Vitali in the 1980s

[Bricks]

Ordinarily I'd agree ,that's how the old timers saw cassius clay in the 60s they thought marciano and Louis would "moidur da bum". The first half of the 80s was considered awful And I still recall ko magazine in the early 90s lamenting the sorry state of hw boxing compared to the 70s.in retrospect the early mid 90 s produced 3 atg"s and cemented another foreman,and the 80s hws are now seen as some of the most talented if underachieving,undisciplined etc..........this decade 2005-2014 I have no doubts whatsoever people will call it like it is.....2 utterly dominant spoilers and a imposter David haye clouds above a generation of fat talentless bums and robots with all the skill and fighting ability of barroom meatheads.I mean look at that pulev-vitali fight.pulev is a typical ee bum.I recently saw 2 poles fighting outside a pub in slough who fought exactly like this generation of eastern block bums and Chris arseola.big burly shaven headed but when it came time to fight pathetically slow mechanical handbags ,moving like sissies around each other afraid to get hit.I'd seen more skilled barmaid fights.

[Tuan_Jim]

Wins over Corrie Sanders and Shannon Briggs go a long way it seems.

Sanders was a much more dangerous fighter than say, the 80's Coetzee.
The late Sanders was a top 5 fighter in his time with tremendous power.

No.

That's simply wrong, and a totally untenable stance. Describe in detail about how Sanders was more dangerous than Coetzee. In detail. Defend it. Coetzee going 15 with Tate. Warring with Weaver. Poleaxing Dokes. Sanders beating not one ranked contender for the first 13 years of his career, and losing to Tubbs and Rahman. Tell us all how you arrived at your conclusion.

And 'Sanders a top 5 fighter in his time'. What was his time? In the 90s, in his physical prime, when he couldn't crack the top 15 and Nate Tubbs one shotted him? Or when he was a fat 40 year old, far past his physical prime, and yet he mopped the floor with Wladimir, possibly the one name in 2003 vulnerable enough for him to beat. We know he doesn't even beat Rahman. Doesn't that say more about Wladimir in a firefight than the talent of Corrie Sanders?

Gerrie Coetzee is taking out the Wladimir that Sanders fought in 1.

[cjdragon]

Wins over Corrie Sanders and Shannon Briggs go a long way it seems.

Sanders was a much more dangerous fighter than say, the 80's Coetzee.
The late Sanders was a top 5 fighter in his time with tremendous power.

No.

That's simply wrong, and a totally untenable stance. Describe in detail about how Sanders was more dangerous than Coetzee. In detail. Defend it. Coetzee going 15 with Tate. Warring with Weaver. Poleaxing Dokes. Sanders beating not one ranked contender for the first 13 years of his career, and losing to Tubbs and Rahman. Tell us all how you arrived at your conclusion.

And 'Sanders a top 5 fighter in his time'. What was his time? In the 90s, in his physical prime, when he couldn't crack the top 15 and Nate Tubbs one shotted him? Or when he was a fat 40 year old, far past his physical prime, and yet he mopped the floor with Wladimir, possibly the one name in 2003 vulnerable enough for him to beat. We know he doesn't even beat Rahman. Doesn't that say more about Wladimir in a firefight than the talent of Corrie Sanders?

Gerrie Coetzee is taking out the Wladimir that Sanders fought in 1.

Not sure why you get so defensive about good natured opinions...
But yeah I'll respond to you point by point when I'm sober. Possibly tomorrow :)
You might be disappointed in the results though...

[Tuan_Jim]

I want the drunk response!

[cjdragon]

I want the drunk response!

:)

I'm watching the Coetzee-Dokes, and then the Coetzee-Weaver fight this morning.
Then I'll re-watch the Sanders-Wlad and Sanders-Vitali fights.
Best to watch them in both victory and defeat to get an idea of who is more "dangerous"...by which I mean the harder, more ferocious puncher.

[cjdragon]

Wins over Corrie Sanders and Shannon Briggs go a long way it seems.

Sanders was a much more dangerous fighter than say, the 80's Coetzee.
The late Sanders was a top 5 fighter in his time with tremendous power.

No.

That's simply wrong, and a totally untenable stance. Describe in detail about how Sanders was more dangerous than Coetzee. In detail. Defend it. Coetzee going 15 with Tate. Warring with Weaver. Poleaxing Dokes. Sanders beating not one ranked contender for the first 13 years of his career, and losing to Tubbs and Rahman. Tell us all how you arrived at your conclusion.

And 'Sanders a top 5 fighter in his time'. What was his time? In the 90s, in his physical prime, when he couldn't crack the top 15 and Nate Tubbs one shotted him? Or when he was a fat 40 year old, far past his physical prime, and yet he mopped the floor with Wladimir, possibly the one name in 2003 vulnerable enough for him to beat. We know he doesn't even beat Rahman. Doesn't that say more about Wladimir in a firefight than the talent of Corrie Sanders?

Gerrie Coetzee is taking out the Wladimir that Sanders fought in 1.

Ok I re-watched the Coetzee and Sanders fights that I mentioned above.
Here's my conclusion on your challenge to me to defend the dangerousness of Sanders over that of Coetzee.
Keep in mind I'm comparing Coetzee and Sanders.

-Yes, Coetzee was a more talented boxer by far.
-Yes Coetzee did carry some power in his punches.
-Sanders clearly hit like a freight train (including using a brutal headbutt to tko Wlad).
-Sanders was a southpaw with power. Coetzee was orthodox. It does make a difference.
-Sanders drilled and actually hurt VITALI Klitschko, who had one of the best chins I've personally ever seen in the heavyweight division.
-Sanders' win over WLAD Klitschko (PfP top-10) was a bigger achievement than Coetzee's win over Dokes (a nearly forgotten contender).

And here's their final records:
Gerrie Coetzee: 33-6-1 (21 KO's)
Corrie Sanders: 42-4-0 (31 KO's)

Sanders was the stronger, heavier hitting fighter than was Coetzee...Sanders was a more dangerous opponent.
So that's my opinion :)
Feel free to pick it apart.

[Counter-puncher]

I am no expert on either mam, but sander strikes me as the more talented athletic and explosive fighter, coetzee a but more mechanical but a harder man, more of a fighter.
not sure either has the best stamina or chin, but i think coetzee has slight edges there

great fight, coetzee-weaver, by the,way.