Ken Norton VS Corrie Sanders

Ken Norton

 

why is this retiree being matched agains a genuine titlist anyway?

where are the other retiree vs Norton threads?

oh I get it, because sanders got to destroy a really weak h2h champ (Klitschko), he gets a free pass for being matched up against HoFers without actually even himself getting into contention once. jeez.

 

corrie was troubled and destoryed by contenders, never mind titlists.

 

yeah.

tell em bro.


Gerry, why was he ever given a title shot? cos he was white! he was the 80s corrie (although much better)

 

Sanders doesn't start fast though. He goes on the back foot looking for the ambush.
He did this in all his biggest fights. Tubbs, Rahman, Wlad, Vitali.

He wasn't a come forward pressure fighter so how can he exploit that weakness within Norton.

 

Better Nate Tubbs than Jose Luis Garcia

 

Yes Norton was troubled by heavy punchers, but that isn't quite enough to tip the balance to Sanders for me.

The bottom line is that they could both be taken out by somebody with top end power, and Norton was a lot more proven at the elite level, and showed a lot less holes in his game.

If you are going to put a gun to my head here, I am going with Norton.

 

With Sanders you get the idea that he was on the cusp of being something special, but it never happened for whatever reason.

 

So, I guess Bruce Seldon would bother him horribly also.

Not only was Corrie fast but he shot his punches straight and round with a good mix. Norton's crab defense would be penetrated by such use of angles.

 

corrie was lucky he got to face a weak champ whowas cowardly enough to pick a 37 year old retiree to defend against...and the weak chamop still scred it up.

sorry this happened, and sorry it didn't happen to any other HW champ in history, no other was so poor.

DO NOT TAKE THIS PERSONALLY, I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT YOU, I am talking about the facts about Wlad being so weak as to be the first champ to be weak enough to need to pick a retired 37 year old for a defence, but also to fall INSTANTLY to a retired 37 year old who never made it even when prime.

 

Sanders is the MOST OVERRATED guy on this forum, he had one good night against Klitchko and he's suddenly the greatest thing since sliced bread...

Hell Lamon Brewster was better than Sanders...

I guess Ross Purrity who waxed Klitchko could have beaten Muhammed Ali too

Sanders didn't even give 2 ****s about boxing, that's why he took off 13 months after the Wlad KO, before he took his beating against Senior Klitchko, he was better at Golf than Boxing..

 

Sanders had several head turning performances in his career. His stoppage of Cooper, of Cole, Czyz, his performance against Rahman… He never lived to his potential but all the current boxing minds saw that potential. I interviewed quite a few during that period, including Steward and King… Sanders was a name that came up often.

In the end, as you state, he really didn't care for the sport. But he was still a better boxer than golfer.

 

Agreed. Styles.

 

It may be true but he did show what he was capable of with his size, speed, power and fast starting ability against fighters w weak chins.

 

Corrie Sanders was a good fighter. A large man with natural athletic ability. 6'4 240lb southpaw with Excellant handspeed and big time power with a mean streak is a dangerous opponent. His trainer Harold Vorbrescht said he was most gifted athlete he trained.
Now I said he was good not "great" he had flaws notably his stamina was awful, he had zero defense or head movement.
His resume is light on good top ten heavyweight names but is littered with journeyman, trial horses and blown up cruisers. Names like Al "ice" cole, Bobby Czyz, Artur "stormy" weathers, Ross Purrity.
All you have to do is look at the video tape and you can tell the man can fight at least for the first three rounds. He has 4 career losses and over 40 wins. Two of the losses were highly competitive and entertaining fights. He had Rahman down and almost out, and he had iron chinned hall of famer Vitali hurt in the opening round. His other two losses were to the talented Tubbs and I forget some guy in his final fight. Throw in the fact he wasted an all timer in Wlad and you have a solid guy. His win over Wlad is clearly superior to either of Purrity's and Brewster's over Wlad. Any non biased observer can see that. Had Sanders taken the effort to be good he could have been very good. His skill set ability is far better in my eyes than a lot of 90's -00's guys. Wasted potential in my eyes he belonged more in the 80's than the 00's in that regard.

Having said all that I don't want someone to interpret that I'm claiming he was better than Norton. Not at all what I am saying but as He Grant pointed out it's about styles and Sanders definitely had the style that could "potentially" make a quick exit for Norton. I mean he is bigger than Shavers and has faster hands than George or Gerry. Plus he was an aggressive guy and fast starter.