Ken Norton VS Corrie Sanders

you appear to be reversing the truth that have a weak h2h champ in wlad.

if wlad hadn't picked hmi for a defence ( a retiree being picked for a world title defnce is virtually unheard of, but the K bros set new precedents in stooping low) then he'd not have done anything of note.

is that why he did nothing in that period?

 

Don't talk nonsense. You can say anybody had the potential to be better than they were. He was what he was. End of story.

I don't know why you bring his 'performance' against Rahman when he was destroyed in that fight. And before he was he spent most of it swing wildly and gasping for oxygen.
And while we're here , lets debunk this speed myth.
He wasn't that fast. He had a slow jab. Slow feet and slow hooks he threw like Rocky Marciano. He got off one fast straight left on Wlad and over the years he's become Ali.

You want to see speed. Watch Norton pop out rapid jabs and razor sharp left hooks. Ken was 10 times faster than Sanders but somehow on here , Sanders gets the speed advantage , which is a complete non-truth.
I seem to be the only one on here who judges boxers on how they performed in reality.
A lesser version of the Sanders that lost bad to Tubbs and Rahman showed up to blow away Wlad. That only proves how overrated Wlad is.
Sanders was wide open , slow footed with absolutely shocking stamina. Norton would school him.

 

What was Nortons record vs southpaws

Are there any famous ones from Nortons era

 

what did corrie do in his prime? anything? no.

 

I was drifting from the thread topic with a legitament question

Go put in a new tampon if I happened to hurt your feelings

 

So to win fantasy fights against former greats all you have to be is a south paw now?atsch

Does Tony Thompson beat Norton too?

 

I was answering you with no sign of profligation. Why did you invent my profligation? Was it because you couldn't manage an answer?

if you cannot manage an answer, its no problem for me, I am happy either way - but clearly is it a problem for you shown by your overreaction.

 

Here's a rare puncher Norton can beat.

Corrie doesn't wield the power of George Foreman, doesn't press with the same ferocity or activity, either, despite stylistic similarities. When it comes right to it, I rather doubt he has it in him to push Norton back for much of the fight.

Sanders seldom initiates clinches inside.

Tying a man up would help stem the flow of body punches. What's more, it could tip the balance of fatigue, providing precious respite for the bigger man.

Saying that, Ken does not have a fight-changing punch to him. He is not given to throwing combinations with abandon. And I don't believe he would tire Corrie out to the point of a stoppage victory. No, he would have to rely on his opponent to unwisely expend enough energy and dissipate on his own.

Should this go beyond three rounds, I see it devolving into a messy, herky-jerky s**** with Norton offering more in output and connects. His counter jab, and hooks to the body will be his most consistent weapons. Missing would be the textbook right, straight down the middle, which was Sanders' kryptonite. Close decision win for Norton.

 

Obviously you have watched a lot of Sanders.

You seem to hit about .300 on your assessment of fighters. Great for baseball, kinda ****ty for these types of discussion. I will stick with the assessment of guys like Steward.

 

Norton at his best probably beats Sanders up.

I'm not sure why Norton gets beaten so frequently and so easily in so many match-ups on this forum.

Okay, he did lose to Jose Luis Garcia once ....

 

Where exactly in my post did you read that?

I'm just asking a question to the knowledgable posters on the forum about southpaw contenders

The only southpaw of significance I can think of prior to Moorer is Mildenburger.

Given how Norton did with Holmes and Ali makes me think he's far and away better than Sanders

 

I saw enough of him . What you see is what you get. The guys he blew over were club fighters who couldn't punch.
Ever see all the guys Rahman blasted out on the way up. He was a bigger puncher and better boxer than Sanders yet he get no amount of praise.


Please tell me what Steward said about him?

 

course, rahman is a black man. klittaards only notice white man.

 

Steward said that if Sanders trained year round in the US with a US trainer he would have had at the very least a belt. King said he could make a 100 million off Sanders (remember that was an era of almost no white heavies of any ability)… again, they were assuming that Sanders had the desire to do any of this. What Sanders did possess were the tools: tall, long, strong, awkward puncher, fast with his combos and hit hard. Unfortunately that was about all he brought into the ring. His preparation could be abysmal. He didn't seem to love the sport on any level.

I think highly of Rahman, incredibly strong and a strong puncher, though he was rather wooden and unimaginative. Definitely got the short end of the stick in some of his matches. And I don't really understand why Maskaev (who was not near the danger that Sanders was, IMO) always got the better of him. That's why they fight the fights.

 

I am far more of a Lewis-****, a guy I had to defend ad nauseum during his run. I heard much of the same tripe about him as I do about Wlad (boring, safety-first, frontrunner, chinny…)

That said, neither Klit is quite in Lewis' class. I rate him very, very highly, certainly top 5 all time.