Gerry Cooney vs Corrie Sanders - who would win?

I have to agree.

Both of these men, though possessing lot's of potential were way too unproven to really make any kind of a meaningful prediction in a head to head matchup, especially against each other.. I myself picked Cooney as being the more proven of the unproven....

 

This is no easy fight to pick. Sanders had quick hands and was dangerous and a southpaw. Cooney started very fast and could take a fighter out with a body shot as well as a head shot.

Sanders did not always come into the ring prepared. The Sanders of the Vlad fight I pick here because of his speed and conditioning. The Sanders of the Rahman fight did no running before the fight because of a leg injury. He had Rahman ready to go on 2 occasions but did not pull the trigger and winded.

I have seen Sanders caught and KO'd as well as tire before the 8th if Gerry can keep him at bay he can hurt him and stop him but if Gerry gets caught its over

The 1st man to land a significant punch may be the victor

 

Those were different circumstances. Vs Purtiy Wald was 22, had never gone past 8, and came in ( he says ill and at a lower weight ). fighting in front of his home town for the first time, Wlad pounded on Purity, and kept pressing for the Ko. If Wlad had a better corner, maybe they would know their fighter bit better and tell him to ease off and take the points win. Purity only came on when Wlad tired, and contrary to un-informed reports, Wlad never quit he kept getting up. It was his corner that threw in the towel. The Purrity loss was mostly stamina related.

Brewster won the hard way. He took a real beating for four rounds. The type of beating a very tough fighter can take only one or twice in his career before it takes it toll on him physically. Brewster turned the tides with solid body punching, and hooks. The ending was bizarre. Not sure if Wlad was ill or what.

Sanders was different. What he did was sensational He wasn't out boxed, won pretty much every second of the fight, and scores the TKO without any controversy or stamina related issues.

Brewster and Sanders were hard punchers who can stop anyone if they land enough of their best. Is 3 KO losses at heavwyeight that bad in 56 fights? I think not. If truth is told, most all time greats were KO'd more frequently and in some cases by lesser punchers than Brewster or Sanders.

 

I understand all that Mendoza, but the bottom line is in all those fights, he showed a clear problem with pressure and stamina. Each of those fighters had the same gameplan to get to Wlad, some did it earlier than others. He was never going to be outboxed by any of those fighters, so when you look at it from that point of view, plus factoring in the career of Sanders, where he lost just about every other meaningful fight, that win doesnt prove he had some great hidden talents only that he was able to take advantage of a clearly better fighters glaring flaw.

 

Vlad and Lewis and Vitali were the best of the Big men but I am afraid that if they are pressed to fight at a torent pace the size of these men takes its toll.

Vitali has been injury prone and Vlad ( who has been greatly conditioned under Manny) suffered from stamina issues in a tough fights. Also Lennox never Ko'd a man after the 8th rd.

I think it is very hard for these men and they are gifted Big Men and superbly conditioned and much better condition than a lot of the undertrained fighters of this era...Sam Peter, Sanders,Chagaev,Rahman,Austin,Gomez,Areola,Johnson I think that has been a factor

 

You make some very good points here. While I do think there is still some good talent in the heavyweight division, we have come a long way from the days when heavyweights were a trim 210-217 lbs and in cut shape. You really don't see too many Mike Weavers, Ken Nortons, John Tates, Frank Bruno's, Renaldo Snipes, Evander Holyfields, etc.. Anymore. Of course, the 1980's were filled with over weight, deconditioned men, but the difference between then and now, is that today its the norm to have a gut, whereas 25 years ago, it was an exception to the rule.. Guys like Tim witherspoon and Tony Tubbs were few, whereas Bruno, Weaver, Snipes and Holyfield ( later ) were closer to the norm.

 

Isn't it always that way? Louis had a low guard flaw and was a sucker for right hands, which is a big reason why Schemling beat him. However Wlad learned to overcome pressure fighters with a more active jab, good footwork, better defense, and top notch clinching skills. See the Peter fight, or the re-match with Brewster. Wlad's stamina is now excellent.

Also Sanders only lost two meaningful fights. He did have some good wins over Wlad, Cole, Nelson, Cooper, and Spott. Sure Sanders lost a war to Rhaman, but that was the best version of Rhaman who went on to beat Lewis. I disagree, Sanders was a talent. He was a big southpaw with extremely fast hands and a lot of power. An avoided fighter in his prime, who stuck with a 2nd rate trainer and 3rd rate promoter.

 

That's it. Avoided. I sure don't recall any managers ever naming Sanders as the opponent they wanted next. More like who needs that guy.

 

You are talking a young Joe Louis but Joe corrected that issue...Ali dropped his right-hand and was hook prone while Holmes was open to the right hand. I saw Larry get KO' badly by 5"10 Nick Wells by right hands in his last 2 fights as an amateur and again by Snipes, Shavers and Tyson but none of these men were KO'd in the pro's until aged....Why do you bring up 1 fight with Louis at a young age and that he avenged

As far as Vlad his is well conditioned but how would he do against a fighter that can put on pressure and what if he had to fight 15 rds against a fit fighter with a will to win. These are unanswered questions

 

Yes remember Sanders was white and marketable, he was controlled by the same promotion company that promoted Lennox Lewis but they kept him in the dark. Vlads people not only picked a fast and dangerous Southpaw opponent and took him out of the dark. Vlad walked into the fight cold and passive like the fight was already won...poor choice and big mistake

 

Sanders was frequently mentioned as a non-mandatory title opponent for Lewis, and an opponent for Tyson. It was only hype by the Lewis and Tyson's managers, who knew the proposition of facing sanders was little reward and too much risk. Instead easier opponents like Seldon, Botha, Mathis.

Roy Jones, who defeated Ruiz said he wanted Sanders next, then backed out of talks.

 

mendoza would you be talking up sanders so much if he had beaten say valuev instead of wlad . dont get all defensive i am only aking a question

 

Great matchup! Been some good ones lately, I really like Corrie Sanders, not sure about this I dont really have my fight-picking cap on this week , might give it some inexpert thought later

I think Id possibly lean towards Cooney because although neither had much of a jab, I think Cooney was a little more correct and of course had monstrous power in that hook, but a good matchup

Sanders with good training maybe at a more fomrative early stage of his career could have developed into a champion, maybe, he had top rate handspeed and instincts IMO

 

Gerry would probably stop Corrie in five.