Corrie Sanders vs Ken Norton

[gilgamesh]

In this one I suspect if they fought more than once Norton would probably be able to eventually adjust to the timing of Corrie's straight left and outlast him, but in the first going around i think like many others he'd have trouble seeing that left coming.

Even by Southpaw standards the angle that Sanders' straight left came from was unusual as he tended to shoot it up from his hip. Typically a cross comes over your guard, but his came under.

I suspect Norton would be finished by the end of Round 1 or 2 not sure what had hit him.

[Cent0089]

Well, Norton can end up just like W.Klitschko in this one.

[Seamus]

Sanders if it ends in the first 2, after that Norton, probably late stoppage.

[scorpio83]

Norton would stop the Sniper late after Sanders failed to KO him.

[robbydecker]

Alot of possibilities in this particular bout.

Sanders "Could" catch Norton by surprise early in the bout.

Or, "Norton" might have a great strategy and carry it out as planned and win in a decisive manner.

Almost a 50-50 imo.

I would only slightly favor "Norton" in this bout, while assuming he'd have "Sanders" figured out quite well before the bout.

[Ambling Alp II]

People greatly exaggerate Sandesr' ability because of the Klitschko fight. He never beat anyone else worth mentioning. he wasn't even a ranked contender before that fight. He had very limited ability.
Likewise, people often underrate Norton based on fights when he was past it.

A prime Norton was several classes above him. He would probably stop Sanders in the mid-rounds 9 out of 10 times.

[gilgamesh]

People greatly exaggerate Sandesr' ability because of the Klitschko fight. He never beat anyone else worth mentioning. he wasn't even a ranked contender before that fight. He had very limited ability.
Likewise, people often underrate Norton based on fights when he was past it.

A prime Norton was several classes above him. He would probably stop Sanders in the mid-rounds 9 out of 10 times.

Norton has only 1 great win as well, along with a few other good ones. They're on about the same level.

[Ambling Alp II]

The same level? That's beyond stupid.

[gilgamesh]

It's not, but Sanders' greatest success came after the start of the 21st century so i know you have that inexplicable bias toward him that you have toward all fighters from the last 25 years or so, so you keep doing you there Alp.

I'll Keep being honest and objective.

[Seamus]

There is much to critique when looking at the career of Corrie Sanders, most all his poor stamina. However, this is also a guy who Vitali Klitschko rated the hardest puncher he ever faced (ahead of Lennox Lewis) who came closest to putting VK on the canvas. If this fight could happen and it went past the 4th, I'd lean very heavily towards a Norton victory by stoppage, but if it ended earlier I'd say a knockout by Sanders would be a very distinct possibility.

[keithmoonhangover]

People greatly exaggerate Sandesr' ability because of the Klitschko fight. He never beat anyone else worth mentioning. he wasn't even a ranked contender before that fight. He had very limited ability.
Likewise, people often underrate Norton based on fights when he was past it.

A prime Norton was several classes above him. He would probably stop Sanders in the mid-rounds 9 out of 10 times.

Sanders is one of the guys who's massively overrated on these boards and he (indirectly) dines out on the Wlad win. Ross Puritty already stopped Klitschko and Lamon Brewster did it soon after. Wlad wasn't some impossible to beat monster when Sanders beat him.

[gilgamesh]

I think we've all got Sanders pegged pretty accurately honestly. Nobody is calling him a World beater. We all acknowledge his poor stamina, but we all also acknowledge his hand speed and punching power.

Sanders is a very beatable Heavyweight if you get him deep into a fight. He's a very dangerous Heavyweight early in one.

[Cent0089]

People greatly exaggerate Sandesr' ability because of the Klitschko fight. He never beat anyone else worth mentioning. he wasn't even a ranked contender before that fight. He had very limited ability.
Likewise, people often underrate Norton based on fights when he was past it.

A prime Norton was several classes above him. He would probably stop Sanders in the mid-rounds 9 out of 10 times.

Klitschko was also several classes above Sanders. And was destroyed. If it worked against Klitschko, it can work against Norton too, why not.

[gilgamesh]

People greatly exaggerate Sandesr' ability because of the Klitschko fight. He never beat anyone else worth mentioning. he wasn't even a ranked contender before that fight. He had very limited ability.
Likewise, people often underrate Norton based on fights when he was past it.

A prime Norton was several classes above him. He would probably stop Sanders in the mid-rounds 9 out of 10 times.

Klitschko was also several classes above Sanders. And was destroyed. If it worked against Klitschko, it can work against Norton too, why not.

Klitschko was well above Norton as well. That'll be a controversial take to some even though Wladimir has literally dozens of wins in Championship fights to Norton's 0.

Get ready for the excuses.

[Ambling Alp II]

It's not, but Sanders' greatest success came after the start of the 21st century so i know you have that inexplicable bias toward him that you have toward all fighters from the last 25 years or so, so you keep doing you there Alp.

I'll Keep being honest and objective.

Oh please.
Let's see for starters, e could watch the fights.. We should just watch them and see that Norton had a lot more ability. It's pretty obvious.

Norton's best win was over Ali. Sanders best win was over Klitschko. Huge advantage for Norton there.
Sanders next biggest win would be against who? There is nothing worth mentioning.

Norton beat Quarry.
Norton beat Young.

Norton gave Ali three competitive fights. Imagine Sanders doing that.
Norton gave a prime Larry Holmes a close match in a great fight. Imagine Sanders doing that.

Oh, and in the best era in boxing, Norton was a serious contender for more than 7 years.
Sanders was a contender for 1 year. Wasn't ranked before Wladimir, nor after Vitaly.
Norton in the greatest period of heavyweight boxing, was a serious contender for more than 7 years.

This is not remotely close. Norton was a far, far better fighter. Unbelievable that we have debate this kind of thing.

[gilgamesh]

Sanders' 2nd best win is against Bert Cooper I'd say off the top of my head.

Norton's win over Ali is an All Time Great non title win. Sanders' win over Klitschko is an all time great title win. Advantage Sanders there.

Norton's losses to Ali in their 3rd fight and Holmes in their fight were indeed valiant efforts, and are a boost to his legacy. I can imagine Sanders giving either man problems early on, but likely being taken out late as was his M.O.

I don't know why you feel so personally offended by somebody giving credit where it's due to fighters of all eras not just your favorite ones.

Ali, Foreman and Holmes are all in my All Time Top 5 so obviously I agree the era that produced them was one of the finest. However it is not an insult to them or anyone else to acknowledge greatness whenever and however it took place. Life is long. Time marches on.

[gilgamesh]

As for the "we could watch the fights and see that Norton had more ability" comment.

I have watched all available fights of both Norton and Sanders, and the blanket statement Norton had more ability isn't quite accurate. They both had their strengths and weaknesses.

Better punching power: Sanders
Better stamina: Norton
Better hand speed: Sanders
Better body punching: Norton

Both men were awkward and hard to time, but in completely different ways. Both men were chinny and have instances of being taken out relatively easy on their record.

There is no gigantic advantage for either man. There is no gulf in talent. There is no gulf in accomplishment. That's the truth. It's not an insult to either man to point out the truth of what they were capable of.

[Ambling Alp II]

Better punching power : Sanders? He stopped Klitschko who had a glass jaw. there is nothing else to suggest he is a huge puncher. Norton hurt and stopped Quarry who had a great chin. He hurt Holmes who of course had a great chin.

Better stamina: Norton. Agreed. And by a wide margin. Norton fought fast paced 15 rounders against Holmes and Young. Sanders was dead by the middle rounds.

Hand speed: Where is this magical hand speed of Sanders?

Body punching: Norton. Agreed.

Chin: When he actually was fighting, I never heard one time anyone question Norton's chin. Not once. This came years later when people focused on fights when he was well past it.
He got stopped early in his career by a journeyman and there is really not much else. Yes he got destroyed by Foreman but so almost everyone by a prime Foreman.
The guy went the distance with Ali 3x and never was stopped. 15 round war against Holmes and went the distance.

Could not help but notice that defense was left out. Norton has a huge advantage there. Sander's had little defense and Norton had a good defense.

Again, when they were actually fighting, Sanders was considered a joke. A guy focused on his becoming a pro golfer more than a boxer. the guy had been fighting for 14 years and could not crack the top 10 until he fought Klitschko!
His whole case is based on that fight and other mediocre fighters did the same thing.

Norton was a very respected fighter for many years. Unbelievable how underrated he is these days by some people.

[gilgamesh]

I consider Norton in my all time Heavyweight Top 30 above many famous Heavyweight names. I give him his due.

I agree Norton had better defense. Denying Sanders had excellent hand speed is just silly. It's one of his most important attributes, without it he wouldn't have even achieved what he did.

Everyone in this thread is pointing out the good and bad of both fighters except you. You are simply unable to be objective and take in the whole picture. You let your Fandom get in the way too much when assessing fighters and matchups.

Similarly when we were discussing Mayweather and Leonard. I'd say that I'd pick Leonard to win head to head, but Mayweather had a better career, but that had you clutching at pearls. Guys from the modern era can't possibly even hope to carry the jockstrap of someone from a past era even if their accomplishments are equal or greater.

No matter how many times this is pointed out to you, you seem unable to recognize this in yourself.

Everyone in this thread sees it as Sanders by KO early or Norton by KO late. That's a perfectly reasonable and an accurate assessment of what would likely happen.

But for you we're all insulting Norton because we don't think he'd smash him in 20 seconds and then sodomize his corpse.

Watch the fights. Watch what these 2 men could do and couldn't do. Get out of your feelings, and be objective.

[keithmoonhangover]

Sanders' 2nd best win is against Bert Cooper I'd say off the top of my head.

Norton's win over Ali is an All Time Great non title win. Sanders' win over Klitschko is an all time great title win. Advantage Sanders there.

Norton's losses to Ali in their 3rd fight and Holmes in their fight were indeed valiant efforts, and are a boost to his legacy. I can imagine Sanders giving either man problems early on, but likely being taken out late as was his M.O.

I don't know why you feel so personally offended by somebody giving credit where it's due to fighters of all eras not just your favorite ones.

Ali, Foreman and Holmes are all in my All Time Top 5 so obviously I agree the era that produced them was one of the finest. However it is not an insult to them or anyone else to acknowledge greatness whenever and however it took place. Life is long. Time marches on.

Ali and Klitschko are not in the same category. Ali is leagues above Klitschko, leagues. His best wins were Liston, Foreman and Frazier. Wlad's were.... not.

[Ambling Alp II]

He thinks they are because kltischko-Sanders was for the WBO title!
He can't it through his head that just because a fight is for a paper title hled by a corrupt organization that it might not mean mcuh.

Nobody was running around going "Theres a new WBO champion!'
Everyone knew that Lewis was the real champion.
Call this one of the biggest wins in title history is absurd.

Btw Norton-Ali was for the prestigious NABF title. Lets count that.
Sanders would have absolutely no chance of beating Ali if it was him instead of Norton in that fight. None.

That win for Norton was one of the biggest wins that anyone ever had.

Ultimately, it goes down to this;
If Sanders was at the same level as Norton, than why wasn't a contender except for one year?

[gilgamesh]

Sanders' 2nd best win is against Bert Cooper I'd say off the top of my head.

Norton's win over Ali is an All Time Great non title win. Sanders' win over Klitschko is an all time great title win. Advantage Sanders there.

Norton's losses to Ali in their 3rd fight and Holmes in their fight were indeed valiant efforts, and are a boost to his legacy. I can imagine Sanders giving either man problems early on, but likely being taken out late as was his M.O.

I don't know why you feel so personally offended by somebody giving credit where it's due to fighters of all eras not just your favorite ones.

Ali, Foreman and Holmes are all in my All Time Top 5 so obviously I agree the era that produced them was one of the finest. However it is not an insult to them or anyone else to acknowledge greatness whenever and however it took place. Life is long. Time marches on.

Ali and Klitschko are not in the same category. Ali is leagues above Klitschko, leagues. His best wins were Liston, Foreman and Frazier. Wlad's were.... not.

Ali is above Klitschko. Not leagues above him. They're both All Time Top 10 or 15 Heavyweights, but Ali is Numero Uno.

[gilgamesh]

He thinks they are because kltischko-Sanders was for the WBO title!
He can't it through his head that just because a fight is for a paper title hled by a corrupt organization that it might not mean mcuh.

Nobody was running around going "Theres a new WBO champion!'
Everyone knew that Lewis was the real champion.
Call this one of the biggest wins in title history is absurd.

Btw Norton-Ali was for the prestigious NABF title. Lets count that.
Sanders would have absolutely no chance of beating Ali if it was him instead of Norton in that fight. None.

That win for Norton was one of the biggest wins that anyone ever had.

Ultimately, it goes down to this;
If Sanders was at the same level as Norton, than why wasn't a contender except for one year?

Brother you constantly tell me that Wladimir Klitschko isn't a great fighter. Thinking Wladimir isn't great is much more preposterous than having Sanders and Ken Norton on a similar level.

[gilgamesh]

Sanders defeating Wlad was the 2003 Ring Magazine Upset of the Year.

Norton beating Ali likely would've been 1973 upset of the year, but they didn't give that award until 1980 unfortunately.

Biggest upset of the Year.
Wasn't a big win.
OK guys, whatever you say. What do I know?

[2128778]

Sanders defeating Wlad was the 2003 Ring Magazine Upset of the Year.

Norton beating Ali likely would've been 1973 upset of the year, but they didn't give that award until 1980 unfortunately.

Biggest upset of the Year.
Wasn't a big win.
OK guys, whatever you say. What do I know?

Yeah, Wlad was viewed as Lewis's heir apparent at the time.

He had a solid 2002, with his fights against Botha, Mercer and Mccline all being televised on HBO.

Before the first bell for the Sanders bout rang, Larry Merchant said something like: "Can anybody beat Wladimir Klitschko?"