BoxRec

Berbick put in a creditable showing but Holmes certainly won the fight decisively. He was in big trouble against Shavers but he hung on to win.

As for the Klicthskos , Vitaly had very limited skills. 0-2 in his biggest fights in which a great fighter would have won them both.
Wladimir was knocked out 3 times by 3 different ordinary fighters.
Corrie Sanders has fast hands? huh? He hardly even used his right anyway.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Berbick put in a creditable showing but Holmes certainly won the fight decisively. He was in big trouble against Shavers but he hung on to win.

As for the Klicthskos , Vitaly had very limited skills. 0-2 in his biggest fights in which a great fighter would have won them both.
Wladimir was knocked out 3 times by 3 different ordinary fighters.
Corrie Sanders has fast hands? huh? He hardly even used his right anyway.

Simply throwing statements like "very limited skills", "very poor chin" does not make it so. Or u think 2 losses somehow support that? Losses due to injury while winning on points from top ATG and fast crafty champ? very limited skills? Gm, gh, ghahah

Sanders is a lefty, maybe thats why he uses his right less, and if you need to be reminded of that, maybe you should go watch his fights instead of laughing at obvious fact that he had fast hands.

On the other note statement that Sanders is "not any bigger than Joe Louis in terms of body mass/frame" is really funny too. 245 lb Sanders must carry 40 lb of pure fat then (considering Louis was ~205 lb in his prime). Oh, and its on top of what Corrie had at the start of his carrier, being not too ripped at 208 lb (maybe 8-10% of bodyfat ~ +20 lb). Its a funny day

Fat was exactly what Sanders carried. Someone like Walcott was a piece of steel at 190. The weight difference there isn't much at all.

Ambling Alp II wrote:
As for the Klicthskos , Vitaly had very limited skills. 0-2 in his biggest fights in which a great fighter would have won them both.
Wladimir was knocked out 3 times by 3 different ordinary fighters.
Corrie Sanders has fast hands? huh? He hardly even used his right anyway.

While its true that Vitali Klitschko lost his two biggest fights, it had nothing to do with having limited skill. He was beating Chris Byrd with only one functional arm from about the 3rd round onward, before the pain of his torn rotator cuff caught up to him.. You might say that he lacked heart in that fight, but skill had nothing to do with that loss. He was also beating Lewis about 4 round to 2 before the cut stoppage, though that doesn't take anything away from Lennox for an excellent past prime come from behind win. Wlad tightened up his game since those three defeats you mentioned and hasn't lost in 10 years.

1. Joe Louis
2.Muhammad Ali
3. Jack Johnson

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Fat was exactly what Sanders carried. Someone like Walcott was a piece of steel at 190. The weight difference there isn't much at all.

Well, this man carrying 60 pounds of pure fat looks not that bad here:

And they say camera add pounds.. This one seems to do it in reverse quite well. I must have that!

Leonid wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Fat was exactly what Sanders carried. Someone like Walcott was a piece of steel at 190. The weight difference there isn't much at all.

Well, this man carrying 60 pounds of pure fat looks not that bad here:

And they say camera add pounds.. This one seems to do it in reverse quite well. I must have that!

I never put a % on him, but he certainly has never seen an ab.

Another funny thing popped into my mind: I think I'd be more confident on whether to include Marciano in top 10 if he actually had a loss to a much bigger ATG in a fassion anything like Vitali-Lewis. His ability would be more proven then.

Ambling Alp II wrote: Corrie Sanders has fast hands? huh?

Sanders' hands were pretty Goddamn fast.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Leonid wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Fat was exactly what Sanders carried. Someone like Walcott was a piece of steel at 190. The weight difference there isn't much at all.

Well, this man carrying 60 pounds of pure fat looks not that bad here:

And they say camera add pounds.. This one seems to do it in reverse quite well. I must have that!

I never put a % on him, but he certainly has never seen an ab.

You did put almost equal sign on him (245 lb) to 190 lb Walcott, who should've had at at least 5% body fat, cause its really unhealthy otherwise. The math is not that difficult

Leonid wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:

Leonid wrote:
Well, this man carrying 60 pounds of pure fat looks not that bad here:

And they say camera add pounds.. This one seems to do it in reverse quite well. I must have that!

I never put a % on him, but he certainly has never seen an ab.

You did put almost equal sign on him (245 lb) to 190 lb Walcott, who should've had at at least 5% body fat, cause its really unhealthy otherwise. The math is not that difficult

If Sanders slimmed down and Walcott plumped up they would be in close proximity. You're right, it isn't difficult.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: If Sanders slimmed down and Walcott plumped up they would be in close proximity. You're right, it isn't difficult.

[/quote]

Except for Walcatt would be fat and Sanders would be quite slim at 220 (if only fat but no muscle is burnt with correct training). Your approximation is too raw, and u do it to hide the truth, which you can see with your own eyes - there's no 60 pounds of fat in that picture. I see no point in further discussion of this

Leonid wrote:
Except for Walcatt would be fat and Sanders would be quite slim at 220 (if only fat but no muscle is burnt with correct training). Your approximation is too raw, and u do it to hide the truth, which you can see with your own eyes - there's no 60 pounds of fat in that picture. I see no point in further discussion of this

Walcott wouldn't be as fat at 210 as Sanders is at 245.

Would someone please point out exactly HOW MANY times Corrie Sanders showed up weighing at or above 245 lbs? I counted one time and that was when he was 41 years of age and had been off for two years.

1. Ali. 2 Holmes 3. Johnson

drunkenpiper36 wrote:Would someone please point out exactly HOW MANY times Corrie Sanders showed up weighing at or above 245 lbs? I counted one time and that was when he was 41 years of age and had been off for two years.

Ok, my bad, I just checked the record and he was actually 235 lb against Vitali, not 245 as I thought, but his approximation to Walcatt still result in expected 55 lb of fat carried, of which I was talking: 235-190*(100%-5%)=55.

PS. Johnson started to appear more and more. I think he clearly shouldn't be #3, same as Marciano. Too many close fights and lost fights against small guys, that were not that good. Than he met 1 bigger guy than self (although extremely bummy farmer) and was KO'd.

Leonid wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: If Sanders slimmed down and Walcott plumped up they would be in close proximity. You're right, it isn't difficult.

Except for Walcatt would be fat and Sanders would be quite slim at 220 (if only fat but no muscle is burnt with correct training). Your approximation is too raw, and u do it to hide the truth, which you can see with your own eyes - there's no 60 pounds of fat in that picture. I see no point in further discussion of this[/quote]



This circular argument is ludicrous. Walcott boxes Sanders to pieces, even if he weighs 50lbs less than Corrie. If you disagree then more fool you. Heavyweights in Walcotts day trained to fight not to get bigger muscles. Tony Galento would beat fuckin Corrie Sanders.

Leonid wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:Would someone please point out exactly HOW MANY times Corrie Sanders showed up weighing at or above 245 lbs? I counted one time and that was when he was 41 years of age and had been off for two years.

Ok, my bad, I just checked the record and he was actually 235 lb against Vitali, not 245 as I thought, but his approximation to Walcatt still result in expected 55 lb of fat carried, of which I was talking: 235-190*(100%-5%)=55.

PS. Johnson started to appear more and more. I think he clearly shouldn't be #3, same as Marciano. Too many close fights and lost fights against small guys, that were not that good. Than he met 1 bigger guy than self (although extremely bummy farmer) and was KO'd.

The Vitali fight wasn't a prime performance. Sanders weight was all over the place for most of his career, but he generally showed up weighing anywhere between 218-230 for most of it. It wasn't until after he fought Wladimir that he regularly began weighing 235+.

Jack Johnson is an all time great, but if someone doesn't have him in their top five, I'm ok with that. Marciano however has a case for top five depending on one's criteria.

Tomasino wrote:

Leonid wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: If Sanders slimmed down and Walcott plumped up they would be in close proximity. You're right, it isn't difficult.

Except for Walcatt would be fat and Sanders would be quite slim at 220 (if only fat but no muscle is burnt with correct training). Your approximation is too raw, and u do it to hide the truth, which you can see with your own eyes - there's no 60 pounds of fat in that picture. I see no point in further discussion of this

This circular argument is ludicrous. Walcott boxes Sanders to pieces, even if he weighs 50lbs less than Corrie. If you disagree then more fool you. Heavyweights in Walcotts day trained to fight not to get bigger muscles. Tony Galento would beat fuckin Corrie Sanders.[/quote]

I dare to disagree, but there's no need for personal assault. I see Sanders-Walcott as a 50/50 fight. Corrie can certainly take this guy out, but if he misses to do so in the first 6 rounds, he could end up dropping a decision.

Picking Sanders to beat Walcott sounds ludicrous on paper, but studying their fights, its not out of the question that a Sanders upset could occur. Walcott would be dealing with a pure south paw with quick hands and a lengthy wingspan to go along with greater size and a fair amount of power. On his best night, Arnold Cream should be favored, but if truth be told, he's lost to worse men.

He hit hard enough to have a 5% chance or so. I'd give Vitali 30/70 due to his size.

Assuming Sanders actually shows up " in shape" which I realize is a rare occurrence, then I'd give him better than 5% odds. He was better in a head to head sense than his record shows. I actually enjoy watching some of his earlier prospect fights before he got flabby. Lot of potential there which unfortunately never developed.

Walcott faced much bigger punchers than Corrie on multiple occasions.

Didn't always beat them either. And power isn't the only thing he brings to the table.

That's true, but he took their punches for more than the 3 or 4 rounds that Corrie would be dangerous.