Prime Joe Louis vs Corrie Sanders

My god, is all that it would have taken, to interrupt Louis's decade + reign?

You wonder why Sanders didn't compile some sort of resume!

 

I guarantee you 95% that Sanders starches Galento and Braddock as stiff as planks and although he's a big jump in class from those two, very probably Schmeling too.

 

He was a big "could have been" in my opinion. Too comfortable fighting whoever was around, and he should have dumped his promoter and went to America to chase the fights that he wanted. He would have fought Holyfield, Tyson et al at the drop of a hat, but other promoters were too smart to put their golden geese into the ring with a dangerous guy that didn't bring any money. When he got his big break against Wlad his career was pretty much over already.

 

Louis could defeat him the first time round. But I think Sanders is not a very good stylistic matchup for Louis. Louis made his career on being the hardest, fastest hitter around and I think that the bigger Sanders would be suited to the bone having an aggressive, smaller fighter with not a particularly good defence coming onto him.

 

This content is protected

 

This content is protected

 

Don't you see the problem here?

The case for Sanders hangs on what people think that he might have been able to do, as opposed to what he actually did.

Sanders essentially only has one good win, and you can't ignore the rest of his resume.

Schmeling, Braddock, and even Galento are all more accomplished heavyweights.

 

I admit that I am surprised that Sanders was not more successful, but we still have to go with what actually happened at the end of the day.

Sanders could have ended up with poor management in Louis's era, just as easily if not more so.

Perhaps the most likely outcome to this, is that he never navigates his way to a fight with Louis in the first place.

 

Beating an ATG in his prime and being competitive with another, when he himself was at the end of his career? I think that's pretty good.

In my opinion he has only one really bad loss and that's the Tubbs loss. Against Rahman he was coming off knee surgery and had done zero roadwork, and I don't think there's any shame in losing to Vitali when you're 38. His last loss to Machimana, he was basically there for a payday in his 40's. I discount that.

He usually blew his opposition away in the first three rounds and always came to fight. What more can you ask?

Schmeling I could see the case for, but you need to revisit Braddock and Galento's records, and maybe reconsider that ill-advised opinion.

 

So do I.

The problem is not so much that his losses are bad, it is more that his resume of wins is very thin.

If he had a couple of win over fighters like Rahman, I wouldn't hang too much on the Tubbs loss.

I think that Braddock would argue that he was the lineal champion, and therefore reached a higher pinnacle than Sanders. He would also point out that despite his losses, he was not exactly a one hit wonder. He did have a handful of good wins.

Galento would probably argue that his highest career ranking, was higher than Sanders highest career ranking. He might also say that while Sanders had the better win of the two of them, he had a few good wins on his record.

 

OK, so you prefer a resume with more wins but also more losses.

I would say that Sanders very often blew out fighters like Czyz, de Leon, Cooper, Billups and du Plooy, which good-to great fighters struggled with, with contemptuous ease. I'd ask why it is that he never got a shot at the big names until he had virtually nothing left in the tank. I'd also look at the actual footage, compare it, and realise that he was way better than some of the 'big names' like Baer, who contrived to look shockingly crude much of the time.

Frankly I pin Sanders' win over a prime Wlad when he was 37, and the style in which he did it, as a better win than any which Braddock or Galento have.

 

Sanders was faster than Louis?

*hits crack pipe*

Ahhh I think I see it too.

 

Absolutely, especially if a lot of the losses fall outside the fighters prime.

If people know that you are dangerous, then you have to force them to fight you, by building your ranking.

There is no worse position than people fearing you, but having it within their discretion to avoid you.

I would argue that the version of Baer that Braddock beat, is a beter win on paper, than the pre prime Wlad who Sanders beat.

 

I try to go more by ability than win-loss record.

 

That is definitely a recipe for being wrong.

Fighters who seem to have all the tools on paper, are ten a penny!

Fighters with great resumes are much rarer!