Corrie Sanders, boxing's Unicorn.

The only clowns around here are the ones who think Byrd stops a prime jesse Ferguson. Such clowns have no place on any forum, never mind the classic section.

Sent from my E2303 using Tapatalk

 

Look, we've all seen how fighters' careers can completely stall when they have problems with their promoters and managers. Or, frankly, when promoters and managers just make bad choices for the fighters.

You only have to look as far as Andre Ward to see how even a guy who is considered among the very best in the entire sport can completely stutter and stop when there are promotional and managerial problems.

Sanders got off to a great start in his career. He was moving quickly in South Africa, which in the late 80s and early 90s was basically its own league of sorts ... with its own top heavyweights and its own titles.

Then he started fighting the "usual suspects" from the U.S. and was doing great there, too. Sanders' success helped Kushner get other promising heavyweights and lighter weight boxers to sign with him. Even though there was absolutely NOTHING about Kushner that screamed PROMOTER. The guy was about as exciting as a blank wall. As soon as he opened his droopy mouth, he bored people to death.

Then there was Sanders' surprise shock upset KO by Nate Tubbs. And Kushner just sort of moved on from Sanders and focused on the other fighters he'd signed.

In 1998 and 1999, Sanders had one fight scheduled a year.

Meanwhile, Kushner focused on guys like Rahman and Manfredy and the guys coming up on his Heavyweight Explosion cards.

If you look at their records from that period, Hasim Rahman fought many of the same guys Sanders did. And one could argue if a 30-year-old Corrie Sanders had fought Maskaev and Tua, he might not have been stopped like Rahman was.

But Kushner seemed to have given up on Sanders. Then Kushner got Sanders a vacant WBU title fight. The problem was if you won belts like that, you didn't tend to get ranked by other boxing orgs.

So, while Rahman was ranked by the WBC, WBA, IBF fighting the same guys Sanders was fighting. Sanders, the WBU beltholder, wasn't.

After Rahman got stopped a couple times, Kushner seemed to match Sanders and Rahman to decide who he'd move forward with. Rahman won a thriller (and Sanders was stopped for only the second time in his career), and that was about it for Sanders.

Sanders went back to having one fight in 2001. One fight in 2002. He was all but forgotten until Wlad, looking for an easy fight, chose the 37-year-old for a title defense.

IMO, there wasn't a whole helluva lot of difference between a guy like Rahman and a guy like Sanders. Rahman could've been whacked by someone like Nate Tubbs just as easily as Sanders was.

And it would've been Rahman fighting once a year for five years ... while Sanders got the opportunities against Tua, Maskaev and Lennox Lewis.

Sanders and Rahman fought many of the same guys, and they had the same promoter ... the promoter just chose to focus his attention on Rahman instead of Sanders. And Sanders lost most of his prime after a shocking loss because Kushner wouldn't get him fights and then he had Sanders fight for a meaningless belt that guaranteed he wouldn't be ranked by anyone - while Rahman was highly rated beating the same quality of opposition.

Kushner really wasn't a very good promoter at all. He certainly wasn't a good promoter of Sanders.

And most heavyweights back then had at least one shocking loss. Even Wlad.

 

BCBS, do you know the answer to this? Was Corrie being penciled in for a showdown with Lewis in South Africa before losing to Rahman? Rahman did knock Lewis out in SA after stopping Sanders.

 

Maybe Rahman beating Sanders had something to do with it.

 

Two things. One, that fight happened 11 YEARS into Sanders' career. Sanders had already been all but ignored by Kushner for many years before that.

Second, Kushner also promoted Maskaev. And Kushner didn't toss Rahman away when Maskaev punched Rahman out of the ring in their first fight. (Or toss Maskaev aside after he'd been knocked out by McCall, Tua, Kirk Johnson AND Lance Whitaker).

And, frankly, I never would've picked Maskaev over Sanders. Kushner never made that fight.

Whatever promotional mistakes you could make with a quality heavyweight, Kushner seemed to make them with Sanders.

 

That's only telling that Krusher thought of Sanders as an average contender with not much potential.

What mistakes did he make? Why invest in a guy who lost his biggest fights , was always in poor condition and showed no real interest in the game?

 

What?

The first 10 YEARS of Corrie Sanders' career, he was 36-1 with 31 knockouts. There were no BIG FIGHTS. And how many times did he enter the ring in poor condition in that decade to warrant ignoring him?

You're just talking out of your @ss now.

And I've pointed out his mistakes. Focusing on other heavyweights while giving Sanders one fight a year (against a nobody at that) year after year.

Putting Sanders in WBU title fights where he's guaranteed not to be ranked, while other heavyweights Kushner promoted were getting high ratings fighting the same calibre of fighter Sanders was.

Giving up on Sanders after one loss when he did NOT give up on the others.

Whether Kushner was trying to distance himself from his South African ties, because South Africa, even with Mandela at the helm, wasn't the best place to be tied to in the 1990s. Whether he signed too many boxers. Whether he simply wasn't bright enough to juggle more than a few careers at a time. Whatever it was, he dropped the ball with Sanders.

Kushner clearly wasn't very bright, because as soon as Rahman won something, King plucked him away rather easily. And then he did dump Maskaev and Sanders, and BOTH ended up winning titles after leaving him.

Kushner could've been in the heavyweight driver's seat for a number of years with Rahman, Maskaev and Sanders if he'd handled them properly. Kushner just wasn't very good at his job - particularly with Sanders.

 

Sanders was a non factor at the time. What reason did he have to put him on top of the pile? You can't say he was better than rahman , when he was beaten soundly by rahman.

he was given no chance whatsoever to beat wlad. that upset earned himself a status he didn't have during his time

 

Sanders was a "non-factor" because he wasn't rated. Why wasn't he rated? Because he had a WBU title.

Who were factors? Rahman was in the IBF top two when he fought Tua the first time in 1998? Who had he beaten? Marshall Tillman. Melvin Foster. Jeff Wooden. Ross Puritty.

Maskaev was rated in 1998. Who had he beaten? Nicolai Kulpin. Jeff Wooden. Fading Alex Stewart.

Michael Grant was a top contender in 1998. Who had he beaten? Al Cole. Ross Puritty. Jeff Wooden. Olian Alexander.

Sanders wasn't rated in 1998 by anyone BECAUSE he was the WBU champion. Who'd he beaten? Johnny DuPlooy, Bert Cooper, Al Cole. Ross Puritty. Marshall Tillman. Nicolai Kulpin. Olian Alexander. Mike Evans.

Sanders was just as much a factor as everyone else was ... he was just more easily ignored because had had a useless belt and was therefore unranked by the other sanctioning bodies.

Again. Poor career guidance. No WBU belt, Sanders is a highly rated contender along with everyone else who beat the same guys.

 

When did Team Tyson mention Sanders as a possible opponent?

Any source for this?

Because in 1990 when Tyson eventually lost his belts, Sanders was fighting the likes of Steve Zouski?

When Tyson was released from prison King orchestrated a 7 fight deal with Showtime worth $150m, Tyson held the belts in 96, Kings fight plan for Tyson had Holyfield on there, Mcall, Foreman, Morrison, Moorer and Briggs.

Sanders at this time was destroying Keith Fletcher, Curtis Shepherd, Sean Heart, Olian Alexander and Arthur Weathers.

In all my years, I've never come across any mention of Sanders as a potential opponent for Tyson while he was champion.

 

He should have dropped the WBU belt in that case. Like many guys drop the EBU belt to go for World honors.
You can call it 'poor guideline' but from many other accounts i heard about , he was only semi interested in the sport and had a greater passion for golf.
Perhaps Krusher was only playing with the cards he was dealt.

 

First, I never said he was better than Rahman. I said they were the same. (Or not a helluva lot of difference between them.)

Second, the Rahman-Sanders fight was a war., despite the fact that Sanders had been woefully inactive (thanks to Kushner) in the years leading up to that fight.

Third, styles make fights. Oleg Maskaev knocked out Rahman twice. Rahman stopped Sanders once. If Sanders and Maskaev fought, I'd take Sanders any day of the week.

If, instead of Rahman, Corrie Sanders had fought Maskaev twice, Tua twice and Lewis twice ... I'm going to say that Corrie Sanders walks away with MORE than one win (which is all Rahman managed in six fights with them).

Saying he wasn't in the picture is purely the fault of his promoter, who had somehow managed to get others (with as many or more losses) highly rated with wins against the same quality of fighters.

Corrie Sanders was badly guided in his career. He beat the same guys the other top fighters did. He destroyed Wlad inside two rounds.

The people guiding him, including Kushner, just dropped the ball.

 

Or every time it was Kushner's turn to deal, he fumbled the deck.

Kushner promoted four heavyweights in that decade who would eventually win titles, but they all won those belts after they were rid of Kushner ... with the exception of Rahman, who dumped Kushner immediately upon winning his first title. (And he'd win another later.)

To me, that speaks volumes.

 

stop making everything with corrie some legendary win for him. Rahman smashed him up, and corrie never got near contention again (until wladdie came along looking for an easy win over a retired failure).

why not make rahman even more of a Unicorn, since hes much better than corrie? naaa don't see you doing that.

sanders was a decent to middling contender in his prime, who was gifted an unworthy title shot at his 37 year old retirement age because wlad was keen to rack up weakling defences in order to fake a long defence record.