Classic forum's opinion:Corrie Sanders v. Cleveland Williams

Tough one to call. Williams is a favorite of mine and was a very explosive puncher. Sanders is also a huge, fast puncher, in fact these guys are two of the fastest punchers ever in my opinion.

I'm going to lean toward Williams, though. Neither mans durabity was great, but I don't see Williams getting stopped by Rahman or Nate Tubbs, and Williams took some big shots by Liston before he fell so he has the slight edge in durability.

It's hard to determine who is the better puncher between these two. Sanders KO of Wlad, among others is impressive. Williams stopped the durable Terrell and wobbled the hard to hurt Liston. Sanders probably has the edge in power.

The difference here is durability and stamina. Sanders stamina was never strong, he gassed against Vitali, and Williams was in better shape. He had a 7th round KO over the durable Terrell, and went the distance showing stamina against Machen, Terrell in the rematch so I favor Williams heavily if it goes past 6. Sanders never had the best chin, either, and in a toe to toe fight with a slugger like Williams that hurts.

My pick is Williams KO 7. Great fightband Williams probably gets dropped, but he gets up and is able to take out a tiring Sanders in the 7th.

 

I agree with much of what you say here, but just want to touch upon a few points.

1. Sanders was 38 years old and coming off of a 13 month layoff when he fought Vitali, yet still engaged in a competitive high paced fight for 8 rounds. Therefore, I'm not sure that we can accurately use this as an example to say that his stamina was poor.

2. Cleveland Williams did indeed beat Terrell, but it was a green version and he actually lost in the rematch.

3. Sanders lost to Nate Tubbs when he was 23-0, but Williams was 27-0 when he lost to a 7-3 nobody named Sylvester Jones. He was also KO'd in three by the much smaller and older Bob Satterfield.

4. He took some hard shots from Liston as you say, but still only lasted a combined 5 rounds in two fights.

5. Sanders only real bad loss was to Nate Tubbs in my opinion, and let's face it, Tubbs was a much bigger heavyweight than a lot of the guys who beat Williams ( not that it counts for everything. ) His last defeat came against an obscure nobody, but he was 41 years old and more or less semi-retired when it happened. The only other two losses are against prime versions of Vitali Klitschko and Hasim Rahman in competitve fights. Sanders' win over Wlad is arguably better than anything Williams ever did too.

I don't know who wins this fight, but frankly I don't feel that Williams' career was all that impressive. I think that he receives a lot of extra points for having his name associated with great fighters who BEAT HIM, and not necessarily for beating great fighters himself. He also gets some sympathy points for the gunshot tradjedy, which I agree destroyed whatever he may have had left, but don't feel that he was on his way to being a great fighter anyway... Now, Corries Sanders is not what I call a great fighter either, but again his win over Wlad was huge and is credited by a lot of fans and experts as having a lot of natural ability with his fast hands, power, etc. He also retired with a very good record of 42-4-0-31, and has claim to have fought in an era where heavyweights are on average, bigger men. Williams was a large man fighting in an era of smaller heavyweights and still did not rise among the cream of the crop. These things need to be taken into account.

 

It was a fast paced beating from about the 2nd round onwards though. He did always lack stamina, partly because he didn't take boxing very seriously.

I wouldn't say Terrell was green. The rematch was just a year later and it went to a split decision which the newspapers scored for Cleveland Williams.

Williams however was just 20 years of age and 2 years of experience as a pro when he fought Jones and Satterfield while Sanders was 28 and had fought for 5 years as a pro.

Tubbs was a big guy because he had even more of an eating habit than his more known brother Tony. He weighed just 205 lbs early in his career.

Neither had all that impressive careers despite their potential. Williams fought more top opposition but Sanders had the big win over Wlad.

 

Fair enough on all points. I'm not looking for an all out debate on who would win between Corrie Sanders and Cleveland Williams, but I just don't see Williams as being that impressive neither on film nor on paper. Maybe he would have beaten Sanders, then again he may not have.

 

I think he looks fairly impressive.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWbpM99wD2M

 

Yes but I don't think many fighters in history would of lasted longer against a prime Liston if they actually tried to win like Williams did.

Liston was a monster puncher and was hitting him with everything at the end, anybody would of went down. It's not a big blow to his durability, not like getting stopped by Nate Tubbs by comparison.

 

Prime for prime? Sanders hands down. Im not going with this pick just because Sanders beat down Wlad and so he must be some sort of boxing God like many make that feat out to be due to Wlad supposedly being the best thing since sliced bread (newsflash, he's not), but I will admit that he had some pretty damn fast hands for such a big guy, and he could punch like hell too. If he had dedicated himself a bit more to the sport, he could have gone so much farther, not to diminish what he has already accomplished. Williams was a good fighter, but I think that Sanders' speed and punch power would eventually make Williams succumb in the middle rounds, let's say 5th or 6th.

 

why the myth/legend of sanders is becuase he has everything.

tall, fast hands, hard hitter with both hands, loads of skills, southpaw, decent enough chin.

i feel that williams would lose badly, outboxed and stopped.



but in practice a williams right hand follwed by a left hook as corrie is circling to his right gets sparked.


but corrie has the better resume and all the advantages. really a pickem fight on who do you think is the better fighter and both guys have winning attributes.


my only reason i'm not sure about is williams gonna work well under a southpaw?

 

Sanders too fast hard hitting of a southpaw...thing with him sometimes came into the ring in poor condition...did not run for the Rahman fight...Williams was better conditioned but slow ....I favor Sanders by a KO

 

Don't know enough about Sanders other than what I read here.Prime Williams lost badly to prime Liston twice,would Sanders do better?Willams was stopped three times,before he was shot,and got blasted out by guys like Mac Foster,Al (blue) Lewis way past his prime.But the Big Cat could hit,and you better see straight or you will be flat fighting this guy.He could box, as he drew with Eddie Machen.I would favor Williams,but I am partial to the Big Cat.

 

I think it's close to a coin toss. Sanders has a somewhat better resume, both aren't the most durable guys in the world, both can punch like hell and are big men. Whoever lands first.

 

A match like this could go either way. Both guys like to go to war early, but when I watch the flims, I think Sanders is much faster and hits a little harder. He also has a style advantage as he is a southpaw and the Big Cat was not known for his defense.

I would tend to think Sanders might have the better chin by a small margin as well.

Best guess is Sanders via early KO. I think he would land his best stuff first. In fact Sanders landed his best stuff first in nearly every fight he had, including his biggest fights vs the Klitschko's, Rhaman, Cooper, Sprot, and Valdes.