How Harmful Will Wladimir Klitschko's Unavenged...

[box1]

losses be to his legacy ? This assumes that he unifies the belts and has a decent number of defenses before retiring.

[SuzieQ49]

The Corrie Sanders loss is extremley damaging. Sanders was never rated in the top 10, and had not beaten one ranked contender in his career until he knocked out wlad. Even after the wlad fight, he would still never go on to defeat a rated contender.


The Ross Purrity knockout loss is horribly damaging, because he got stopped late ahead on points due to stamina problems. Purrity was nothing more than a journeyman, and wlad was undefeated 24-0 and this has never been avenged.


Luckily the Brewster loss was avenged brutally, but that was pretty damaging too in the way he lost. Wlad knocked him down beat the hell out of him for 4 rounds then wlad let a win escape from him by somehow getting tired just like the purrity fight and showing no mental toughness and he panicked and was TKO'd.


I think these losses prevent him from being top 10, but he can still squeeze into the top 20-25

[Muchmoore]

The Corrie Sanders loss is extremley damaging. Sanders was never rated in the top 10, and had not beaten one ranked contender in his career until he knocked out wlad. Even after the wlad fight, he would still never go on to defeat a rated contender.


The Ross Purrity knockout loss is horribly damaging, because he got stopped late ahead on points due to stamina problems again. Purrity was nothing more than a journeyman, and wlad was undefeated 24-0 and this has never been avenged.


Luckily the Brewster loss was avenged brutally, but that was pretty damaging too in the way wlad let a win escape from him by somehow getting tired and showing no mental toughness.


I think these losses prevent him from being top 10, but he can still squeeze into the top 20-25

I agree with that. 3 KO losses (two never avenged) when your in your twenties to non elite fighters prevent him from making top ten all time. If he unified another belt, beats povetkin, etc. he will probably be in my top 20 maybe top 15 though.

[SuzieQ49]

If Wlad unifies once more to gain 3 belts and then beats Valuev, Potvekin, Virchis, Haye and Chagaev and .......He will move into my top 15-20.

[mr. magoo]

The Corrie Sanders loss is extremley damaging. Sanders was never rated in the top 10, and had not beaten one ranked contender in his career until he knocked out wlad. Even after the wlad fight, he would still never go on to defeat a rated contender.


The Ross Purrity knockout loss is horribly damaging, because he got stopped late ahead on points due to stamina problems. Purrity was nothing more than a journeyman, and wlad was undefeated 24-0 and this has never been avenged.


Luckily the Brewster loss was avenged brutally, but that was pretty damaging too in the way he lost. Wlad knocked him down beat the hell out of him for 4 rounds then wlad let a win escape from him by somehow getting tired just like the purrity fight and showing no mental toughness and he panicked and was TKO'd.


I think these losses prevent him from being top 10, but he can still squeeze into the top 20-25

I agree that these losses will prevent Wlad from ever reaching the elite, but saying that he will never go beyond top 20-25 is a bit premature. Wlad has beaten many top rated fighters and has even avenged one of those losses, albeit against a faded Brewster. He is 32 years old, and has a fairly tough schedule ahead of him. Should he manage to dominate his weight class, he should be a candidate to take a higher place than you have designated for him. We have to consider that many all time greats, ( including one of your favorites, Joe Walcott ), suffered not 3, but many losses early in their careers....

[Jack]

Not very damaging. He's shown too much improvement since those fights. If Ali had lost to Doug Jones would it have affected his legacy? No. If Frazier lost to Bonavena, Lewis to Bruno and so on, it wouldn't have been a true reflection on their skills. Carlos Monzon lost early in his career, yet none of those fights are worth mentioning in pitched head to head fights.

His weaknesses shone through on those fights, but right now he doesn't have the same weaknesses. He lost against Sanders because he panicked which he no longer does. He lost against Purrity because he got tired and against Brewster he was knackered and flustered.

These weaknesses are no longer there, I don't think, so why should they define his legacy?

It looks awful losing three times to such poor fighters, of course, but if he beats Haye, Povetkin, Chagaev and Peter again, I think the losses should be ignored when his legacy is brought up.

[box1]

Is the general consensus that the losses to Purrity and Sanders should keep him out of the top 10 no matter what he accomplishes in between now and the end of his career ?

[mr. magoo]

Not very damaging. He's shown too much improvement since those fights. If Ali had lost to Doug Jones would it have affected his legacy? No. If Frazier lost to Bonavena, Lewis to Bruno and so on, it wouldn't have been a true reflection on their skills. Carlos Monzon lost early in his career, yet none of those fights are worth mentioning in pitched head to head fights.

His weaknesses shone through on those fights, but right now he doesn't have the same weaknesses. He lost against Sanders because he panicked which he no longer does. He lost against Purrity because he got tired and against Brewster he was knackered and flustered.

These weaknesses are no longer there, I don't think, so why should they define his legacy?



It looks awful losing three times to such poor fighters, of course, but if he beats Haye, Povetkin, Chagaev and Peter again, I think the losses should be ignored when his legacy is brought up.

A reasonable post :clap:

[SuzieQ49]

He lost against Sanders because he panicked which he no longer does.


You said he doesn't panic anymore. But I watched the Peter fight, and I remember before that 3rd knockdown wlad appeared to panic, suddenly got really winded then dropped down without even being hit....it looked like he was ready to quit there for a second. I congratulate him on managing to get up and carry on that fight, but if peter hadnt been so damm slow and tired himself who knows what would have happened. wlad hasnt been in with a puncher since the peter fight, so we got to wait until someone will test him again.

[Mendoza]

Wlad offered a lot of money to fight Purrity a few years ago.. Purrity turned it down. If Wlad picked Purrity for a title shot, there would be outrage. In fact, some were upset that a re-match with Sanders was possible. With some critics, its darned if you do and darned if you do not.

Are three losses in 50+ fights at heavyweight that bad? Not really. The truth is many ATG's were KO'd by lesser fighters and weaker punchers. Others ATG’s were out boxed by guys who would be lucky to win two rounds vs Wlad. This is why I think some posters are hyproctical when it comes to ranking heavyweights.

How many losses did Jack Johnson avenge?
How many losses did Max Schemling avenge?
How many losses did Ezzard Charles avenge?
How many losses did Joe Walcott avenge?
How many losses did Floyd Patterson avenge?
How many loses did George Foreman avenge?
How many losses did Mike Tyson Avenge?

Less than Wlad in ever case! Yet it does not prevent these guys from top 20 slots. If Wlad keeps on a roll, a spot on the top 15 is very doable. I think he is already in the top 20 now.

[mr. magoo]

You said he doesn't panic anymore. But I watched the Peter fight, and I remember before that 3rd knockdown wlad appeared to panic, suddenly got really winded then dropped down without even being hit....it looked like he was ready to quit there for a second. I congratulate him on managing to get up and carry on that fight, but if peter hadnt been so damm slow and tired himself who knows what would have happened. wlad hasnt been in with a puncher since the peter fight, so we got to wait until someone will test him again.

Peter was a 25 year old contender who was unbeaten in 24 fights, and later won a world title, yet Wlad still won. This was not a weak or subpar win by any means.

[SuzieQ49]

Im not trying to say that by any means Magoo, I am impressed with wlads win over Sam Peter, a good fighter. However I responding to the post made by a gentleman who said "wlad doesnt Panic anymore".

[mr. magoo]

Im not trying to say that by any means Magoo, I am impressed with wlads win over Sam Peter, a good fighter. However I responding to the post made by a gentleman who said "wlad doesnt Panic anymore".

Fair enough,

And I wasn't trying to criticize your post either. Wlad has some weaknesses, and some things that may very well prove to keep him out of the elite. For now however, he is a question mark. This next year will be critical for him.....

[SuzieQ49]

We have to consider that many all time greats, ( including one of your favorites, Joe Walcott ), suffered not 3, but many losses early in their careers....
__________________


Yes he Did. You know my thoughts on his 1930s fights, how he shouldnt have even been granted a boxing liscene then.....so I wont go into those losses.


Ill go into his post WW II losses.........


If we look from the years 1945-1947..........Walcott took on 12 fights against top contenders in just a 3 year span capping it off with a title winning performance against Joe Louis. Most of those fights were against Top ranked contenders. Walcotts record in these 12 fights counting the louis robbery as a win is 10-2. Count the Louis I fight as a loss and his record against 12 ranked contenders in a 3 year span is still and oustanding 9-3.





So If wlad from 2008-2010 takes on Thomson, Chagaev, Virchis, Haye, Peter Rematch, Valuev, perhaps Potvekin in a trilogy, Alex Dimetrenko, and perhaps eddie chambers......that would be equivalent to what walcott went through in a 3 year span. If wlad goes 9-3 or 10-2 agains that........I will be extremley impressed.

[Mendoza]

Im not trying to say that by any means Magoo, I am impressed with wlads win over Sam Peter, a good fighter. However I responding to the post made by a gentleman who said "wlad doesnt Panic anymore".

I think part of this is right. Wlad is now a great clincher. He can tie a guy up with great technique, speed and strength. He knwos this, so is less likely to " panic ". When Wlad fought Sanders, and Brewster, these clinching skills were lacking, which is a big reason why he lost.

I think Wlad is in his prime now, and was better than he was in 2002-2003.

[SuzieQ49]

Thats good to hear Mendoza, but the question is back in 1990s-2003, he was simply an amazing two fisted puncher with a devastating left hook. Has wlad abandoned that left hook and became to right hand prone?

[Mendoza]

Thats good to hear Mendoza, but the question is back in 1990s-2003, he was simply an amazing two fisted puncher with a devastating left hook. Has wlad abandoned that left hook and became to right hand prone?

Since you are in the gym, ask someone who has sparred with Wlad. They will say this. He his unbelievably hard, and fast when he wants to open up. I have heard this from sources, which include third party managers.

Wlad is good enough to win fights without even throwing a single right hand. I think he has better one punch power and speed now in comparison to his 20's.

Wlad does not need to fight wreckless anymore. He's got the best high guard in the division, keeps the right high to block hocks, and moves his feet to zone his man where he can land, but the other guy can’t.

Fighters are terrified of Wlad’s right hand and hook.

[Muchmoore]

His weaknesses shone through on those fights, but right now he doesn't have the same weaknesses. He lost against Sanders because he panicked which he no longer does. He lost against Purrity because he got tired and against Brewster he was knackered and flustered.



Wlad hasn't had a chance to panic because he hasn't been pushed. Who is he gonna panic against, a terrified Ibragimov :lol:

I do agree he's shown improvement, especially in his patience and defense, but a chin is a chin.

[Seamus]

The Corrie Sanders loss is extremley damaging. Sanders was never rated in the top 10, and had not beaten one ranked contender in his career until he knocked out wlad.

Do you ever do research?

Sanders was rated in the top 10 by the WBC, WBO, IBF and Ring Magazine at some or many times during his career.

[SuzieQ49]

Do you ever do research?

Sanders was rated in the top 10 by the WBC, WBO, IBF and Ring Magazine at some or many times during his career.

Yes I do research and I am right in this case. Sanders was never rated by the annuel RING MAGAZINE until he Beat Wlad. Up until the Wlad fight, sanders had never beaten a Ring Magazine rated contender either. I dont even remember a monthly issue were sanders was ever rated until beating wlad. Sanders was rated a bunch of times AFTER he beat wlad, but even after he beat wlad.....he never went on to beat a single rated contender. His whole career is based off the incredible wlad upset, without that no one would even know who he was.


I don't go by Alphabet soup rankings, there bogus and corrupt and ridiculous.

[LennoxGOAT]

Not at all. Every heavweight ATG has damaging losses (except Rocky of course) and the difference is Wlad's will all be early and he will show enough improvement and do enough damage in the division to make them nothing more than a footnote.

[Seamus]

Yes I do research and I am right in this case. Sanders was never rated by the annuel RING MAGAZINE until he Beat Wlad. Up until the Wlad fight, sanders had never beaten a Ring Magazine rated contender either. I dont even remember a monthly issue were sanders was ever rated until beating wlad. Sanders was rated a bunch of times AFTER he beat wlad, but even after he beat wlad.....he never went on to beat a single rated contender. His whole career is based off the incredible wlad upset, without that no one would even know who he was.


I don't go by Alphabet soup rankings, there bogus and corrupt and ridiculous.

Bullshit. I have a Ring's from 93 where he is ranked in the top 10 (he's on the cover of the rag) and from the Cole/Rahman era where he is in the top 10. Should I go dig these out from my basement. He went in the dark after the Nate Tubbs loss but redeemed himself against Cole & Czyz. He was on there plenty of times.

Besides, I trust the WBC, WBA and IBF more than Steve Farhood's abortion of a publication.

[SuzieQ49]

Bullshit. I have a Ring's from 93 where he is ranked in the top 10 (he's on the cover of the rag) and from the Cole/Rahman era where he is in the top 10. Should I go dig these out from my basement. He went in the dark after the Nate Tubbs loss but redeemed himself against Cole & Czyz. He was on there plenty of times.



Like I said he was never rated in the Ring Magazine Annuel Ratings up until knocking out Wlad. He made a couple monthly issues, sure but so did alot of journeyman at times briefly, which is exactley what corrie sanders was 3/4 of his career.......A one hit wonder journeyman. How he even got into the monthly 1993 ratings(according to you) is ludicrous considering he had not beaten one top 50 heavyweight in the world.....You then claim the Czyz and Cole wins as him redeeming himself. redeeming what? Czyz was not a heavyweight and was 100% washed up when he fought sanders, and Cole was a trialhorse who lost every time he stepped up in competition. These wins are nothing more than padding the record, they arn't notable wins nor are they wins over world beaters.

[Russell]

Q certainly has an unbiased view of Sanders.

[SuzieQ49]

f

[SuzieQ49]

3 questions:


1. What Ring Magazine Heavyweight Contender did Sanders ever beat Pre Wladimir Klitschko?

2. What Ring Magazine Heavyweight contender did Sanders ever beat post Wladimir Klitschko?

3. When was Corrie Sanders ever in a Annuel Ring Magazine list pre Wladimir Klitschko fight?

4. Did Sanders ever beat a heavyweight that was EVER rated in the Annuel Ring Magazine ratings during there career outside of Wladimir?

5. How come When Tubbs Kayoed sanders, he never burst into the top 10 ratings? you think because perhaps sanders was never considered a big deal?

[radianttwilight]

His losses will reflect poorly on his overall career. He's already 32 and he's been stopped three times, all in humiliating fashion, by less-than-stellar talents.

[SuzieQ49]

His losses will reflect poorly on his overall career. He's already 32 and he's been stopped three times, all in humiliating fashion, by less-than-stellar talents.

Thats Pretty Correct. No other way you can spin it. Many Klitschko fans now try to make sanders out to be some freak of nature one of kind southpaw joe louis :lol: :lol: who would have knocked out many champions . Before the Wlad fight(which he was pretty much a late replacement easy tuneup when 10 other heavyweights turned wlad down ) no one had even heard of this guy. He was just another old man. You can say he underachieved, but you cant use that leverage to rate him on what he could have been or who he could have beat. We have to rate him on what he did.

[Russell]

3 questions:


1. What Ring Magazine Heavyweight Contender did Sanders ever beat Pre Wladimir Klitschko?

2. What Ring Magazine Heavyweight contender did Sanders ever beat post Wladimir Klitschko?

3. When was Corrie Sanders ever in a Annuel Ring Magazine list pre Wladimir Klitschko fight?

4. Did Sanders ever beat a heavyweight that was EVER rated in the Annuel Ring Magazine ratings during there career outside of Wladimir?

5. How come When Tubbs Kayoed sanders, he never burst into the top 10 ratings? you think because perhaps sanders was never considered a big deal?

You're choosing to completely and totally ignore one very, very important fact.

Sanders destroyed Wladimir like no fighter ever has.

Guess what fighter he was the most motivated ever for?

He took extended therapy classes before that fight to get himself together mentally for once.

Ignore it if you'd like.

[Seamus]

Like I said he was never rated in the Ring Magazine Annuel Ratings up until knocking out Wlad. He made a couple monthly issues, sure but so did alot of journeyman at times briefly, which is exactley what corrie sanders was 3/4 of his career.......A one hit wonder journeyman. How he even got into the monthly 1993 ratings(according to you) is ludicrous considering he had not beaten one top 50 heavyweight in the world.....You then claim the Czyz and Cole wins as him redeeming himself. redeeming what? Czyz was not a heavyweight and was 100% washed up when he fought sanders, and Cole was a trialhorse who lost every time he stepped up in competition. These wins are nothing more than padding the record, they arn't notable wins nor are they wins over world beaters.


This is a totally full of shit argument. I was actually covering the scene (writing pieces for a few magazine you might know) in these days and Corrie was considered a VERY hot commodity. Don King was after him with a huge hard-on but Corrie had signed too much of his money to the wrong people already. Czyz had just given a more prime Holyfield fits in their fight. Cole had never been KD'd, not even by Michael Grant, and Sanders KO'd in 1. Sanders wiped the floor with Bert Cooper not long after his supremely valiant efforts against Moorer and Holyfield.

I know you are young but you are out of your depth in this discussion.

[El Matador]

I can't remember WHO won the Sanders-Rahman fight (it's been a while, but I recall it was one hellavu fight), but Sanders was a good, legitimate top-20-ish fighter prior to the Klitschko fight.

The Klitschko camp didn't just pull his name out of a cap - they looked at the alphabet belt rankings, and thought Sanders was the best non-threat of the bunch. And boy were they wrong!!!

But a win over Sanders now would be quite meaningless, as ever since Sanders lost to Vitali Klitschko, he has faded out of the spotlight. I don't think it really hurts Klitschko's career TOO badly, I just think in retrospect it was an off-night for an overconfidant Heavyweight fighter with some kinks in his armour.

Nowadays, Wladmir is undeniably the best Heavyweight out there (good fighter sits atop a somewhat weak division). The fight that will likely cement W. Klitschko's legacy is a fight with Sam Peter. Whoever wins this fight likely grabs the moniker of best Heayvweight of the late-2000's, for what it's worth.

[fists of fury]

I don't think not avenging these losses (he did avenge the Brewster loss) really means anything. By the time Wlad had pulled himself together, fights against Sanders and Purrity were basically redundant.

If one or both had been active, highly-regarded fighters it would be a different story, but they aren't. Sanders was once, but he went to hell after losing to Vitali so what would it prove for Wlad to have fought him subsequently?

[PowerPuncher]

Fighters he can never be rated above because of the manner of his losses and his natural urge to panic and be chinny (in no particular order):

Ali
Marciano
Holmes
Jack Johnson
Louis
Liston
Tyson
Lennox Lewis
Holyfield
Foreman
Frazier
Dempsey
Wills
Bowe
Jeffries

He is cracking the second tier and will rank somewhere amongst:

Schmelling
Walcott
Charles
Tunney
Norton
Sharkey
Langford
Patterson
Baer

Best case scenario is finnishes top of that group because of dominating for 3-4 more years and knocking off all the top up and comers.

Wlads legacy fights will probably by David Haye, Povetkin, Solis, Cagaev, Arreola. They'll all be hyped but the only real threat is Haye thats the big 1. If he beats them all hes probably at no16

[MrSmall]

Yes he Did. You know my thoughts on his 1930s fights, how he shouldnt have even been granted a boxing liscene then.....so I wont go into those losses.


Ill go into his post WW II losses.........


If we look from the years 1945-1947..........Walcott took on 12 fights against top contenders in just a 3 year span capping it off with a title winning performance against Joe Louis. Most of those fights were against Top ranked contenders. Walcotts record in these 12 fights counting the louis robbery as a win is 10-2. Count the Louis I fight as a loss and his record against 12 ranked contenders in a 3 year span is still and oustanding 9-3.





So If wlad from 2008-2010 takes on Thomson, Chagaev, Virchis, Haye, Peter Rematch, Valuev, perhaps Potvekin in a trilogy, Alex Dimetrenko, and perhaps eddie chambers......that would be equivalent to what walcott went through in a 3 year span. If wlad goes 9-3 or 10-2 agains that........I will be extremley impressed.

That's 11 fights by my count.
Since when does Wlad fight more than twice a year?
Also, you people can't be considering Wlad to be top10 all time can you? I saw someone mention it.
Top 25 maybe.

[Addie]

Beating all of the Heavyweight contenders today would not constitute to being in the top 10 greatest Heavyweights of all time.

[gregor]

I think those loses would be quite important.

Wlad fought when HW was quite weak, he was (until quite recently) choosing the most comfortable opponents - and he still managed to lose. Not one time, but three.

So I can't buy arguments like "what if Ali lost to Jones". Better ask something like "what if Ali lost to Jones... and (for example) trilogies against Frazier and Norton as well"? Do you think he would be still considered "The Greatest"? I doubt it.

And this comparison wastill generous for Wlad, considering the level of opponents he lost to. Losing to Rahman, Douglas or Moorer is really different than losing to Purrity. Almost the same can be said about the loss to Sanders, who was generaly considered to be step-down after McCline.

[Mendoza]

You're choosing to completely and totally ignore one very, very important fact.

Sanders destroyed Wladimir like no fighter ever has.

Guess what fighter he was the most motivated ever for?

He took extended therapy classes before that fight to get himself together mentally for once.

Ignore it if you'd like.

Sanders was ring ranked before he beat Wlad. SuzieQ is abandoing this stance, and going off into tangents.

[Russell]

Of course he is.

[Mendoza]

Beating all of the Heavyweight contenders today would not constitute to being in the top 10 greatest Heavyweights of all time.

Beating all of them would. Wlad already has big wins over Peter, Ibragimov, Brewster and Byrd. If you add in Valuev, Chageav, Povetkin, and Haye, plus cleaning out the rest, that is a top resume.

The Povetkin fight looms large. When was the last time two gold medal winners meet in their prime? Povetkin is the best amatuer since Wlad, and even if he looses the fight to Wlad, should be able to re-bound and become a champion. I also think Chagaev would be a solid #2 or #3 man in most decades.

[PowerPuncher]

Beating all of them would. Wlad already has big wins over Peter, Ibragimov, Brewster and Byrd. If you add in Valuev, Chageav, Povetkin, and Haye, plus cleaning out the rest, that is a top resume.

The Povetkin fight looms large. When was the last time two gold medal winners meet in their prime? Povetkin is the best amatuer since Wlad, and even if he looses the fight to Wlad, should be able to re-bound and become a champion. I also think Chagaev would be a solid #2 or #3 man in most decades.

Chagaev is shit and I was a fan until the Skelton mauling. Hayes the big fight, not Povetkin who should be bread and butter to Wlad, Povetkin was figured out against Chambers already

Which would you rank Wlad above to put him top10 out of the below?

Ali
Marciano
Holmes
Jack Johnson
Louis
Liston
Tyson
Lennox Lewis
Holyfield
Foreman
Frazier
Dempsey
Wills
Bowe
Jeffries

[Russell]

Haye's the fight the public wants to see more.

His fight against Povetkin will be more important beyond that, no doubt.

[PowerPuncher]

Haye's the fight the public wants to see more.

His fight against Povetkin will be more important beyond that, no doubt.

Povetkin isn't as big a threat as Haye though, hes open to rights from range which is suicide against Wlad and he lacks the power to worry Wlad. Haye has the power, speed and skills to worry Wlad. I'll enjoy watching both fights but Haye is the bigger more exciting fight

[gregor]

Sanders was ring ranked before he beat Wlad. SuzieQ is abandoing this stance, and going off into tangents.
Rankings are all about politics. As we are not discussing politics, there are more important things to consider - like that he was 37 and before Wlad he fought only once in 2002 and once in 2001. Not to mention that he wasn't really great before.

If you want to say something like "Wlad's promotor somehow got Sanders to top10 of ABC, which made him decent, deserving and dangerous opponent" just do it explicitly ;-)

[Russell]

Povetkin isn't as big a threat as Haye though, hes open to rights from range which is suicide against Wlad and he lacks the power to worry Wlad. Haye has the power, speed and skills to worry Wlad. I'll enjoy watching both fights but Haye is the bigger more exciting fight

I agree it's a far more exciting fight.

I don't think it'll be as important in 20 years as the Povetkin fight, though.

"He was just a cruiserweight, look at his amateur credintals compared to Povetkin's, etc etc".

[mrbassie]

Did this legacy business start with Lewis? I think he was the first one to use the term in the context of boxing. Anyway, I wish he or whomever it was hadn't, nowadays everybody has to have one; a legacy is like the modern equivalent of a soda stream. I personally think the term should be reserved for those who have had an extraordinary career, a Joe Louis for example or an Ali, I don't think the likes of a Klitschko or a Ruiz really merit it.

[PowerPuncher]

I agree it's a far more exciting fight.

I don't think it'll be as important in 20 years as the Povetkin fight, though.

"He was just a cruiserweight, look at his amateur credintals compared to Povetkin's, etc etc".

They won't say that if Haye wins :hey Haye turned pro allot later than Povetkin, I'm sure if Haye stayed amateur he'd have won the olympics.

The olympics/amateur boxing doesnt mean much to the Pros, Audley Harrison won the olympics, so did Abudeleev, so did Pete Rademacher. They werent seen as great scalps

[Russell]

Harrison's just become a joke in recent years, Rademacher was fed into a meat grinder from day one.

Of course they weren't going to be great scalps to anyone.

[SuzieQ49]

Sanders was ring ranked before he beat Wlad

Do you and Russell want to retract your statements?


here is the 2001 Ring Magazine Heavyweight Ratings

Lennox Lewis, Champion

1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Mike Tyson
3. Chris Byrd
4. Hasim Rahman
5. Kirk Johnson
6. Evander Holyfield
7. John Ruiz
8. Jameel McCline
9. Fres Oquendo
10. David Tua

* No Corrie Sanders



here is the 2002 Ring Magazine Heavyweight Ratings


Lennox Lewis, Champion

1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Chris Byrd
3. David Tua
4. Evander Holyfield
5. John Ruiz
6. Hasim Rahman
7. Vitali Klitschko
8. Kirk Johnson
9. Mike Tyson
10. Jameel McCline

* No Corrie Sanders

[Addie]

Beating all of them would. Wlad already has big wins over Peter, Ibragimov, Brewster and Byrd. If you add in Valuev, Chageav, Povetkin, and Haye, plus cleaning out the rest, that is a top resume.

The Povetkin fight looms large. When was the last time two gold medal winners meet in their prime? Povetkin is the best amatuer since Wlad, and even if he looses the fight to Wlad, should be able to re-bound and become a champion. I also think Chagaev would be a solid #2 or #3 man in most decades.

I disagree.

What the hell has Samuel Peter done? What the hell has Ibragimov done? What the hell has Brewster done?

What has Valuev done except lose after stepping up in class? What has Chageav done expect win a competitive fight against Matt Skelton? What has Povetkin done? Haye hasn't even fought at Heavyweight.

Wladimir isn't top 10 material, and beating any of those or even all of those would not change that.

[mr. magoo]

I disagree.

What the hell has Samuel Peter done? What the hell has Ibragimov done? What the hell has Brewster done?

What has Valuev done except lose after stepping up in class? What has Chageav done expect win a competitive fight against Matt Skelton? What has Povetkin done? Haye hasn't even fought at Heavyweight.

Wladimir isn't top 10 material, and beating any of those or even all of those would not change that.

Individually, those fighters don't bring much to the table legacy wise, but collectively, it would certainly be a good list of wins. Haye has been the most dominant cruiserweight since Evander Holyfield vacated the division over 20 years ago. Povetkin is one of the best heavyweight amateurs of all time, and has put together a nice win streak in the pros. Chagaev is undefeated in 25 fights, is holding one of the titles, and was the first to put a dent in Valuev's undbeaten record. Although, Wlad's schedule over the next 12-18 months may not be enough to place him among the elite, it will definately improve his resume and standing, should he manage to keep the "L's" off his record.

[Russell]

I disagree.

What the hell has Samuel Peter done? What the hell has Ibragimov done? What the hell has Brewster done?

What has Valuev done except lose after stepping up in class? What has Chageav done expect win a competitive fight against Matt Skelton? What has Povetkin done? Haye hasn't even fought at Heavyweight.

Wladimir isn't top 10 material, and beating any of those or even all of those would not change that.

Peter's 27 years old for christs sake! Give him a few years before shooting down what he has and hasn't accomplished.

Brewster was a solid high end B level fighter who had more than a few decent wins, including a blowout in one over Golota. You know, the guy who Tyson needed two to get to quit due to an injury as opposed to knocking him out. Unbelievable power and heart as well if the Wlad fight didn't clue you in.

Career more than likely cut short due to retina problems.

And you're judging Haye when he, in your words, hasn't even yet fought at heavy?

[SuzieQ49]

Wlad already has big wins over Peter, Ibragimov, Brewster and Byrd. If you add in Valuev, Chageav, Povetkin, and Haye, plus cleaning out the rest, that is a top resume.

I agree with this. Valuev has improved his boxing skills DRAMATICALLY in the last couple years. i am impressed. Young studs like potvekin haye chagaev would be huge legacy boosters

[radianttwilight]

You know, the guy who Tyson needed two to get to quit due to an injury as opposed to knocking him out.

Brewster beat him via 3-knockdown rule in the first round.

A shot Tyson made him quit by pounding the fuck out of him and making him quit in two rounds, after dropping him once in the first.

Both of these are pretty irrelevant though, because Golota choked every time he stepped up to the world-class level.

[Russell]

Riddick Bowe wasn't world class?

[SuzieQ49]

Riddick Bowe is the man

[SuzieQ49]

Riddick Bowe wasn't world class?

I didnt realize golota won these fights? I guess damaging another fights balls to the point where he could have a kid magnitutes a win in your book? just like "Headbutt KO" right? :lol:

[Addie]

Peter's 27 years old for christs sake! Give him a few years before shooting down what he has and hasn't accomplished.

Brewster was a solid high end B level fighter who had more than a few decent wins, including a blowout in one over Golota. You know, the guy who Tyson needed two to get to quit due to an injury as opposed to knocking him out. Unbelievable power and heart as well if the Wlad fight didn't clue you in.

Career more than likely cut short due to retina problems.

And you're judging Haye when he, in your words, hasn't even yet fought at heavy?

You're missing the point.

Samuel Peter, Brewster, and Haye are all world class operators, but having their names on your CV does not constitute to a top 10 of all time level resume.

Boxing fans today seem to get over excited to quickly after a fighter reigns for a few years. Boxing has a 100 year history, and I can name 10 Heavyweights in the history of the division who have more accomplished resume than Wlad.

I don't know. Maybe one day he will be considered a true all time great, but having someone as vunerable as him in the same breath as Ali, Louis, and Holmes is ridiclious in my opinion.

[PowerPuncher]

Peter's 27 years old for christs sake! Give him a few years before shooting down what he has and hasn't accomplished.

Brewster was a solid high end B level fighter who had more than a few decent wins, including a blowout in one over Golota. You know, the guy who Tyson needed two to get to quit due to an injury as opposed to knocking him out. Unbelievable power and heart as well if the Wlad fight didn't clue you in.

Career more than likely cut short due to retina problems.

And you're judging Haye when he, in your words, hasn't even yet fought at heavy?

There are problems with these wins:

Peter - got knocked down 3times against a very wide puncher

Brewster - coming off a loss and our of retirement with retina damage

Byrd - lost his next 2 after Wlad and got ko'd by a none rated LHW

[Mendoza]

You're missing the point.

Samuel Peter, Brewster, and Haye are all world class operators, but having their names on your CV does not constitute to a top 10 of all time level resume.

Boxing fans today seem to get over excited to quickly after a fighter reigns for a few years. Boxing has a 100 year history, and I can name 10 Heavyweights in the history of the division who have more accomplished resume than Wlad.

I don't know. Maybe one day he will be considered a true all time great, but having someone as vunerable as him in the same breath as Ali, Louis, and Holmes is ridiclious in my opinion.

No one is saying Ali, Louis or Holmes. Those can be viewed as top 5 guys. I am saying if Wlad cleans out this era, he can be top ten.

Here's an older article I posted a while back:
Who are the top all time 30 heavyweights? You can pick
your own. I'll list 30. Odds are we have matches on at
least 20 names, and likely 25 names. I'm not here to
debate any order, moreover just agree to a general
consensus on the names.

M. Ali,L. Holmes,J. Jeffries,J. Louis,S. Liston,G.
Foreman,L Lewis,J. Dempsey,R. Marciano,R. Bowe,E.
Holyfield,M. Tyson,J. Frazier,J. Johnson,V.
Klitschko,G. Tunney,K. Norton,S. Langford,B.
Fitzsimmons,J. Corbett,P. Jackson,H Wills,E. Charles,J
Walcott, F. Patterson,M Schmeling,J.L. Sullivan,T.
Witherspoon, and I.Ibeabuchi

Now that we have the names out of the way, I'll get to
my point. Is Wladimir Klitschko on his way to getting
on this list? Let's examine.

Current Winning percentage: 94.23%. 6th best of the
listed 30 fighters. Only Marciano, Tunney, Louis,
Ibeabuchi, and Bowe have higher winning percentages.

KO Percentage:84.61% 3rd best of the listed 30
fighters. Only Marciano and Vitlay Kltishcko are
higher. It is possible for Wlad to pass them both.

Heavyweight title bout record ( Alphabets included )
9-2. At the top of the list in terms of total wins and
percentage of wins. Some may roll their eyes at
counting alphabet title defenses. Coutner point. Is a
guy like Brock any worse than say half of Louis,
Ali's, Frazier, or Holmes title opponents? I think
not!

Amount of times KO'd. 3 times. Only 13 of the 30
fighters have been Ko'd less. Many traditionally
higher rated fighters were Ko'd more often, and in my
opinion by lesser punchers.

Size: Few were bigger

Hand Speed: Few had faster hands

Skills: Few had a better skills on offense or defense.

Power: Few hit harder.

Less bums: Wlad fought very few fighters with losing
records

All over 200 pounds: Wlad has always fought
heavyweights.

No color or geographical line: Wlad has never used the
color line and has fought the best fighters from all
over the world.

Is Wlad on his way to making a top 30 all time list? I
think so!

The Brewster win puts Wlad in the top 20 for now. Wlad
is in his prime. A time when physical skills,
experience, and confidence are all at high levels. I
can't see more popular fighters like Charels, Walcott,
Patterson, or Schemling getting the better of Wlad in
a 3 fight series.

[Addie]

No one is saying Ali, Louis or Holmes. Those can be viewed as top 5 guys. I am saying if Wlad cleans out this era, he can be top ten.

Here's an older article I posted a while back:
Who are the top all time 30 heavyweights? You can pick
your own. I'll list 30. Odds are we have matches on at
least 20 names, and likely 25 names. I'm not here to
debate any order, moreover just agree to a general
consensus on the names.

M. Ali,L. Holmes,J. Jeffries,J. Louis,S. Liston,G.
Foreman,L Lewis,J. Dempsey,R. Marciano,R. Bowe,E.
Holyfield,M. Tyson,J. Frazier,J. Johnson,V.
Klitschko,G. Tunney,K. Norton,S. Langford,B.
Fitzsimmons,J. Corbett,P. Jackson,H Wills,E. Charles,J
Walcott, F. Patterson,M Schmeling,J.L. Sullivan,T.
Witherspoon, and I.Ibeabuchi

Now that we have the names out of the way, I'll get to
my point. Is Wladimir Klitschko on his way to getting
on this list? Let's examine.

Current Winning percentage: 94.23%. 6th best of the
listed 30 fighters. Only Marciano, Tunney, Louis,
Ibeabuchi, and Bowe have higher winning percentages.

KO Percentage:84.61% 3rd best of the listed 30
fighters. Only Marciano and Vitlay Kltishcko are
higher. It is possible for Wlad to pass them both.

Heavyweight title bout record ( Alphabets included )
9-2. At the top of the list in terms of total wins and
percentage of wins. Some may roll their eyes at
counting alphabet title defenses. Coutner point. Is a
guy like Brock any worse than say half of Louis,
Ali's, Frazier, or Holmes title opponents? I think
not!

Amount of times KO'd. 3 times. Only 13 of the 30
fighters have been Ko'd less. Many traditionally
higher rated fighters were Ko'd more often, and in my
opinion by lesser punchers.

Size: Few were bigger

Hand Speed: Few had faster hands

Skills: Few had a better skills on offense or defense.

Power: Few hit harder.

Less bums: Wlad fought very few fighters with losing
records

All over 200 pounds: Wlad has always fought
heavyweights.

No color or geographical line: Wlad has never used the
color line and has fought the best fighters from all
over the world.

Is Wlad on his way to making a top 30 all time list? I
think so!

The Brewster win puts Wlad in the top 20 for now. Wlad
is in his prime. A time when physical skills,
experience, and confidence are all at high levels. I
can't see more popular fighters like Charels, Walcott,
Patterson, or Schemling getting the better of Wlad in
a 3 fight series.

I stopped reading after awhile but I'll put it this way so that we no longer have to debate over Wladimir Klitschko.

If he doesn't lose up until he retires from now on, I will quite happily consider him a top 10 heavyweight. I say this because it most probably won't happen. Any puncher in his division can take him out, which is why I find it hard to rate him that highly.

Deal?

[Punisher33]

Wlad is top 25 ATG currently, there is pretty much no way he will ever crack the top 10, 3 losses against practical nobodies at the time doesnt help either. Purrity had almost as many losses as he does wins, Brewster was 13 months inactive and already lost to Shufford and Eitenne, Sanders was not ranked in the top 10 at the time and was most remembered for his knockout losses to Rahamn and Tubbs, a ton of other fighters were called, all of them declined to go to Germany and fight Wlad in 03, Sanders was the only fighter on the list to accept the invitation, the rest is history.

Wlad is currently fighting in one of the weakest Heavyweight divisions in the history of boxing, and still seems to have trouble looking good against aggressive fighters like Sam Peter in 05, who made him panic and hold a number of times, 97 to be exact. Wlad's chin and mental toughness is very weak, which contributes to his 11 knockdowns and 3 TKO's, which were mostly against journeymen.

I see Wlad cracking the top 20, with his physical attributes alone, it's just too bad Wlads prime wasnt in the 90's, his very weak chin and pysche would of been target practice for alot of the greats and good fighters that fought during that era.

[Russell]

Wlad is top 25 ATG currently, there is pretty much no way he will ever crack the top 10, 3 losses against practical nobodies at the time doesnt help either. Purrity had almost as many losses as he does wins, Brewster was 13 months inactive and already lost to Shufford and Eitenne, Sanders was not ranked in the top 10 at the time and was most remembered for his knockout losses to Rahamn and Tubbs, a ton of other fighters were called, all of them declined to go to Germany and fight Wlad in 03, Sanders was the only fighter on the list to accept the invitation, the rest is history.

Wlad is currently fighting in one of the weakest Heavyweight divisions in the history of boxing, and still seems to have trouble looking good against aggressive fighters like Sam Peter in 05, who made him panic and hold a number of times, 97 to be exact. Wlad's chin and mental toughness is very weak, which contributes to his 11 knockdowns and 3 TKO's, which were mostly against journeymen.

I see Wlad cracking the top 20, with his physical attributes alone, it's just too bad Wlads prime wasnt in the 90's, his very weak chin and pysche would of been target practice for alot of the greats and good fighters that fought during that era.

Sanders and Purrity both have assets well outside their general level, in a legendary chin and ungodly power.

Misleading to paint them in such a simple light.

[Punisher33]

Sanders and Purrity both have assets well outside their general level, in a legendary chin and ungodly power.

Misleading to paint them in such a simple light. Other than Wlad, who was Sanders best win? Purrity had not even a medicore win in his whole career, aside from Wlad. Brewster is the fighter that showed any type of skill and or staying power after Wlad lost to him in April of 04, Brewster went on to beat Meheen in a very close match, then killed Golota in under 60 seconds, then knocked out Luan Krasniqi late in the fight after losing on all cards by many points in Germany, and then his epic loss against Liakhovich in April of 06, Brewster did hold the WBO title for 2 years.

How am I painting them in a misleading light? Ones an out of shape golfer who has quick powerful hands, but lacked dedication, Purrity is nothing more than a club fighter who has nearly as many wins as he does losses, what is there more to say?

[mr. magoo]

I didnt realize golota won these fights? I guess damaging another fights balls to the point where he could have a kid magnitutes a win in your book? just like "Headbutt KO" right? :lol:


C'mon Suzie,

While I agree that Golata fought dirty and this was clearly a past prime Bowe, this was hardly your position in the past.

A few weeks ago, ( prior to your enlightening meeting with Bowe ,) we had a thread comparing Marciano to Bowe in a head to head matchup. You clearly commented on Bowe being thrashed by Golata, and now you're making it sound as though it was nothing more than foul play on the other man's part.

Please be consistant for once.......

[Seamus]

Do you and Russell want to retract your statements?


here is the 2001 Ring Magazine Heavyweight Ratings

Lennox Lewis, Champion

1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Mike Tyson
3. Chris Byrd
4. Hasim Rahman
5. Kirk Johnson
6. Evander Holyfield
7. John Ruiz
8. Jameel McCline
9. Fres Oquendo
10. David Tua

* No Corrie Sanders



here is the 2002 Ring Magazine Heavyweight Ratings


Lennox Lewis, Champion

1. Wladimir Klitschko
2. Chris Byrd
3. David Tua
4. Evander Holyfield
5. John Ruiz
6. Hasim Rahman
7. Vitali Klitschko
8. Kirk Johnson
9. Mike Tyson
10. Jameel McCline

* No Corrie Sanders


You are young. All you have is the web-based yearly ranking of Steve Farhood's jack-off rag.

The fact remains that Sanders was routinely ranked in the top-ten of their monthly rag, which I received and submitted to and got published in.

What? Alexander Zolkin or Bruce Seldon or Joe Hipp are better fighters than Sanders? Maybe you want to ask Don King why he wanted to throw millions at Sanders late in his career and even called him the biggest waste of potential revenue in the game?

I hate to sound like the ol' Vietnam vet, but "I was there". Sanders was really fucking good and no one wanted part of him.

[Seamus]

Riddick Bowe is the man


Ridiculous Bowe barely made it past Pierre Coetzer in their fight. He had to low blow him to hell and back to even gain purchase in that fight. It was hardly an emphatic performance.

He qualifies as a flash in the pan.

[SuzieQ49]

C'mon Suzie,

While I agree that Golata fought dirty and this was clearly a past prime Bowe, this was hardly your position in the past.

A few weeks ago, ( prior to your enlightening meeting with Bowe ,) we had a thread comparing Marciano to Bowe in a head to head matchup. You clearly commented on Bowe being thrashed by Golata, and now you're making it sound as though it was nothing more than foul play on the other man's part.

Please be consistant for once.......
__________________




Ya Well I changed my opinion of the fights once I heard the whole story of the fights from an inside source. film does not tell everything. Golota is a faggot.

[SuzieQ49]

You are young. All you have is the web-based yearly ranking of Steve Farhood's jack-off rag.

The fact remains that Sanders was routinely ranked in the top-ten of their monthly rag, which I received and submitted to and got published in.

What? Alexander Zolkin or Bruce Seldon or Joe Hipp are better fighters than Sanders? Maybe you want to ask Don King why he wanted to throw millions at Sanders late in his career and even called him the biggest waste of potential revenue in the game?

I hate to sound like the ol' Vietnam vet, but "I was there". Sanders was really fucking good and no one wanted part of him.

Dude I was there too, I was in high school when Sanders was fighting wlad. I collected ring magazine monthly issues too during that time as a teenage hobby. Sanders had a big punch and he was a southpaw, so he was a bit of a high risk low reward because he was such an unheralded unskiled fighter, but I dont remember any of my articles ever stating the divisions best ducking a unproven fighter like himself, especially after he got dismantled by hasim rahman. Going into the wlad fight, he had no shot, everyone thought it was a joke a old flabby man like him even got a shot vs wlad, and that it would end in a massacre. Sanders shocked the world, he was a journeyman one hit wonder pure and simple. People hype up sanders in head to head matchups to take away from the embarrasement for wlad.


ps Fact Remains Sanders was not on ONE single issue of Annuel Ring Magazine Ratings up until beating wlad, thats a fact. call them bias if you want, but they put in more stock than monthly ratings. Anyone could be rated for a month, but its what you do for the whole year that counts. Sanders was simply put a journeyman for 7/8 of his career.

[radianttwilight]

snip

This is all fine and dandy, but unless we're talking about an H2H list, most of it is irrelevant. Nobody's arguing that WK doesn't match up well vs. other greats in an H2H manner (or at least, they shouldn't), but his career does not fare so well.

Additionally, some things, such winning percentage, are almost totally irrelevant IMO. Someone like Frazier, who fought Ali 3x and Foreman 2x, may have a lower winning percentage than Wladimir, but certainly beat much better competition otherwise.

Knockout percentage is another semi-bogus statistic. Knocking someone out isn't synonomous with total domination, just as it isn't always better than outpointing a guy. It's somewhat useful in ranking someone as a puncher and/or finisher but we have to keep in mind that sometimes the better win comes from a clean shutout.

What makes me extremely hesitant to rank Wladimir inside my top 20 or 25 is not that his losses are "unavenged". It's the timing of them - all three of them (to a lesser extent the Purrity fiasco) came when he was considered by many to be either the concensus #1 contender or the #1 man/champion himself. One can argue that he wasn't "mature enough" or "in shape", but the fact is that he was roughly 27 and 28 for the Sanders and Brewster defeats. He was fully mature and came ready to fight both times - the "flukes" in these fights were not that he underestimated his opponent, undertrained, and got coldcocked (see Lewis-Rahman I), but that he was simply knocked out and owned by guys that really aren't/weren't all that good. This is without bringing up the Peter debacle, too.

Lennox Lewis has KO losses that bookend his prime. Wladimir Klitschko has two of them in what seems to be the middle of his.

[Seamus]

Dude I was there too, I was in high school when Sanders was fighting wlad. I collected ring magazine monthly issues too during that time as a teenage hobby. Sanders had a big punch and he was a southpaw, so he was a bit of a high risk low reward because he was such an unheralded unskiled fighter, but I dont remember any of my articles ever stating the divisions best ducking a unproven fighter like himself, especially after he got dismantled by hasim rahman. Going into the wlad fight, he had no shot, everyone thought it was a joke a old flabby man like him even got a shot vs wlad, and that it would end in a massacre. Sanders shocked the world, he was a journeyman one hit wonder pure and simple. People hype up sanders in head to head matchups to take away from the embarrasement for wlad.


ps Fact Remains Sanders was not on ONE single issue of Annuel Ring Magazine Ratings up until beating wlad, thats a fact. call them bias if you want, but they put in more stock than monthly ratings. Anyone could be rated for a month, but its what you do for the whole year that counts. Sanders was simply put a journeyman for 7/8 of his career.

Ok, you were in high school in 2003. I was being PAID (not much) to cover a Sanders fight in 93 or so. Big difference. I interviewed Don King twice and was routinely within feet of him (not that you could believe anything he said). Those annual issues are bullshit, as is the magazine in general during the Farhood era. Fact is, Sanders was ranked routinely by all four bodies and no one wanted a part of him. That is the reality of the game as it was. You may do your web-search for the ring annual ratings (not hard to find) and take it to heart. Take it from someone who had access to the inside of the early, mid and some of the late nineties, Sanders was the real deal and the measure of most the champs of the last 15 years.

Please tell me I do not know what I know firsthand.

[ChrisPontius]

C'mon Suzie,

While I agree that Golata fought dirty and this was clearly a past prime Bowe, this was hardly your position in the past.

A few weeks ago, ( prior to your enlightening meeting with Bowe ,) we had a thread comparing Marciano to Bowe in a head to head matchup. You clearly commented on Bowe being thrashed by Golata, and now you're making it sound as though it was nothing more than foul play on the other man's part.

Please be consistant for once.......

Not to mention he cries foul play when Cleveland Williams is unranked in the 50's because of bad rankings and all that, but when a Seldon is ranked and not Sanders, the rankings are gospel.

Let's face it guys, the only way to set this straight is we can sign a petition for Sanders to visit SuzieQ at his gym and we'll be flooded with "Sanders can still be undisputed champ if he gets in shape!" threads.

[SuzieQ49]

Not to mention he cries foul play when Cleveland Williams is unranked in the 50's because of bad rankings and all that, but when a Seldon is ranked and not Sanders, the rankings are gospel.


Speaking of Big Cat, Chris Pontius tried in another thread Cleveland Williams was knocked out by Ernie Terell :lol:

[JohnThomas1]

film does not tell everything. Golota is a faggot.

:lol:

[Sam Dixon]

Neither here nor there, but I have the June 2003 issue of The Ring, which would have been the last issue previous to Wladimir's fight with Corrie Sanders, and Sanders is no where to be found in their monthly top ten ranking for the period ending Feb 11th, 2003;

Champ: Lennox Lewis

1: Wladimir Klitschko
2: Chris Byrd
3: David Tua
4: Evander Holyfield
5: John Ruiz
6: Hasim Rahman
7: Vitali Klitschko
8: Kirk Johnson
9: Mike Tyson
10: Jameel McCline


Not so strange, I guess, but that issue of The Ring also includes the ratings for the three main alphabet groups, and Sanders is no where to be found in the WBA's top 12, IBF's top 12, nor the WBC's top 30. Entirely possible that he's listed in the WBO's ranking for that time, but this magazine doesn't list it, so I can't say one way or the other.

Like Seamus, though, I think I do remember a brief appearance by Sanders in The Ring's monthly rankings during the early part of the previous decade, although I'm not sure I can confirm that (I have saved some issues from the late 80's/early 90's, but not many and until recent years, none past 1992, I don't think) Shouldn't matter much, though, as that would have been ten years previous to the Klitschko fight.

[SuzieQ49]

Neither here nor there, but I have the June 2003 issue of The Ring, which would have been the last issue previous to Wladimir's fight with Corrie Sanders, and Sanders is no where to be found in their monthly top ten ranking for the period ending Feb 11th, 2003;

Champ: Lennox Lewis

1: Wladimir Klitschko
2: Chris Byrd
3: David Tua
4: Evander Holyfield
5: John Ruiz
6: Hasim Rahman
7: Vitali Klitschko
8: Kirk Johnson
9: Mike Tyson
10: Jameel McCline




Thanx Sam, I wish you would post here more often. You have alot of information to give to this forum, but unlike many posteres here you have the right attitude too.


It appears Seamus was wrong even about sanders being in the monthly ratings prior to wlad fight. Hey Seamus what low level college did you get your degree of "Journalism" from? :lol:

[SuzieQ49]

I was being PAID (not much) to cover a Sanders fight in 93 or so

WOWW You don't say. You are clearly in a different league than the rest of us on the forum.


I interviewed Don King twice and was routinely within feet of him (not that you could believe anything he said).


UNBELIEVABLE!!! what fine institution did you go to study your college work? Im sure it was the finest.


Fact is, Sanders was ranked routinely by all four bodies and no one wanted a part of him.

All 4 bodies of what? the Fat Golfers Tour?


Those annual issues are bullshit, as is the magazine in general during the Farhood era.


O I forgot, we are talking to Boxinginsider.com here. Yes anything you say sir is bullshit must be bullshit I mean after all you got paid to meet a man with 6 bullets in his head. I mean your the one who owns your own magazine and publishes yearly world ratings that the general public read right? Ring Magazine must be a joke compared to the Magazine you and your company runs.


Take it from someone who had access to the inside of the early, mid and some of the late nineties

Can I have your autograph? its an honor to be talking to such a prestige figure in the boxing world like yourself.

Sanders was the real deal and the measure of most the champs of the last 15 years.



[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Im sure every fighter and Champion in the gym trained to look just like this guy. What a Role Model.

[Sam Dixon]

Thanks Brockton.

A thought came to me that maybe the WBA, WBC and IBF gave Sanders the boot from their rankings once he signed for the WBO fight with Klitschko, so I went back and looked at a few more issues like Feb 2003, Nov 2002, and even back to May 2002, but Sanders name once again doesn't show up in any of The Ring's monthly rankings from those issues, nor is he listed in any of the three main alphabet rankings from those months either.

[SuzieQ49]

Thanks Brockton.

A thought came to me that maybe the WBA, WBC and IBF gave Sanders the boot from their rankings once he signed for the WBO fight with Klitschko, so I went back and looked at a few more issues like Feb 2003, Nov 2002, and even back to May 2002, but Sanders name once again doesn't show up in any of The Ring's monthly rankings from those issues, nor is he listed in any of the three main alphabet rankings from those months either.


Ya, Simply put he was never a Ring Magazine rated contender. He had one shot to prove himself in 2000, but he was knocked out by Hasim Rahman. He went into the wlad fight unrated and considered a big underdog.

[OLD FOGEY]

Wlad offered a lot of money to fight Purrity a few years ago.. Purrity turned it down. If Wlad picked Purrity for a title shot, there would be outrage. In fact, some were upset that a re-match with Sanders was possible. With some critics, its darned if you do and darned if you do not.

Are three losses in 50+ fights at heavyweight that bad? Not really. The truth is many ATG's were KO'd by lesser fighters and weaker punchers. Others ATG’s were out boxed by guys who would be lucky to win two rounds vs Wlad. This is why I think some posters are hyproctical when it comes to ranking heavyweights.

How many losses did Jack Johnson avenge?
How many losses did Max Schemling avenge?
How many losses did Ezzard Charles avenge?
How many losses did Joe Walcott avenge?
How many losses did Floyd Patterson avenge?
How many loses did George Foreman avenge?
How many losses did Mike Tyson Avenge?

Less than Wlad in ever case! Yet it does not prevent these guys from top 20 slots. If Wlad keeps on a roll, a spot on the top 15 is very doable. I think he is already in the top 20 now.

Why is Ezzard Charles on this list?--fighters he avenged losses to include Jimmy Bivins, Lloyd Marshall, Elmer Ray, Rex Layne, and John Holman. Most ringside writers thought Charles deserved his fourth bout with Walcott which would have avenged the 1951 ko loss as well.

Charles did very well avenging losses until he really began to slip. He couldn't avenge his loss to Valdes because Valdes refused a rematch, even though the winner would get Marciano.

Jersey Joe Walcott also avenged losses to Allen, Ray, Maxim, and Charles that I can think of off the top of my head.

Seriously, you often make negative comments about Charles and Walcott that are not factually accurate.

[OLD FOGEY]

Neither here nor there, but I have the June 2003 issue of The Ring, which would have been the last issue previous to Wladimir's fight with Corrie Sanders, and Sanders is no where to be found in their monthly top ten ranking for the period ending Feb 11th, 2003;

Champ: Lennox Lewis

1: Wladimir Klitschko
2: Chris Byrd
3: David Tua
4: Evander Holyfield
5: John Ruiz
6: Hasim Rahman
7: Vitali Klitschko
8: Kirk Johnson
9: Mike Tyson
10: Jameel McCline


Not so strange, I guess, but that issue of The Ring also includes the ratings for the three main alphabet groups, and Sanders is no where to be found in the WBA's top 12, IBF's top 12, nor the WBC's top 30. Entirely possible that he's listed in the WBO's ranking for that time, but this magazine doesn't list it, so I can't say one way or the other.

Like Seamus, though, I think I do remember a brief appearance by Sanders in The Ring's monthly rankings during the early part of the previous decade, although I'm not sure I can confirm that (I have saved some issues from the late 80's/early 90's, but not many and until recent years, none past 1992, I don't think) Shouldn't matter much, though, as that would have been ten years previous to the Klitschko fight.

I have been plowing through old boxing mags also checking the ratings and found a World Boxing which includes ratings for Feb, 2003. They don't rate Sanders themselves, nor does he appear in the top 12 of the WBA or IBF ratings, or in the top 30 of the WBC ratings.

My take would be that he was at best a fringe contender who popped into the ratings here and there but couldn't sustain holding a high position, hence never appearing in the yearly Ring rankings.

[janitor]

At the end of the day great fighters somtimes have ugly losses early in their career and then go on to strut their stuff.

As far as I am concerned Wlads winning streak started when he beat up Peter and is ongoing.

If he keeps it up I am prepared to dismiss his early losses as teething troubles.

Nobody criticises Max Schmeling for not avenging his loss to Gypsie Daniels.

[PowerPuncher]

Sanders is a Buster Mathis Sr figure, would have been excellent if he could have got himself into shape

[Seamus]

WOWW You don't say. You are clearly in a different league than the rest of us on the forum.

I am not saying that at all. But I attended his fights, talked to his promoters and guys who wanted to promote him. That's all.



WOWW You don't say. You are clearly in a different
UNBELIEVABLE!!! what fine institution did you go to study your college work? Im sure it was the finest.

I'm just saying I was "on the scene" in the '90's and you weren't. I don't know anyone from those days anymore. I am not pretending to be some great insider, but I was inside enough to know about this particular era.

University of Washington International Studies, if you must know. Masters degree at Ohio State in the same.




All 4 bodies of what? the Fat Golfers Tour?

No, all four legit ranking bodies at the time.




O I forgot, we are talking to Boxinginsider.com here. Yes anything you say sir is bullshit must be bullshit I mean after all you got paid to meet a man with 6 bullets in his head. I mean your the one who owns your own magazine and publishes yearly world ratings that the general public read right? Ring Magazine must be a joke compared to the Magazine you and your company runs.

It's all garbage as far the rags were concerned a decade ago. It was their final death spasm. Now, the internet runs the show in boxing media. But Farhood's Ring in the 90's was one of the worst sources, especially for ranking non-US fighters. Alex Zolkin better than Sanders?




Can I have your autograph? its an honor to be talking to such a prestige figure in the boxing world like yourself.

Yes. Paypal me $50.

I think you are taking me too seriously. All I'm saying is that I was around the scene in those days. It is or was surprisingly easy to get the lay of the land from promoters, trainers and fighters. I know what the estimation of Sanders was amongst those guys, pretty fucking high.

Keep up the good work.

[Seamus]

My take would be that he was at best a fringe contender who popped into the ratings here and there but couldn't sustain holding a high position, hence never appearing in the yearly Ring rankings.

How young are you people? He was on the cover of Ring Magazine in 93/94! He was ranked throughout the 1990's, not after the Tubbs loss but certainly after the wins over Cole and Czyz.

[radianttwilight]

How young are you people? He was on the cover of Ring Magazine in 93/94! He was ranked throughout the 1990's, not after the Tubbs loss but certainly after the wins over Cole and Czyz.

Are you questioning the age of the FOGEY? :D

[Seamus]

Are you questioning the age of the FOGEY? :D

Maybe his memory. Sanders was a much hotter commodity in the early-mid nineties than in the 2000's/pre-Klitch fight.

[Sam Dixon]

He was on the cover of Ring Magazine in 93/94!

After checking the two years you gave and every other year throughout the 90's, I'm sorry, I don't see him;

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[red cobra]

I think that's the biggest negative that I can think of concerning Wlad. It's very bad when a fighter does not try to avenge a loss, especially a ko defeat. All the greats like Carlos Monzon, Lennox Lewis and, early in his career, Joe Louis. Joe, after winning the title from Braddock, said he wouldn't feel like a champion until he got revenge over Schmeling. That's what a great champion is all about. As highly as I regard Wlad, and I think he's the cream of the crop today, I really think that it was a mistake, legacy-wise not to have avenged the Sanders defeat. Who knows, maybe Sanders would have ko'd him again, but the right thing would have been to fight Sanders again.

[Mendoza]

Why is Ezzard Charles on this list?--fighters he avenged losses to include Jimmy Bivins, Lloyd Marshall, Elmer Ray, Rex Layne, and John Holman. Most ringside writers thought Charles deserved his fourth bout with Walcott which would have avenged the 1951 ko loss as well.

Charles did very well avenging losses until he really began to slip. He couldn't avenge his loss to Valdes because Valdes refused a rematch, even though the winner would get Marciano.

Jersey Joe Walcott also avenged losses to Allen, Ray, Maxim, and Charles that I can think of off the top of my head.

Seriously, you often make negative comments about Charles and Walcott that are not factually accurate.

OLD FOGEY, the comments were amined at SuzieQ. But Wlad really did not have a good chance to re-match Purrity. Purrity turned him down. Sanders was not rated high enough and had injury issues after he lost to Vitlai, which is a reason why Wlad never re-matched him.

In the end, Wlad only has 2 un-avenged losses. Anyone I posted on the list has more. This includes Charles and Walcott. That was my point. If un-avenged losses are part ot a rating mix, then Wlad is going to do well on that part of the equation.

[OLD FOGEY]

How young are you people? He was on the cover of Ring Magazine in 93/94! He was ranked throughout the 1990's, not after the Tubbs loss but certainly after the wins over Cole and Czyz.

Let's just say I am old. When exactly was he ranked and how high? I said fringe contender because he never sustained a ranking long enough to make the Ring's yearly rankings. If he was a top contender, he should have.

I am not maintaining he was never ranked. I found an old magazine which listed the alphabet rankings, and the IBF, I believe, ranked him #8 contender in 1995.

[PowerPuncher]

How young are you people? He was on the cover of Ring Magazine in 93/94! He was ranked throughout the 1990's, not after the Tubbs loss but certainly after the wins over Cole and Czyz.

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.

[mr. magoo]

It's all garbage as far the rags were concerned a decade ago. It was their final death spasm. Now, the internet runs the show in boxing media. But Farhood's Ring in the 90's was one of the worst sources, especially for ranking non-US fighters. Alex Zolkin better than Sanders?


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.

[Seamus]

After checking the two years you gave and every other year throughout the 90's, I'm sorry, I don't see him;

[Only registered and activated users can see links]

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

[Seamus]

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.

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.

[Bummy Davis]

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.

[mr. magoo]

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.

[Russell]

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.

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.

[mr. magoo]

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.

[Russell]

Mhm, I agree.

[SuzieQ49]

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

[Russell]

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

:good:tired:rofl

[SuzieQ49]

:good:tired:rofl


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

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

[Mendoza]

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

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


1. Lennox Lewis
2. Hasim Rahman
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.

[SuzieQ49]

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.

[Mendoza]

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.

[mr. magoo]

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

So what are you getting at, that Sanders can't punch?

[mr. magoo]

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.

I have to agree with these observations. Although Rahman had big wins over Lewis and Sanders, I'd say his number of losses from 2000 onward, diminish his value somewhat, or at least enough to the point where he shouldn't be ranked as second best fighter of the decade. I can definately agree with having him as a member of the top 10, but in order to be considrered one of the top 3 of any era, you have to have credentials that are a bit more solid. Personally, I think Wlad should be number one followed by Lewis at number two. Lewis fought too few times post 2000 to be rated over Klitschko in this decade. From a career standpoint, its Lewis all the way over Wlad, but that isn't the discussion here. After Lewis, I might be inclined to looking at Ruslan Chagaev. He is afterall undefeated and holding a world title, plus he beat both Valuev and Ruiz who many are placing on their top 10 list for the 2000's. Beyond that, Rahman or Byrd may be possibilities for the number 4 spot, but I'm not exactly sure, and nor do I plan to spend a great deal of time contemplating it.

[Seamus]

agendas are wonderful.

someday i'll be re-educated on what i saw firsthand and deciphered with my little, pea-brain.

please proceed.

[SuzieQ49]

Big Cat Williams was twice the fighter Corrie Sanders ever was

[kinski]

Rahman didn't knock out Sanders! It was stopped because He wasn't defending himself. Sanders was actually ahead on the scorecards. A good fight. Check out the back issue of Ko magazine Nov '03 issue. It tells his story after the Klitschko fight. What a waste! If he could have gotten an American trainer.

[Seamus]

Big Cat Williams was twice the fighter Corrie Sanders ever was

you mean half the fighter, right?