How Harmful Will Wladimir Klitschko's Unavenged...

Cole was on a big losing streak, Czyz was 2 years out of the ring and retired pretty much. As Q mentions, been ranked by any of the ABCs means very very little, if I paid them some cash I could have Butterbean ranked top10 tomorrow, it doesnt make him a top10 fighter

Which win makes him worthy of a title shot? There really isnt 1, or is there? His first ranked win was Wladdy out of that he hasnt beat anyone top 20 let alone top 10.

 

I would actually maintain that Zolkin fought better fighters at an earlier stage in his career than Sanders did, and in fact was robbed as far as I saw by an aging Tubbs. But, anyway I agree with you. I regualarly purchased Ring issues during the Steve Farhood era, and some of those ratings were a tad questionable. I will say though, that the alpha ratings were probably worse. Just to provide a few examples, in 1991 one of the governing bodies had as many as 5 fighters rated above Tyson. In 1992, Pierre Coetzer was a #1 mandatory contender, and I still don't know who the hell he beat to attain such status. In 1990, Mark Wills breached the WBC's top 10 with a KO win over a shot Greg Page. Will's record was something horrible back then like 10-9. Carl Williams, remained in the alphabet ratings for years after he lost to Tyson, despite never again beating a decent opponent. In one of the early 90's monthly issues, the WBA, WBC, IBF, and even the Ring mag, all had Renaldo Snipes in their top 10. I can remember thinking how ludicrous it was, given that Snipes had not beaten a serious opponent since Trevor Berbick in 1982, and had lost a great deal of his more significant matches over the years. I could also talk about how the WBA had both Tony Tucker and Bruce Seldon rated above Riddick bowe, despite the fact that he had iced one of them in a single round, while the other was clearly past his prime, and hadn't beaten a decent opponent in quite some time. I could talk about how either the WBC or the IBF ( don't remember which ), had Larry Holmes at #9 immediately following his first comeback win over Tim " Doc " Anderson, his only win since 1985.

 

My bad. It was probably KO. I know I have the mag and it wasn't BI or any of the spin-offs.

 

Cole was not on a BIG losing streak. He had jumped to HW, drew with Kirk Johnson, got beat in return, did well against Grant but faded. And he mixed in 4 or 5 wins at HW. He was a very good opponent who had never been down. Sanders finished him brutally in 1.

Look, I'm not going to be the Corrie Sanders honk here. He was always a very dangerous, very talented guy but a lazy, disinterested trainer. He was a lot better than many of his higher ranked contemporaries no doubt. I heard Don King say he was the biggest waste of potential sport in the sport, fast, powerful and white. I heard big time trainers oohh and ahh at the guy after damn near laughing at his weigh-ins.

This ends my comments on him.

 

I feel he should have fought Purrity, it was an easy fight and I think he was waiting for Sanders to make himself marketable, he handled Brewster...I think is is important IF the opponent is still a rel fighter but Vlad is not the same fighter that fought either of those men and he showed that against Brewster, He has improved from those losses but most of the ATG's fought the fighters that beat them, Louis,Ali,(Marciano rematched tough fights) Lewis....but a lot of guys never rematched tough fights and are not punished for it.

 

I agree that Wlad has improved since losing to his three conquerors, however his avenged loss against Brewster needs a bit of further explanation. Klitschko rematched Lamon 3 years after the first match. By the time they met for the second time, Brewster was 34 years old, and had only fought one time within a two year period-losing to Serguei Lyachkovich. He had spent much of his time out of the ring recovering from a torn retina, or some eye related injury. He also did not appear to be in the same shape when he fought Wlad. A similar scenario would have occured had he rematched Sanders at any point over the last 4 years or so. He would have been facing a 40ish fighter, who rarely got in the ring, and was allowing his conditioning to go by the way side.

 

Honestly, I don't see how people can't see the similarities between Sanders and Cooney.

Only difference is one was hyped up several times more.

Anyway, Sanders blew out a lot of fighters like no one else ever did, even excluding Cole.

Who else ever blew out Sprott in one?

Czyz in two?

Even the glaringly obvious match-up against Wlad.

This wasn't a one sided beatdown where Wlad gassed like against Brewster or Purrity. Sanders flat out destroyed the man.

 

I think Cooney's left hook was a tad different than Sanders, and Corrie Probably had more hand speed. For the most part though, I agree that the two had a fair amount of similarities. Cooney never acheived a victory that was nearly as good as Sander's win over Klitschko, but then Gerry also never lost to anyone like Nate Tubbs, so both men have had their plusses and minuses.

 

Mhm, I agree.

 

Hasim Rahman knocked out Corrie Sanders. Rahman a weak chinned fighter, sanders couldnt put him away in the 3rd.

 

:good:tired:rofl

 

Yep That Sanders boy o boy he was sure some unbeatable freak of nature :good what a fighter!

Tyson, Lewis, Holyfield, Tua, Ruiz, Bowe, Ibebuchi, Bryd,.......These guys didnt stand a chance against him!

 

SuzieQ's ratings of the 2,000's:


1. Lennox Lewis

This content is protected

3. Wladimir Klitschko
4. Chris Bryd
5. Evander Holyfield
6. John Ruiz
7. Vitali Klitschko
8. David Tua
9. Nicolay Valuev
10. James Toney

SuzieQ doesn't like Sanders because he fought the Klitschko's.
He is giving us another double standard here. In a previsous post, SuzieQ thinks Rhaman was the 2nd best heavy of the 2000's!

Now he's trashing him to diminish Sanders? Ugh.

 

Im not trashing rahman, all I said was he is weak chinned, which is true. But he still was the 2nd most accomplished heavyweight of the decade.

 

Let's see, Rhaman lost to an old holyfield, Ruiz, and Maskev twice. Rhaman only held the #1 sport for a breif amount of time, and made zero title defenses as the #1 gun. Wlad should rate above Rhaman for sure. He was #1 for longer, unifed the titles, and lost a lot less, and won a lot more from 2000 to present.