Discussion in 'Classic Boxing Forum' started by Greb & Papke 707, Feb 28, 2021.
He beat a bad gameplan Wladmir Klitschko he doesn't beat the Stewart version of Wladmir.
If this is what is being said, then yes he's definitely overrated.
Look, he's a decent contender; he's got good speed and good power but he's not championship level quality. AJ losing to Ruiz, was like Lewis losing to Rahman and Tyson losing to Douglas. It was an anomaly.
Sander's is just not on AJ or Wilder's level.
One can argue that had it been Morrison in there with Rahman, instead of Sanders, Tommy would have pulled off the win.
Bad gameplan Wlad was destroying everybody post Puritty. He was on a tear. People seem to forget that. Also, Brewster beat the Steward version. I do not care that they hadn't been together for long.
The WBO wasn't taken seriously until the mid 2000s. Before that it was 3 belts and Mike Tyson, Buster Douglas, Evander Holyfield, Riddick Bowe and Lennox Lewis all held 3 belts including the lineal title at some point in their careers. No agenda whatsoever but the unification of the titles is considered a big thing last time I checked.
Are you aware that from roughly September 2012 until May 2014 the only active fighter with belts at heavyweight, and he had three of them, was named Wladimir Klitschko?
He then went on a TEN YEAR RUN OF DOMINANCE. Who else in the division's history can even claim that?
Perhaps we should use a sample from that TEN YEAR RUN OF DOMINANCE as our standard of Prime Wlad rather than select fights that occurred before or after. Or is a TEN YEAR RUN OF DOMINANCE not a good enough sample size?
I agree his prime is during that period. Never disputed that. Just trying to highlight that Sanders beat a hell of a version of Wladimir even if not the very peak version that was a more careful wrecking ball. If we got to see peak, smooth, light on his feet Wladimir, it's at least partly because he got blasted out by Sanders. Corrie deserves credit however you look at it.
BTW, Seamus, which point do you consider to be Wlad's peak during that 10 year period ?
One could also argue that if Sanders hadn't had knee problems and had been able to spar and do roadwork, he'd have finished Rahman off himself.
The fact he wasn't good enough to to even compete with past prime Sanders proves how terrible that era he ruled over was.
And its like not he blew through it spectacular fashion like any top H2H great would , no , he looked silly octopus grabbing his way through one non-athletic plodder after the other.
We can see here his struggle with old Tony Thompson , note how he was out -landed on all 3 punch categories.
This content is protected
This proves without doubt that any Wlad would have been blown out by Sanders. . He blatantly avoided the rematch for good reason.
You need to stack the deck with everything in Wlads favour just to give him a chance against Sanders.
He has to be in his second or third wave of prime. He needs the services of a HOF trainer in his corner
He had to be mid Steward Wlad , not early Steward Wlad. He needs his personal referee in Germany.
He needs to be this , that and the other.
Meanwhile Sanders can turn up past prime , semi retired , inactive and barely motivated and still walk away with a second round stoppage victory.
This is reality. Reality states prime for prime Sanders wins more than Wlad.. Wlad won ZERO and ducked the rematch against what would have been an older and fatter Sanders.
While I agree Sanders was a stylistic nightmare for Wlad, Klitschko did not 'duck the rematch'. We've been over this.
This content is protected
On here? Definitely.
That's true. Dino keeps ducking my question. How many people Sanders age would you pick to beat Wlad? Name them. Obviously he put on a special performance.
I see him in that Rahman/Douglas band, but I'd say definitely worse than this two.
He's overrated on here, and I think his all round skills are overrated in general. He was good; quick and powerful, but also quite craft. I think his defence, stamina and fundamentals were pretty bad though, and his chin was hardly granite. I'd definitely pick him over Morrison. I'd say he'd be in the mix in the 80s, with Dokes, Coetzee, Page, etc; which is a good level to be at, but nothing crazy. I think Brewster was better, to be honest.
The casual audience may tend to dismiss him as a bum who beat Wladimir Klitschko, but I don't know. I tend not to interact with the people in comment sections. It hurts my head.
Both. Klitschko fanboys act as if he was some sort of amazing h2h monster that gives "anyone" the fight of their life. Klitschko haters act as if he just got lucky and would lost most matchups.
The reality is he was inconsistent with his training and was indeed very talented, but in terms of what he actually accomplished he's above average at best. Despite fighting in a fairly weak era, he doesn't have many very good wins. In terms of h2h, he's also above average. Outside of icing a green Wladmir who sorely lacks durabliity to begin with, he doesn't have much. His 2nd best wins are journeymen Purrity and a still decent Bert Cooper. He lost to Rahman, and Bernard Hopkins' stunt double "Nate Tubbs" who accomplished absolutely nothing outside of that bout.
Sanders' problem is that he simply wasn't active enough, taking long stretches of inactivity, getting out of shape, and rarely stepping up in class against actual name opponents. But on this forum we deal with what a boxer actually did, not what their potential is, which is a frequent problem when discussing legacy/h2h as people lack objectivity and conflate these issues. Kind of like how people prop Ike Ibeabuchi up based on 2 good wins.