that good either though, and certainly nothing like the ATG, power punching phenom that would destroy Joe Frazier that you and your ilk have been making him out to be. Ludicrous.

[Boxing Goat]

I'm sure you spend most of your time pulling your pud (assuming you can find it) to that but please refrain from projecting your perversions onto others

Was that you best 'rubber and glue' effort?

Pathetic

[Boxing Goat]

Well it looks to me like it's in the open.

On this page alone 4 people are giving you the wtf eyes alone. God knows how many have thought that throughout the thread.

Thats only because it goes against their agendas. You know, the bullsh@t notion that previous generation fighters are automatically better than todays fighters just because they fought in ali's era.