BoxRec

Floyd is clearly the more accomplished fighter, and it's not even close. His main weakness though is well documented and we all know Corrie Sanders packed a hell of a shot. Corrie's stamina was his weakness but he packed a hell of a punch in the early going. Does Corrie get it done? Or does Floyd survive his early attack and get the W?

Floyd by late TKO or wide decision. Too fast and too well conditioned.

if they met 10 times
sanders would catch him at least once and win
but over all i think floyd survives the initial attack and
earns a decision the majority of the time

MEISINGER wrote:if they met 10 times
sanders would catch him at least once and win
but over all i think floyd survives the initial attack and
earns a decision the majority of the time

That's the way I see it too.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Floyd by late TKO or wide decision. Too fast and too well conditioned.

Sanders doesn't have the one-shot power Ingo did. He may stun or drop Patterson early but Corrie's stamina even in at his peak was always atrocious, and by round 3 Floyd would be beating him up. I don't see Sanders lasting past 5.

Sorry folks, but as much as I've come to greatly admire Patterson over t of the man in action he years of reading every book & magazine that I could get my hands on with info/stories/detailed fight reports about him, as well as watching a fairly high volume of fight videos of the former two time champion in action, methinks that the vast majority of you are severely under estimating the rather distinct advantages that Corrie Sanders would have had over Floyd.
Not only was he a much larger man, but he was often overlooked in the power department. He could be a virtual wrecking machine at times, especially considering how said power punching was so effectively delivered from the southpaw stance via a pair of VERY quick hands. All of which made Sanders a very difficult, dangerous opponent for ANY heavyweight to deal with.
Especially a diminutive, blown up 175 pounder like Patterson.
Had they met, unfortunately I'm confident that Sanders would have KO'd Patterson inside of five, maybe six rounds.

I'm confident that a man who could go 19 with Muhammad Ali, beat Jerry Quarry (first fight), Oscar Bonavena, George Chuvalo, Eddie Machen, Jimmy Ellis, Archie Moore, facedown poleaxe Henry Cooper and put Ingo Johansson into a long deep sleep is going to hit too hard, too fast, and be way too physically fit over 15 rds for Corrie Sanders, who would run out of steam after 7 or 8 when being hit back.

I love Corrie and his wasting Wladimir was a huge thrill, but he's not going to find Floyd such an easy target and he will certainly get hit back, to the head and belly, by those digging, blurring knockout combos.

Sorry 'Bluerosekiller', Sanders is not Sonny. Floyd by clean KO round 5 or possibly 6 if Floyd is cautious.

foxy01 wrote:Sanders DEFINITELY had faster hands than Liston, with as much power if not more. Also as you say coming from the southpaw stance. Says it all for me.

Sanders inside a round, every time they meet. Not because he is the better fighter, just too big, too fast handed, and too dangerous in the early going.

Well I agree that Sanders had faster hands, but I think he really doesn't belong in the same sentence as Sonny. Sanders lacked conditioning, focus and most of all experience. While Sonny pretty much cleaned out the division prior to winning the title Sanders fought exactly three world class HWs and two of them beat him. And in boxing there is no substitute for experience.

Sanders would have been a dangerous opponent for anyone with less than a solid chin, but if Rahman could survive Sanders, I feel pretty confident that the much more talented and experienced Patterson could as well.

foxy01 wrote: Sanders DEFINITELY had faster hands than Liston, with as much power if not more. Also as you say coming from the southpaw stance. Says it all for me.

Sanders inside a round, every time they meet. Not because he is the better fighter, just too big, too fast handed, and too dangerous in the early going.

foxy01 wrote:

bluerosekiller wrote:Sorry folks, but as much as I've come to greatly admire Patterson over t of the man in action he years of reading every book & magazine that I could get my hands on with info/stories/detailed fight reports about him, as well as watching a fairly high volume of fight videos of the former two time champion in action, methinks that the vast majority of you are severely under estimating the rather distinct advantages that Corrie Sanders would have had over Floyd.
Not only was he a much larger man, but he was often overlooked in the power department. He could be a virtual wrecking machine at times, especially considering how said power punching was so effectively delivered from the southpaw stance via a pair of VERY quick hands. All of which made Sanders a very difficult, dangerous opponent for ANY heavyweight to deal with.
Especially a diminutive, blown up 175 pounder like Patterson.
Had they met, unfortunately I'm confident that Sanders would have KO'd Patterson inside of five, maybe six rounds.

Sanders DEFINITELY had faster hands than Liston, with as much power if not more. Also as you say coming from the southpaw stance. Says it all for me.

Sanders inside a round, every time they meet. Not because he is the better fighter, just too big, too fast handed, and too dangerous in the early going.

To say Sanders had as much power as Liston is absurd. Who did Sanders ever take out who could be described as even semi-durable? And don't say Sprott as that was a horrible stoppage. Possibly Al Cole but Cole never showed a solid chin at heavyweight. I don't think Sander's straight left was any harder than Jimmy Ellis's straight right or Jerry Quarry's left hook, let alone any punch from Liston. Corrie had some power but I can't even remember one knockout where he took a guy out with one shot. He'd "stun" them with the straight left they didn't see coming and then take them out with barrages of shots.
And the calibre of his victims was overall very poor. Sanders seems to have gotten almost as much mythologizing as Ike Ibeabuchi. Sander's own chin was not very good, as I mentioned he had atrocious stamina, and overall his boxing skills, while solid from his AM background, were nothing to write home about, especially his defense, and he mainly relied on his God-given athleticism.

dempseyfire wrote:To say Sanders had as much power as Liston is absurd. Who did Sanders ever take out who could be described as even semi-durable? And don't say Sprott as that was a horrible stoppage. Possibly Al Cole but Cole never showed a solid chin at heavyweight. I don't think Sander's straight left was any harder than Jimmy Ellis's straight right or Jerry Quarry's left hook, let alone any punch from Liston. Corrie had some power but I can't even remember one knockout where he took a guy out with one shot. He'd "stun" them with the straight left they didn't see coming and then take them out with barrages of shots.
And the calibre of his victims was overall very poor. Sanders seems to have gotten almost as much mythologizing as Ike Ibeabuchi. Sander's own chin was not very good, as I mentioned he had atrocious stamina, and overall his boxing skills, while solid from his AM background, were nothing to write home about, especially his defense, and he mainly relied on his God-given athleticism.

Well, I've also heard that he had a very good touch around the greens.

The Great John L wrote:

dempseyfire wrote:To say Sanders had as much power as Liston is absurd. Who did Sanders ever take out who could be described as even semi-durable? And don't say Sprott as that was a horrible stoppage. Possibly Al Cole but Cole never showed a solid chin at heavyweight. I don't think Sander's straight left was any harder than Jimmy Ellis's straight right or Jerry Quarry's left hook, let alone any punch from Liston. Corrie had some power but I can't even remember one knockout where he took a guy out with one shot. He'd "stun" them with the straight left they didn't see coming and then take them out with barrages of shots.
And the calibre of his victims was overall very poor. Sanders seems to have gotten almost as much mythologizing as Ike Ibeabuchi. Sander's own chin was not very good, as I mentioned he had atrocious stamina, and overall his boxing skills, while solid from his AM background, were nothing to write home about, especially his defense, and he mainly relied on his God-given athleticism.

Well, I've also heard that he had a very good touch around the greens.

Too bad he didn't concentrate more on his boxing.

Wow, Foxy, you really are fixated on weight.

How come Corrie didn't bludgeon the 200lb Mike Dixon? Using your weird logic he should have blitzed him in 1 round. I watched that fight, Sanders couldn't budge him or beat him up at all.

And if size wins out over talent, how come John Ruiz lost widely to Roy Jones?

How come a "pumped up 175pounder" Jack Dempsey was able to waste, crush, annihilate a gargantuan tough guy in Jess Willard, breaking his skull in the process?

How come Joe Louis, a 6ft 200lb man was able to paralyse and flatten 6'6', 260lb dreadnaughts like B Baer, Abe Simon and Primo?

How come Nikolay Valuev lost to Haye, Holyfield, Chagae, Donald?

How come Floyd Patterson beat nearly everyone he faced, when they were all bigger than him?

That 'talent' thing is a bit more important than size. For all his extra weight, flab, power, whatever you want to label it, Corrie gassed against a musclebound Hasim Rahman, who himself was famed for poor stamina and fading. That is abysmal.

Wouldn't like to be 230lb of muscle or fat, with heavy arms and a pounding heart and my jaw hanging open and having a 190lb prime specimen puncher whaling on me. That's only going to end one way.

Those are are the kind of examples that for some reason people just seem to overlook.

I agree that size can be advantage, but it's not the end all be all. Has ther ever been a time in history where the best heavyweight was the biggeest heavyweight?

Size doesn't even mean you are a big puncher. Lance Whitaker, Tony Tubbs, Buster Mathis were all big and had little power.

Take out Liston and Ali out of the equation, and Patterson never lost to anyone over 200 pounds. He beat Johannson, Chuvalo, and at the age of 37, Bonavena.

Ambling Alp II wrote:Those are are the kind of examples that for some reason people just seem to overlook.

I agree that size can be advantage, but it's not the end all be all. Has ther ever been a time in history where the best heavyweight was the biggeest heavyweight?

Size doesn't even mean you are a big puncher. Lance Whitaker, Tony Tubbs, Buster Mathis were all big and had little power.

Take out Liston and Ali out of the equation, and Patterson never lost to anyone over 200 pounds. He beat Johannson, Chuvalo, and at the age of 37, Bonavena.

Valuev wasn't a huge puncher, either.

Sanders also wasn't a huge HW. Tall at 6'4 but in the 220s he was soft and had a belly. His peak weight was around 210-215; he was no super-HW.

dempseyfire wrote:Sanders also wasn't a huge HW. Tall at 6'4 but in the 220s he was soft and had a belly. His peak weight was around 210-215; he was no super-HW.

And even at 215, such as when he starched DuPlooy, he did not look good. For Sander's body to show definition, and look like something we would describe as a peak athletic condition, suitable for 15 rd warfare, Sanders looks like he would have to come in around 205lbs.

He wouldn't have gassed against Rahman and Vitali in that kind of immaculate shape. And his innate, natural born punch power would still be terrific - and he'd be able to throw more rather than waddle around & potshot.

This modern culture of coming in super-heavy and making things a 'power contest' would be a handicap for a fighter if he tried implement it in the 50s, 60s, 70s etc. I mean, if you're power 'advantage' didn't end the fight in round one or two, you're looking at a long night of hauling your mass around against a sprightly, comparatively fast-moving, hard-hitting opponent who's not going to let you lean, maul or coast.

I can honestly see a tiring Corrie getting laid out cold by Floyd, like when Nate Tubbs planted one square on his chops.

I'd be highly surprised if Sanders landed anything big on Floyd. I wouldn't expect any knockdowns until Floyd started ripping into him when he was too tired to punch back. After about 15 minutes.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I'd be highly surprised if Sanders landed anything big on Floyd. I wouldn't expect any knockdowns until Floyd started ripping into him when he was too tired to punch back. After about 15 minutes.

I think more like 7 minutes. Fighting a quick-burst, herky jerky fighter like Patterson would be more tiring than fighting a plodder like Rahman, even given Hasim's superior strength (and I don't remember many clinches in the Sanders-Rahman fight)

Yeah, this is a borderline mismatch. I know patterson's chin woes are greatly exaggerated, but when did he become this easy to hit?

BTW, just in case anyone is trying to draw off of the Ingo fights. He would have demolished Sanders.

Ingo's Bingo would have laid Corrie out in 1.

It's always revealing when a man outvoted and outwitted resorts to name-calling, swearing and making pejorative remarks about what country people are from instead of being man enough to admit he's beaten.

It's interesting how you like to refer to accomplished fighting men as 'nobodies', 'flies', and find the image of heroic boxing legends 'driven into the canvas' "funny".

I'd take the heart, talent and life accomplishments of any of the men you've made your snide, snivelling little comments about over your life accomplishments. And the thing is, so would you. Clearly.

And that's from an English Man.

loaded_gloves wrote:It's always revealing when a man outvoted and outwitted resorts to name-calling, swearing and making pejorative remarks about what country people are from instead of being man enough to admit he's beaten.

It's interesting how you like to refer to accomplished fighting men as 'nobodies', 'flies', and find the image of heroic boxing legends 'driven into the canvas' "funny".

I'd take the heart, talent and life accomplishments of any of the men you've made your snide, snivelling little comments about over your life accomplishments. And the thing is, so would you. Clearly.

And that's from an English Man.

You're much better off ignoring the troll.

Yep, I've read his response, and checked out his work on some other threads, and come to the realisation that he is a full on, boiled brain, frothing at the mouth troll. One of those trolls that don't even realise they're a troll.

When the logic you employ is 'Nate Tubbs is 260lb therefore he is a bigger puncher than Floyd Patterson', as if being morbidly obese ever made anyone a better fighter or puncher, you're a troll.

Hopefully we can now starve him off.