BoxRec

...and he had won 196 out of 200 amateur fights.
Thats not exactly chopped liver !

Corrie Sanders wasn't a very versatile or very good boxer... He was good against one great opponent who had great flaws at the time he fought Saunders... It so happened Sanders' left hand ripped straight through Wladimir's defense... Sanders was a tough brawler and a hard puncher... He had speed, size, height, and great toughness... He said Hasim Rahman was getting worn down from punching his gloves and he knew Rahman was getting tired... The referee stopped it but "never once told me I had to punch back. Ali didn't punch back for a lot longer and they didn't stop it. I had Rahman down earlier and knew I had him beat. I didn't have a mark on me. I suppose if I trained differently and ran I would have been able to sustain a harder pace. That was my biggest mistake with my career. I never took boxing seriously. I didn't think I could beat Klitschko until Lennox Lewis called me. He said Wladimir was scared to death of punchers and I should attack him hard. That gave me a lot of confidence. I tore after Klitschko with everything I had and finished him off quickly. The fight played out like Lewis said it would. I'm still amazed by my performance."

Ambling Alp II wrote:Well, first of all I don't think Klitschko was that good and have said so many times. The great Ross Purrity stopped him as did Lamon Brewster. Samuel Peter almost did. Don't see too many people saying they were really good fighters like people do with Sanders.

However, it is fair to say that Sanders looked good in that fight. Still, he only had really three fights in his career that were against top fighters of his era. The other two were against the other Kltischko and Rahman. Both of them had severe limitations but each still stopped Sanders.

He spent most of the rest of his career fighting weak competition. The other wins are almost meaningless when trying to make a case that he was a really good fighter. You simply don't have to be that good to beat the fighters that Sanders beat. Getting ko'd by Nate Tubbs is pretty embarrassing and severely hurts his case as well.

I can see why someone would be a fan of his. That's fine. I like other fighters throughout boxing history who were far from legends. However, what is silly is to think that Sanders was actually that good. He simply wasn't.

He spent the rest of his career fighting weak opposition because because he was forty years old and after taking a beating from Vitali basically fell off the world scene. Those last few fights were irrelevant. You can downplay his win over Wlad all you want but the fact is, Klit was the #1 contender in the world, heavily favored to kill Sanders and later went on to being in a lot people's top 10-15. His lackluster career was the result of bad management and squandered talent. But the abilities were definitely there.

If you say so.

We should do a 15 page thread on how amazing Rahman would have been if he started Boxing before his 20's and always stayed in shape. Beating the amazing Corrie sanders like he did, schooling Tua twice and stopping Lewis is a lot to start with before the excuses.

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Well, first of all I don't think Klitschko was that good and have said so many times. The great Ross Purrity stopped him as did Lamon Brewster. Samuel Peter almost did. Don't see too many people saying they were really good fighters like people do with Sanders.

However, it is fair to say that Sanders looked good in that fight. Still, he only had really three fights in his career that were against top fighters of his era. The other two were against the other Kltischko and Rahman. Both of them had severe limitations but each still stopped Sanders.

He spent most of the rest of his career fighting weak competition. The other wins are almost meaningless when trying to make a case that he was a really good fighter. You simply don't have to be that good to beat the fighters that Sanders beat. Getting ko'd by Nate Tubbs is pretty embarrassing and severely hurts his case as well.

I can see why someone would be a fan of his. That's fine. I like other fighters throughout boxing history who were far from legends. However, what is silly is to think that Sanders was actually that good. He simply wasn't.

He spent the rest of his career fighting weak opposition because because he was forty years old and after taking a beating from Vitali basically fell off the world scene. Those last few fights were irrelevant. You can downplay his win over Wlad all you want but the fact is, Klit was the #1 contender in the world, heavily favored to kill Sanders and later went on to being in a lot people's top 10-15. His lackluster career was the result of bad management and squandered talent. But the abilities were definitely there.

He spent almost his entire career fighting weak opposition, not just the end.
He had three fights in his career against decent competition and he lost two of them.
He also has an embarrassing ko loss against a nobody.

Yes, there are people whom don't know the history of boxing who do have Klitschko in their top 10-15. He wasn't anywhere close to that.
There are plenty of other guys with one big win as well that seldom get mentioned.

You want to given Sanders credit for the win over Klitschko, fine. However, there isn't much else.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

drunkenpiper36 wrote:

Ambling Alp II wrote:Well, first of all I don't think Klitschko was that good and have said so many times. The great Ross Purrity stopped him as did Lamon Brewster. Samuel Peter almost did. Don't see too many people saying they were really good fighters like people do with Sanders.

However, it is fair to say that Sanders looked good in that fight. Still, he only had really three fights in his career that were against top fighters of his era. The other two were against the other Kltischko and Rahman. Both of them had severe limitations but each still stopped Sanders.

He spent most of the rest of his career fighting weak competition. The other wins are almost meaningless when trying to make a case that he was a really good fighter. You simply don't have to be that good to beat the fighters that Sanders beat. Getting ko'd by Nate Tubbs is pretty embarrassing and severely hurts his case as well.

I can see why someone would be a fan of his. That's fine. I like other fighters throughout boxing history who were far from legends. However, what is silly is to think that Sanders was actually that good. He simply wasn't.

He spent the rest of his career fighting weak opposition because because he was forty years old and after taking a beating from Vitali basically fell off the world scene. Those last few fights were irrelevant. You can downplay his win over Wlad all you want but the fact is, Klit was the #1 contender in the world, heavily favored to kill Sanders and later went on to being in a lot people's top 10-15. His lackluster career was the result of bad management and squandered talent. But the abilities were definitely there.

He spent almost his entire career fighting weak opposition, not just the end.
He had three fights in his career against decent competition and he lost two of them.
He also has an embarrassing ko loss against a nobody.

Yes, there are people whom don't know the history of boxing who do have Klitschko in their top 10-15. He wasn't anywhere close to that.
There are plenty of other guys with one big win as well that seldom get mentioned.

You want to given Sanders credit for the win over Klitschko, fine. However, there isn't much else.

Talent is talent.. And if you watch some of his fights ( and not just highlight reels of him getting KTFO ) you'd see that. His record is thin of elite opponents, largely due to him being avoided by others, but let's not pretend he fought 45 guys who were all 0-5.

anyone know if the Corrie Sanders vrs Johnny Nelson bout from October 1992 was televised ?

..and who knows if Corrie Sanders had been a last minute replacement of Michael Moorer
to fight for the heavyweight championship in April 1994 ,maybe this would have happened in a similiar manner (but also perhaps not)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oznf4AqejJc

Yeah, who knows. I think this has been beat to death.

He could have been a contender.

BoxBuzz wrote:He could have been a contender.

..and you sir, could have been a "somebody"
you couldhave had "class"
and not just a bum.
because ...let's face it.

Caractacus wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:He could have been a contender.

..and you sir, could have been a "somebody"
you couldhave had "class"
and not just a bum.
because ...let's face it.

now now, let's not give in to the temptations of negativity and overly generalized stereotypes.

.. and just try to imagine if Corrie Sanders had acsess to a Time Machine and was able to travel back to the year 1970
and into the crowd of Joe Frazier vrs Terry Daniels for the Heavyweight championship.
However Daniels (for whatever reason was a no show and Sanders volunteers from the audience (if his boxing gear in his bag)to take his place.Could this have concievenbly have happen ?
(or perhaps maybe not, you be the judge).


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQML8576KLA

I'm just trying to imagine this thread dying.

[quote="Ambling Alp II] there are people whom don't know the history of boxing who do have Klitschko in their top 10-15. He wasn't anywhere close to that [/quote]

Klitschko had some of the same weakness Ali had... i.e. instead of fighting inside and executing a body attack like Anthony Joshua does so well, they both clinched and grabbed endlessly and held on the inside. Joshua would beat a prime Klitschko---but that Wladimir absorbed Emmanuel Steward's teachings, his finished jab, footwork, straight right, and defense, would have him easily beating anyone from the 1970's.

Is there any evidence that Corrie Sanders was avoided by anybody? I don't recall anyone avoiding him at all. I do remember that any time he was placed on an important card (Dixon, Lane, Weathers etc) he failed to impress. His team could never seem to make him a factor, and being knocked out by Tubbs and Rahman didn't help his image.

So why didnt he ever get a shot at the Heavyweight title in his prime then ?
BTW he defeated all of those first guys you mentioned.
He was knocked out by a 'freak"punch by Tubbs,
and almost had Hasim Rachman knockouted out before he lost his momentum.
what fight were you watching ?

The "Sniper" shows his mettle in this one.check it out !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbfCAwL3Euo

Corrie Sanders would have surely wrecked Joe Frazier. He handled the only left thrown by Weathers @ 1:21 in a superb way. Quite the whiskers.

Jaywheel wrote:Corrie Sanders would have surely wrecked Joe Frazier. He handled the only left thrown by Weathers @ 1:21 in a superb way. Quite the whiskers.

Thats what you call an overhand left.
(Weathers was a southpaw too)
Which by the way landed FLUSH on Corrie Sanders right mandible and looked like it may have had more on it possibly then the overhand rights thrown by Earnie Shavers and Renaldo Snipes
that decked Larry Holmes (combined).

You could say Sanders weathered that overhand left from
Weathers well. But could he have handled Carl Weathers?

Cutman Scabbers wrote:You could say Sanders weathered that overhand left from
Weathers well. But could he have handled Carl Weathers?

imop Certainly,, he would have just "Weathered" him away by the sixth round.

BTW Im not sure if there is any truth to the rumour that his manager had given him the nick name of
Arthur "Stormy" Weathers

also I am not a lip reader but Weathers seems to be saying to the ref
"Im still getting paid for this right ?"

Caractacus wrote:BTW Im not sure if there is any truth to the rumour that his manager had given him the nick name of
Arthur "Stormy" Weathers

also I am not a lip reader but Weathers seems to be saying to the ref
"Im still getting paid for this right ?"

Maybe that's why he fought Corey Sanders -- thought it was a rematch!

By the way, anyone know the stories of Corrie Sanders' last four bouts?