Corrie Sanders in the 70s

Sanders usually weighed around the 225lb mark and at that weight was pretty flabby (by pro boxers standards) whereas 220lb Foreman was ripped, very muscular, with very little body fat in comparison.

Sanders was fatter, which is not the same as naturally bigger.

 

I'd pick him to knock out Norton, despite Ken having superior skills. Ken reacts too poorly to punchers.

Shavers, he'd ice. Earnie could get to him first, and there's parallels there between the two, but give me the bigger southpaw here.

Ali anytime before Frazier III would beat him IMO. Obviously the longer after that, the better Sanders' chances.

I'd favor Foreman in a real fan - friendly war.

The faded version of Frazier we got for most of the 70's would be target practice for the straight left. Peak would outlast him.

Holmes didn't like southpaws, but I'd favor him regardless. Too well rounded, too good of conditioning, and great chin/recovery.

Lyle would be a case of who gasses first, but would be a real shootout.

I don't like the chances of Spinks. Not much more to add to it than that.

So, that's how I see it. Matched properly, he'd be a champion, and wouldn't have been the weakest of the decade. But nor would he walk through everyone because consistency needs to be accounted for, too. Ultimately, styles make fights and he was a bit of a frontrunner. He'd pick up some wins he shouldn't because big ass southpaws who can punch aggressively are dangerous, and it's rare finding quality sparring to prepare you for them.

 

Power/speed ability and size,he would actually be bigger than foreman and he was a southpaw... Ali had said Mildenberger who was 190 pounds was his toughest 60's opponent,he didn't even hit hard and cut easily.How does the 6'4 230 Sanders fare?He k.os Frazier and possibly Foreman,he most likely gets out pointed by Ali,but that's also a what if since Ali never fought a 230 pound southpaw or a 230 pounder with speed.I would have him at least Sanders or foreman number 2 in that era.

 

In an era with fewer titles and greater depth in talent I doubt he ever gets a shot at a title.

He only ever fought 3 world class heavyweights during his career and he was KO'ed by 2 of them. I doubt in the 70's era Sanders could have gotten away with facing so few decent opponents and expect to get a shot at a title and had he been thrown in more regularly against quality opposition he would of definitely accrued more losses.

 

Corrie Sanders,in his ACTUAL career, outside of a win over a green Wlad, beat nobody of note.

His 2nd best win is Michael Sprott.

Let that sink in.

 

The Foreman who fought Briggs would beat Sanders.

 

A man who got blown away by Nate Tubbs beats Frazier, Norton, Foreman and even Ali

 

Corrie has a small but cult following here on ESB

 

There should be a general rule. If you weren't **** in your own era, you should not be allowed to travel to another era.

 

he was better than plenty of title contenders in the 70's.

 

You do realize Norton was "blown away" by Jose Louis Garcia who was even worse than Tubbs, right? Norton and Sanders had striking similarities.

 

Everytime Sanders got a title shot, he got sparked.

He beat a green Wladmir and then did nothing else.

 

he was easily better than ledoux, wepner, ocasio, quarry, spinks, dunn, bugner, etc.

 

good luck talking logic with that one!atsch

 

If Sanders hadn't beat Klitschko, he wouldn't even be talked about on boxing messageboards.