Earnie Shavers vs. Corrie Sanders

Pretty much sums it up.

I picked Sanders earlier but betting on this fight would just be stupid.

 

Agreed. Though I favor Sanders, I wouldn't put any money on it.

 

could go either way quick - I would only bet on a KO before 5

 

Haven't watched Sanders-Tubbs. Earnie dropped the ball on quite a few occasions himself. I would tentatively put my money on Sanders, all present knowledge considered.

 

Withheld from voting. Now inclined to change my stance best-for-best.

 

If Shavers can put prime Holmes down twice , he puts Sanders away for the count.

Povetkin is a modern day Shavers only with slower feet and who's going to pick Sanders to beat Povetkin ??

 

Povetkin is a lot more skilled than Shavers ever was.

 

I like Earnie to flatten him ..

 

Hard pick. Sanders got Ko'd with one punch from Nate Tubbs when he was approaching prime which on the surface would make this a slam dunk win for Earnie.... But then we look at how quickly the much smaller Quarry dispatched him in one round along with other performances like the stallings match.. I don't think theres any clear favorite in my eyes. Whoever has the better start is the man who wins and that can be either of them on any given night.

 

Sanders should take this. Good lateral movement, faster hands and a killer straight left. He was especially good when counterpunching guys who tried to wind up for big shots. That said, Shavers' power is legendary and there would be very few heavies I'd say he has zero chance against.

 

This is sort of the difference maker for me....I have complete faith that Sanders would be able to find Shavers, but not the other way around. So Shavers would likely need to outlast Sanders in a seesaw battle like the Rahman fight whereas Sanders might just blast through him. I think that favors Corrie.

 

[obvious salt] "Quarry is a thousand times better than Nate Tubs"

Are Stan Johnson, Ron Stander, Bob Stallings, Walter Santemore, George Chaplin a thousand times better than Nate Tubbs?

Some of those guys have losing records, and Shavers lost to them. :-(

 

Objective post. Seemingly nobody "liked" Sanders before
the wladimir fight but after this pathetic wladimir loss corrie
is a god.Tricky i can say.

 

[obvious salt] "That's fair, but losing to Nate is a bigger disgrace than losing to Jerry."

I never denied that, and Quarry was a good fighter. Tubbs was getting his pants boxed off by Corrie but Nate scored a hail mary punch (Sanders' fault, he wasn't paying attention) and that's part of the reason Shavers should have a reasonable chance against Sanders. If anybody can score a 1 punch KO, it is him.

[obvious salt] "Shavers was ancient against Walter and Chaplin"

Shavers was 37 against Walter Santemore and 38 against George Chaplin. When Sanders was 37 and 38 he fought and beat Wlad Klitschko and went 8 rounds with Vitali Klitschko. Nowadays *that* version gets called "prime Sanders" which I feel is unfair. Prime Sanders was a LOT more mobile, had good stamina and an excellent rapid fire jab that he often threw in doubles and triples. He should rightly be favoured over Shavers.

 

[HerolGee] "In direct contrast corrie NEVER was good enough to get a title shot"

:roll: Seems like somebody is still under the impression that in boxing champions actually try and fight the best opponents instead of cashing in on the biggest and safest paydays ... that said, I agree that Sanders was supposed to crumble before Wlad. He got a shot *because* he was 37.

Sanders just about begged folks for title shots. But Lewis, Tyson, Holyfield, RJJ always had something better to do. And from a business perspective it makes sense. Why fight a dangerous boxer-puncher who has a reputation for putting tough guys away early for peanuts, when you can fight some less dangerous opponent for more? :?