2008 Sam Peter v. 1988 Carl Williams

[Unforgiven]

"Nigerian Nightmare" versus "The Truth"

Who wins and how and why ?

Weigh in
Peter 252
Williams 224

Height -
Peter 6'2"
Williams 6'4"

Reach -
Peter 77"
Williams 84"

Age - Peter 28, Williams 28

[Mr Butt]

williams ud

[Boro chris]

Williams very one sided ud.

[Quitali Bitchko]

Williams UD or a late stoppage.

[mr. magoo]

I concur with the majority and have also picked Carl Williams via Decision. William's main achilles heel was the left hook - something that Peter doesn't sport much of. In addition, there is a rather large defecit in terms of skill and boxing ability which favors Truth considerably. Now Granted, Williams did not have the sturdiest set of legs nor a clad iron chin, therefore a KO victory for Peter is not out of the question. But the stylistic comparison does not warrant making him a fovorite.

[Seamus]

Peters KO 5 Williams

[Quitali Bitchko]

Peters KO 5 Williams

:nono

[fists of fury]

I see a pattern here...

How's the reach on Williams though? 85"...crazy.

[Mendoza]

Peter via Ko. Williams could not deal with big punchers.

[Chris Warren]

Williams couldnt deal with big punchers and Peter couldnt deal with anybody who has a pulse or any skills.

[PowerPuncher]

Williams UD, too much skill and Peter isnt that much of a puncher anyway

[rekcutnevets]

Just because Mike Tyson and Mike Weaver can knock you out, it doesn't mean just anyone can. An older Williams was knocked out by Tommy Morrison in a shoot out. Williams took better stuff from Morrison than Peter could dream of dishing out before being stopped in that fight.

Carl Williams went the distance with Tim Witherspoon. Witherspoon has a smaller frame than Peter, but his power is on par. Not to mention that Witherspoon was a clear notch above Peter when focused.

Williams had far too many skills, too much speed, and too good a jab for Peter to overcome. Peter is strong and tough, but Williams has way more pop than a heavyweight James Toney. I realize that Wladimir Klitschko hits harder than Williams, but I don't think he was able to land his power shots with the same precision Williams'. Williams could move, and would not be as heavy afoot as Wlad.

I really can't see Peter lasting the distance here. Williams tko 8 or 9

[jont]

Im shocked at the respect Carl is given so far.....he was one of my favorite fighters and seems to finally have some good things said about him....love to see the positive responses

[Seamus]

Im shocked at the respect Carl is given so far.....he was one of my favorite fighters and seems to finally have some good things said about him....love to see the positive responses

One of my faves from the era, too. But just not that good.

[anarci]

One of my faves from the era, too. But just not that good. I disagree with your opinion saying williams wasnt that good the only thing that kept him from being a great heavyweight was his chin. I remember him fighting Larry Holmes on just about even terms in 85 when Holmes was still very good (although on the downside) and williams only had 16 fights at the time. HEs a way better fighter than Peter, but unfortunatly williams shaky chin would give peter a helluva shot in this fight, Im talking the peter of 05 and 06 the peter of 08 and 09 never lands and gets shut out . BUt id give a prime peter a punchers chance.

[Unforgiven]

Peter via Ko. Williams could not deal with big punchers.

Peter's not much of a puncher though. Just a heavy-handed slow clubber. He's KO'd one top 10 fighter in his entire career, Oleg Maskaev, who was no great shakes himself.
I saw an washed-up Carl Williams go into the 10th round against a very good Frank Bruno (who was much better than Peter), and he didn't get decked until the 10th and it was stopped when he got on his feet. I'm doubtful Peter could even floor a prime Williams with those slow looping punches of his.

[ChrisPontius]

I'd pick Williams by UD to beat this slow, disinterested version of Peter, but the 2004 Samuel who was superconfident and a wild bull, i'd pick to knock Williams out. Williams basically lost all his important fights because of his susceptible durability - the Holmes one aside of course.

[The Mongoose]

These thread starters are doing some serious cherry picking. Of course Tyson at this stage has a better resume than Vitali. Wlad and Tyson on the otherhand are more comparable.

I say:

Unification:

Byrd vs. Berbick
Chageav vs. Smith
Sultan vs. Tucker

Old Timers:

Mercer vs. Holmes lol

Defenses:

Brock vs. Thomas
Jefferson vs. Williams
McCline vs. Bruno

Grudge Match:

Ruddock vs. Peter

Conquerors

Sanders vs. Douglas
Brewster vs. Holyfield

Tyson still has a slight edge but much more fair and interesting I think.

[DamonD]

These thread starters are doing some serious cherry picking.
Hey, I'm quite looking forward to the '1985 Vitali vs 1985 Tyson, Who Wins?' thread. That's the kind of silliness you have to admire.

[Unforgiven]

Hey, I'm quite looking forward to the '1985 Vitali vs 1985 Tyson, Who Wins?' thread. That's the kind of silliness you have to admire.

What sense would that thread make ?

[The Kurgan]

Williams TKO. I think his power is underrated, while he has a longer reach and MUCH fast hands/feet than Sam. It's hard to see how Peter could even land measuring shots on Williams, while Peter has nothing defensively that could give The Truth any difficulty at all. It would be like a battle between a sniper and a knife master.

[The Kurgan]

What sense would that thread make ?

Yeah: why compare a blown-up cruiserweight with an ATG heavyweight like Vitali?

[Unforgiven]

Yeah: why compare a blown-up cruiserweight with an ATG heavyweight like Vitali?

:lol:

[Quitali Bitchko]

Yeah: why compare a blown-up cruiserweight with an ATG heavyweight like Vitali?

:rofl

[DamonD]

14-year-old Vitali is going down and he's going down hard :P

[Unforgiven]

14-year-old Vitali is going down and he's going down hard :P

I still dont see the significance of using a 14-year-old Vitali ? :huh
:lol:

[fists of fury]

These threads were a not-so-subtle (but effective) way of illustrating the Klitschko brother's weak competition.
Did I just state the obvious?

[Unforgiven]

These threads were a not-so-subtle (but effective) way of illustrating the Klitschko brother's weak competition.
Did I just state the obvious?

They are that. But my intention is really to find out what people really think about it.

I read lots of stuff on threads defending Vitali's opposition in a very general sense - "His crop of contenders is probably as good as 80s alphabet champs", "A few years from now people will be saying these guys were pretty good", "These are good solid young contenders, hungry modern heavyweights" etc. etc.
Ok, fair enough, I think, so I want to be taught the specifics of what people think. But when it comes to specifics of "the best Vitali beat" versus, say, some average contenders from the 1980s, not many come forward to show where Vitali's opposition is as good or better than !

I'd rather not just be proving a point, I'd rather be learning from the fans of Arreola, Peter, Gomez, Sanders et al., why they rate these fighters as a decent crop and maybe being persuaded a little bit that these guys are better than I thought. But it seems that there a few who will really stand up and say, "look 2004 Corrie Sanders beats these top guys Tyson or Holyfield beat ..... A,B,C,D,E ... and here's why .....". It all goes silent when you look for that sort of specific estimation of the fighters' relative abilities.

[Holmes' Jab]

Williams wide decision.

[fists of fury]

They are that. But my intention is really to find out what people really think about it.

I read lots of stuff on threads defending Vitali's opposition in a very general sense - "His crop of contenders is probably as good as 80s alphabet champs", "A few years from now people will be saying these guys were pretty good", "These are good solid young contenders, hungry modern heavyweights" etc. etc.
Ok, fair enough, I think, so I want to be taught the specifics of what people think. But when it comes to specifics of "the best Vitali beat" versus, say, some average contenders from the 1980s, not many come forward to show where Vitali's opposition is as good or better than !

I'd rather not just be proving a point, I'd rather be learning from the fans of Arreola, Peter, Gomez, Sanders et al., why they rate these fighters as a decent crop and maybe being persuaded a little bit that these guys are better than I thought. But it seems that there a few who will really stand up and say, "look 2004 Corrie Sanders beats these top guys Tyson or Holyfield beat ..... A,B,C,D,E ... and here's why .....". It all goes silent when you look for that sort of specific estimation of the fighters' relative abilities.

Totally agree.
The usual argument is something like: 'they were rated in the top 10' or 'they were unbeaten' - neither which counts for much in this era, unfortunately.
If anything, it illustrates just how bad things are.

[The Mongoose]

They are that. But my intention is really to find out what people really think about it.

I read lots of stuff on threads defending Vitali's opposition in a very general sense - "His crop of contenders is probably as good as 80s alphabet champs", "A few years from now people will be saying these guys were pretty good", "These are good solid young contenders, hungry modern heavyweights" etc. etc.
Ok, fair enough, I think, so I want to be taught the specifics of what people think. But when it comes to specifics of "the best Vitali beat" versus, say, some average contenders from the 1980s, not many come forward to show where Vitali's opposition is as good or better than !

I'd rather not just be proving a point, I'd rather be learning from the fans of Arreola, Peter, Gomez, Sanders et al., why they rate these fighters as a decent crop and maybe being persuaded a little bit that these guys are better than I thought. But it seems that there a few who will really stand up and say, "look 2004 Corrie Sanders beats these top guys Tyson or Holyfield beat ..... A,B,C,D,E ... and here's why .....". It all goes silent when you look for that sort of specific estimation of the fighters' relative abilities.


Concerning the quality of opposition, the gap between Tyson and Wlad is evident but not terribly wide. The biggest difference is the legacy scalps that Iron Mike collected against Holmes and Spinks though Wlad taking Byrd twice is nothing to scoff at; say what you will he is second only to Lewis as the best and most consistent heavyweight of that era.. I believe the resumes of both men are severely underrated.

Now Vitali is a different story all together. He has some impressive wins against tough well season journeymen and fringe contenders but didn’t really breakthrough until his impressive showings against Byrd and Lewis very late in his career. Out of shape as they may be, the skillful Kirk and Sanders still had faster dangerous hands and they were very good telling wins for him but hardly the same class as Tyson’s strongest opponents though they might match better against some more so than others. The frustrating Gomez and the overweight Peter were solid wins for a fighter coming off so many injuries, better than some of Tyson’s comeback feedings save Ruddock I suppose. Now I do like Arreola, and I would put him above Tyson’s more green defenses like Biggs but it is going to be difficult to rank him over well established titlists and long time contenders like “The Truth”, Tucker, Frank Bruno, or even “Bonecrusher” at this stage.

I don’t know, maybe the old grumpy Vitali can carve out his own legacy niche crushing young “up and comers” until he loses interest or his body gives out, or maybe even someone better emerges. Sometimes it’s just about making the best of your situation and just plain being consistent. Hopefully history will put Wlad, Vitali, and even Tyson’s careers in better perspective, how their opponents match up against each other is interesting but really irrelevant. At the topic at hand, fat Peter would lose a lopsided decision but a fat Sanders could set a good trap in the early rounds, a very dangerous fighter no matter what condition he was in. Think the cautious Tucker would be the best equipped for taking Sanders into deep water and stopping him.

[KOTF]

The Peter that showed up against Vitali was in putrid shape so he wouldn't be able to KO Williams with all that weight around his waist; he loses a lopsided decision. The Wlad version, however, has a better shot at doing the trick

[Sardu]

As long as Williams did not get too careless and blasted out ala the Weaver and Morrison fights he could take Peter. Peter has really regressed in the last few years from what people thought he could be.

Williams UD

[lefthook31]

Peter just seemed to fall out of love with boxing. The 2008 version had little to offer. I always heard Peter never wanted to train hard. Tommy Brooks had him and left him for his refusal to work hard. He had fast hands and what seemed to be a good chin when he as in shape, but he really started looking bad in 2008, Id pick Williams to easily outbox that version of Peter. The 2004 version would probably knock Williams out.

[Rubber Warrior]

Carl would need to use his mobility and jab. Style-wise he should be able to outpoint Peter. Williams also had the power to hurt Peter. The first three rounds would be key.

One more thing - Williams was a much SMARTER fighter.

[rodney]

Peter wins.
William couldnt break an egg.
No chin either.

[Rubber Warrior]

Peter wins.
William couldnt break an egg.
No chin either.

Williams had a chin, had a decent knockout ratio and did well in the upper ranks of the sport.

Peter, beyond being a good candidate as a Playtex spokesman, demonstrated a two-diemnsional approach to his role and challengers. When he wasn't showing up fat, listless and ineffective, he was picking himself up off the canvas with oversized non-punchers or quitting on his stool.

Now of course, I have made things out to be worse than they actually are with Fatty-Patatty, but you seem to have missed the boat on "The Truth", a fighter that gave his all and tried his best.

I wasn't too far off on the whole Playtex-thing though. ;)