Tokyo Buster Douglas vs. Hannover Corrie Sanders.

What I read here is that Sanders was quite able to fall back on his superior boxing skills if his opponent survived the carpet bombing that he brought early on.

 

Douglas would stop him but Sanders would be a live one.

 

Like he did against Rahman and Vitali, lol?

You’re basically hanging your hat on decision wins over Ice Cole, Ross Puritty and Johnny Nelson. Corrie never beat a contender-level guy by decision.

Although tbf, he never beat ANY contender-level guy apart from Wlad.

 

Stop pretending Sanders wasn't beaten by the much inferior Rahman when he was in much better prime than he was in Hanover .

Bust boxed a clinic in Japan that would beat many men better than past prime German Sanders.

The first 1 - 2 Sanders gets popped with takes him out.

 

His knees were shot in the Rahman fight and he turned up looking like Moby Dick against Vitali. His fault, he should have pulled out.

Sanders knocked Cole out. Puritty has wins over Hipp, Gonzales and Wlad, he's clearly a high level guy. Nelson was a former champion. Sounds like you are annoyed that he knocked guys out fast instead of going the distance.

 

My thoughts exactly . Buster Douglas is the poster child for ATG ability
with half hearted mentality.
He put it all together for one night in his career . His night in Tokyo
would've been a tough fight for many ATG'S in history.
Sanders night against the sometimes inconsistent Klitschko
doesn't equal Douglas's night against Tyson.
Tyson, even at that point of his career was still better
than Klitschko.

 

Rahman never quit like Douglas did against Monaco, Holyfield, and possibly Tucker.

 

What part of "Tokyo" Douglas do you not understand?

 

Ah yes, the theory that athletes exist in entirely different embodiments, day to day, moment to moment.

It’s closer to religious theory than scientific fact. It’s odd that you assume I subscribe to the former.

 

Unless Corrie knocks out Douglas early on, he’s getting outboxed and stopped. His conditioning sucks and his chin and defence were far from reliable.

 

That’s exactly how it is. I’m not an athlete, but one day I have motivation, and the next I don’t. One day I can swim almost the entire length of the pool underwater (I have a lung condition), and the next I can’t even make it halfway. One day I sleep eight hours, the next only three. The same applies to athletes.
Michael Jordan scored over 40 points in one game, yet in the next—against a weaker team—he scored less than 20. Leo Messi scored a hat-trick in one match but couldn't hit the target in the next. Usain Bolt dominated the track for a decade, yet during one year of that decade, he couldn't even crack the top ten. How many gold medals did Mark Spitz win after Munich?
A drop in form is more dramatic in boxing—and combat sports in general—than in other disciplines. Just look at what suddenly happened to Fedor Emelianenko; he seemed invincible.
Anyone who thinks the same Douglas stepped into the ring against Holyfield as the one who fought Tyson simply isn't being objective. Buster was known for his inconsistency; that’s just how some people are.

 

Yeah, I got Johnny Nelson and Cole confused.

So you’re claiming Sanders was a versatile boxer-puncher who could outbox a Buster Douglas if the early blitz didn’t get Buster out of there. And you’re basing this on decisions over a reluctant, take-no-chances cruiser (Nelson) and a journeyman (Puritty, who had a few nice durability, outlast-the-opponent wins but also got outpointed by so-so guys like Michael Grant and Kirk Johnson and Larry Donald and Elisier Castillo).

Nah, against Tokyo Douglas the only way one-hit-wonder Corrie wins is by early blitz.

(Don’t make me play the Nate Tubbs card!)

 

Or maybe the multiverse theory is true and Buster Douglas exists in infinite carnations of varying skill and will power.

 

Sanders has the style to really pose issues even for this version of Douglas.

Douglas was better when he could box, use his jab and keep them at range.

Sanders would be able to hit Douglas at range, and he’s much quicker and more explosive. Early on, there’s not much Douglas could do against Sanders at range.

If he could get past the mid-point of the fight, he has more of a chance, but still not guaranteed.

It’s not like he can get underneath Sanders and close the distance quick, that wasn’t his game. He’d be forced to battle with Sanders on the outside, standing straight up against that left down the pipe from Sanders, and even if Douglas has better fundamentals, it wouldn’t matter.

Sanders would be able to ignore the feints, Douglas’ measuring/pawing etc, because it comes down to the fact that when they both throw, Sanders will get there quicker. Pawing/ measuring etc can work and help you get your hand subtly closer to land, but when your opponent can also throw straight punches with lightning speed much faster than you, and with a larger reach, it really doesn’t matter.

An example here could be Zhang vs Joyce, Joyce had decent fundamentals, but he just couldn’t beat Zhang to the punch, so it didn’t matter.

Sanders would be able to ‘just throw’ the straight punches against Douglas without over complicating it or having to use genius IQ set ups, because of that athletic and explosiveness advantage combined with the attributes that allow him to beat Douglas at his own game.

An example for this style matchup would be that Sanders could very well beat Douglas, Douglas would beat Mercer, but Mercer would beat Sanders.

 

Both those guys were easily "contender level". There are also a bunch of other former champions or guys who fought in championship fights that Sanders blew up. He was certainly a boxer-puncher before he decided that going many rounds was a waste of his time. Whereas in real life Douglas usually lost every time he stepped up in class. Douglas had a bunch of fights where he barely beat very unremarkable opposition.