Pac-Man VS Salvador Sanchez and 130

raulc002 · Post by **raulc002** » 24 Jan 2006, 17:24

who would win this fight?

Borinken25 · Post by **Borinken25** » 24 Jan 2006, 17:44

Sanchez defense and counter punching ability will be too much for Paquiao. Sanchez win it by either TKO or UD.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 24 Jan 2006, 18:30

In a head-to-head sense, Salvador Sanchez is in my top five of all time. He was truly magnificent. He could be accused of, like Larry Holmes, fighting to the level of his opposition... But he always did what he had to do to win.

Sanchez was so smooth, relaxed, but sharp and precise. His jab was scything, and his straight right laser-guided. He had a complete arsenal of punches, a full chest of tricks, and a granite chin and superb conditioning to match.

Pacquiao is a talented, but he isn't in the same class. His hard punching, come-forward style would play right into Salvador's hands, and he would be picked apart all night and stopped in the late rounds.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 24 Jan 2006, 20:27

We are putting the latest fad up against an all time great? This guy has beaten MAB once Essentially fought both JMM and EM to a draw...(OK he had the better fight of the two fights with Morales).....But it's way to soon, Sanchez would not have had the same record against these guys. I'm pretty sure Sanchez would be 4 and O with the same road trip.

Too soon for this type of hype for the Pac Man. And don't get me wrong I have great respect for him. If you want to talk about Manny and Naz I think you have the better argument there. But Salvadore? Too optimistic as far as I'm concerned.

raulc002 · Post by **raulc002** » 24 Jan 2006, 21:44

Ya ur right, This manny pacquiao is gettin to my head. Sanchez would probably stop him in 7 rounds

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 27 Jan 2006, 00:29

Decagon wrote:This morning, I watched Sanchez's fights with Red Lopez and Azuma Nelson again. He was brilliant, and easily one of the three or four greatest featherweights of all time. He'd probably beat Pacquiao. But you know what? Pacquiao is faster, and perhaps just as strong. He has wins over Morales, Barerra and (in my opinion) Marquez under his belt. To rule out a possible upset is silly.

The Lopez dissection was quite savage, but beautiful. Sanchez was so accurate.

DoubleM · Post by **DoubleM** » 27 Jan 2006, 00:42

If you say so

vagabundo55 · Post by **vagabundo55** » 27 Jan 2006, 23:13

borinken25 wrote:Sanchez defense and counter punching ability will be too much for Paquiao. Sanchez win it by either TKO or UD.

I agree with this.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 28 Jan 2006, 03:05

Sanchez would give that over rated southpaw Paquiao a boxing lesson. He would stop him in 6-7 or 8. Paquiao is not and never will be in the same league as Salvador Sanchez.

Lets get real here guys.....

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 28 Jan 2006, 09:17

ringsider wrote:Sanchez would give that over rated southpaw Paquiao a boxing lesson. He would stop him in 6-7 or 8. Paquiao is not and never will be in the same league as Salvador Sanchez. Lets get real here guys.....

I don't see how a guy who has defeated the other 2 top featherweights of his era, both by knockout mind you, can be overrated. Yes Sanchez would probably win, but Pacman is probably the most powerful featherweight of all time and even Salvador Sanchez isn't immune to being knocked out by Pacquiao.

barry · Post by **barry** » 28 Jan 2006, 09:32

>>>but Pacman is probably the most powerful featherweight of all time<<<

Lets not go overboard here! Sandy Saddler, Terry McGovern, Azumah Nelson and many others were very, very strong featherweights.

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 28 Jan 2006, 11:16

barry wrote:>>>but Pacman is probably the most powerful featherweight of all time<<<

Lets not go overboard here! Sandy Saddler, Terry McGovern, Azumah Nelson and many others were very, very strong featherweights.

True but I see no reason why Pacquiao shouldn't be added to that list. Saying that he's the most powerful featherweight of all-time is probably going a little too far, but I definitely think he is on the shortlist.

barry · Post by **barry** » 28 Jan 2006, 12:29

He has proven himself at the weight by the performances that he has had against the best of the weight, but he needs to have a lot more than four, or five bouts at the weight to be along side of some others who fought most of their career at that weight. If he continues to dominate against top competition then no doubt he should be mentioned along side some of the greats, but I just feel that it is still a little early to have him next to the all-time greats, but he certainly is not overrated!

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 28 Jan 2006, 13:57

barry wrote:He has proven himself at the weight by the performances that he has had against the best of the weight, but he needs to have a lot more than four, or five bouts at the weight to be along side of some others who fought most of their career at that weight. If he continues to dominate against top competition then no doubt he should be mentioned along side some of the greats, but I just feel that it is still a little early to have him next to the all-time greats, but he certainly is not overrated!

Definitely not overrated. And just to clarify for you barry, I wasn't saying that overall he was anywhere near as great as Salvador Sanchez, Azumah Nelson, etc. I was just saying that as a puncher, there aren't many you could say had similar power. Pacquiao's last 20 victories and 28 out of his last 29 have come by knockout. KO percentage is supposed to go down as you face tougher opposition, not up. It's hard for me not to compare Pacquiao's power with the greatest of all time. And even though he's only had a handful of fights at featherweight, he knocked out MAB, Morales (who even though some say wasn't at his best, I certainly thought he was until Pacquiao started getting to him), and dropped JMM 3 times in the first round of their fight. He's shown that he can drop any fighter in the division at any time, regardless of how good their chin is. That's pure power IMO.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 28 Jan 2006, 14:00

How many people were saying this about Naseem just a few years ago? Lets' see how long Manny maintains this. As good as he is he is only feasting on aging greatness currently. Lets find out how his battle with Father time goes.

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 28 Jan 2006, 14:02

BoxBuzz wrote:How many people were saying this about Naseem just a few years ago? Lets' see how long Manny maintains this. As good as he is he is only feasting on aging greatness currently. Lets find out how his battle with Father time goes.

Who did Naseem beat that was anywhere near as good as MAB or Morales? Kevin Kelley? Pacquiao destroyed the guy that destroyed him. If Pacquiao gets into the ring with Naz, he would definitely drop him. Naz got dropped by guys that shouldn't even be mentioned next to Pacman in terms of punching power.

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 28 Jan 2006, 14:04

One thing about Naz though. He is beyond a shadow of a doubt the undisputed champion of ring entrances

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 28 Jan 2006, 15:18

He is beyond a shadow of a doubt the undisputed champion of ring entrances

That is fore sure...... Naseem brought boxing down in 2 respects. He was a southpaw and a clown. Paquiao is only a southpaw....

ferocity · Post by **ferocity** » 28 Jan 2006, 18:09

I've seen fight of Salvador Sanchez and I aggree that he would outbox if not tko Pacquiao. Its already been shown by J.M.M that Pacquiao can be out boxed. Another thing i'd like to point out in this fight against J.M.M. is that Marquez stunned Pacquiao a few times. And Sanchez I belive had a bit more power then Marquez and a granite chin.

Pacquiao being in his prime still has a few fighters to beat theres still a lot of competition for him at featherweight Harrison, Juarez, Marquez, Barrera and maybe a couple more Im unaware of that have gotten the respect of other to compete with the Champion.

ferocity · Post by **ferocity** » 28 Jan 2006, 18:14

I didn't add Morales cause Morales im sure will take at least 1 year vaction from the boxing and he deserves the rest. But once hes comes back, i belive he will be fight Pacquiao again after a tune-up.

BoxBuzz · Post by **BoxBuzz** » 28 Jan 2006, 18:30

Iceman....chill, I'm only saying it's a bit early to bestow greatness on this guy. He may be the next coming of Sanchez, but let's wait and see.

ringsider · Post by **ringsider** » 28 Jan 2006, 18:58

BoxBuzz says

......He may be the next coming of Sanchez,......

Not a chance!!!...even in your distorted dreams.....

barry · Post by **barry** » 28 Jan 2006, 19:41

>>>Pacquiao has already had almost as many 126-pound fights as Terry McGovern had.<<<

Pac has had what, seven bouts at featherweight compared to 30+ for McGovern and in terms of meaniful bouts at 126, Pac has around five compared to ten, or twelve for McGovern...so no Pac has not had nearly as many bouts as McGovern at featherweight, Terry had five times as many bouts at featherweight as Pac! Perhaps in four, or five years, that is if he can continue at his current pace.

barry · Post by **barry** » 29 Jan 2006, 01:36

>>>You need to do more research. When McGovern defended the World Featherweight Championship, the weight limit was often 118 to 122 pounds.<<<

Oh I've done more research on McGovern alone than you have done on boxing as a whole and as usual you just make dumb-ass comments that you assume might be right, but as usual they turn out to be as wrong as it gets.

FACT...none of McGoverns title bouts at featherweight were under 122 pounds, so no the weight limit was not often 118 to 122 as you so curelessly stated, it was 122 to 126, so again stop making stupid comments on something that you have absolutely no clue about, all you do is just make yourself look like that much more of an idiot and if you had any credibility it would drop with every clueless comment that you make, which I am not saying you are clueless as an insult...it's fact as you so often demonstrate. It looks like you would learn your lesson after making one, or two completely incorrect statements, but you continue to be as steady as rock and about as smart as one.

>>>If we're going to count McGovern's title bouts at 122, why shouldn't we count Pacquiao's?<<<

Even counting those bouts that Pac had at 122 and above it still only equals out to around 10, or 12 total fights, so you are still way off the mark by about 20 bouts and you're still just as incorrect as you were before adding the 122 pound bouts to the count! But in regards to counting Pac in that class, well sorry, but you cannot re-write history to try to cover up a stupid comment, it just doesn't work that way! Even if some of McGovern's featherweight bouts had been at 118, which they most certainly were not, it would have still been the featherweight limit, but being that none of McGovern's featherweight bouts were under 122 it doesn't matter...you were just plain wrong...as usual and now you are trying your best to somehow make it right, but no matter what you try it won’t be!

barry · Post by **barry** » 29 Jan 2006, 02:38

Against Dixon it was 122 pounds...Dixon wanted 118, but since the featherweight limit was 122 then it would not have been a title bout if the match would have been held at 118. I have around 30 pages of clips about the fight from several different sources, none of which give the actual weight of the fighters, but I do have weights for all of his other title bouts.

Pac-Man VS Salvador Sanchez and 130

Pac-Man VS Salvador Sanchez and 130

re

Re: re

re

Re: re

re

re

re