-
-
Oh?
What is an "old-school technique"?
If a technique from the old school survives the sieve of evolution into the present, it then becomes PART of the new school.
It's only if a technique DOESN'T pass that sieve that it can even be defined as "old school"
OBVIOUSLY!
All this talk about "old school techniques lost" is utter tripe!
Any technique that is really old school is by definition one that used to be effective but now is not!
Tony was effective at modern HW, he was a modern HW boxer.
The style of most all pre-80's boxers were either non-effective today (such as the face-first plod Frazier style or the run/hug punch bag Ali style) as as such are nowhere to be seen at all except in amateur boxing OR they are still stylistically around (such as the crude Foreman slugger style) but are now only on giant boxers that dwarf Foreman in physical attributes.
You have not a clue kid, you've been brainwashed your whole life.
Don't you think it's about time ya started thinking for yourself???
Beat it mate!
Comment
-
I most certainly did but that was not the general thought at the time amongst fans and analysts. Nobody considered Peter a bum at the time. It was only after Vitali humiliated him did anyone think that. The guy was a beast before hand. He gave Wladimir a very good, exciting fight. Not so much with Vitali.
Maybe you don't know because you weren't around boxing at the time.
Wise up.Comment
-
Eddie Chambers when in the worst shape of his career and operating at his slowest worst - easily beat Peter. He had less trouble with Peter than Wlad did.You mean that feared puncher Peter that was knocking everybody out??
Yeah, what a REAL bum that guy must have been!! LOL
There is only one way to describe the 4 year come-back of Vitali to beat such a menacing opponent as Samuel PEter...
Incredible!
And for those who are unaware exactly who this "bum" PEter was...
^^That pretty much sums it up!
- Samuel Peter would have been one of the highlights of ANY boxers resume
- You only have a few boxers who could have withstood and beaten Samuel Peter
AND
- NONE of your old time favourite boxers could have ever survived Samuel Peter, let alone beat him.
The facts.
What does Peter do for Chambers legacy? Absolutely nothing. So why would he be a highlight victory for former greats?
A joke like Peter would never had made it into contention. Tua was better than Peter in every possible way imaginable and he never came close to picking up a Belt because he campaigned in an era that wasn't a total joke like the one Wlad fought in- and Wlad still lost , struggled , fouled , cheated and required a tag partner to stay on top of it.
Hilarious you calling somebody else a simpleton. Your argument for everything is the same repetitive drivel an infant would dribble out.
You cannot put a case forward for these bums being any good. - your simple explanation is that they would beat the best of former era , despite the fact they couldn't even beat the worst in the ****test HW division since the 1880's.Last edited by Burt Saxby; 09-09-2015, 12:27 PM.Comment
-
Wrong. Its a fabrication thats been exaggerated by K-turds to brush away the fact Wlad was nearly knocked out and struggled with an absolute bum with no skills.
Peter never had skills - even when he was unbeaten. That was blatantly evident to anybody who knew what boxing skill was. You clowns try make out he was like Mike Tyson which he most certainly was not so it would only make perfect sense that you were not around at the time.
The poll here says it all. The people who thought Peter had any chance knew nothing about boxing and you just outed yourself as one of them.
http://www.*************.com/showthread.php?t=94848Comment
Tweet
Comment