Featherweights: Eusebio Pedroza vs Juan Manuel Marquez

[elmersalsa]

Two technical boxers. Both had great dedication and determination for every fight.

[giacomino]

Marquez, UD. He’s the better all-around fighter, IMO. Lots of low blows from Pedroza hoping to wear Marquez down but Marquez retaliates and wins something like 7-4-1 over 12 or 8-6-1 over 15. Good fight

[elmersalsa]

Eusebio Pedroza wins by unanimous decision or late KO. Different class. Better arsenal of punches. The most complete boxer ever in my lifetime.

Everything that Juan Manuel Marquez gave done, Pedroza did it better.

[giacomino]

In no way was Pedroza a “different class” than Marquez, who fought and legitimately beat better opponents than Pedroza. But everyone knew you would say that since you have a woody for the Panamanian nutpuncher

[elmersalsa]

In no way was Pedroza a “different class” than Marquez, who fought and legitimately beat better opponents than Pedroza. But everyone knew you would say that since you have a woody for the Panamanian nutpuncher

Eusebio Pedroza was in a different class. By far. Like I have said, everything that Juan Manuel Marquez did, Pedroza did it better.

Marquez was much more accomplished, I give him that. But he would have never been a top notch fighter in the 80s decade. Not with Pedroza and Salvador Sanchez around.

I have seen lots of boxers in my lifetime. And to say that he was the most complete boxer that I have ever seen in my lifetime is to show how highly I think about the guy. The guy was a terrific fighter shunned by the American boxing media unjustifyingly calling him a "dirty fighter". And the people believed it. When in reality, Pedroza was a superb technician that could do it all.

Put Marquez to defend his title in 10 different places around the world, and he will lose it on his first title defense. Ask Chris John of Indonesia.

[giacomino]

In no way was Pedroza a “different class” than Marquez, who fought and legitimately beat better opponents than Pedroza. But everyone knew you would say that since you have a woody for the Panamanian nutpuncher

Eusebio Pedroza was in a different class. By far. Like I have said, everything that Juan Manuel Marquez did, Pedroza did it better.

Marquez was much more accomplished, I give him that. But he would have never been a top notch fighter in the 80s decade. Not with Pedroza and Salvador Sanchez around.

I have seen lots of boxers in my lifetime. And to say that he was the most complete boxer that I have ever seen in my lifetime is to show how highly I think about the guy. The guy was a terrific fighter shunned by the American boxing media unjustifyingly calling him a "dirty fighter". And the people believed it. When in reality, Pedroza was a superb technician that could do it all.

Put Marquez to defend his title in 10 different places around the world, and he will lose it on his first title defense. Ask Chris John of Indonesia.

I know we will never agree on anything involving him because of your obsession with Pedroza, whom i also rate highly, so pointless to debate. But why do you post a matchup between two fighters who you say are of a different class? Is this some kind of confirmation therapy for you?

[elmersalsa]

I just put it out there to see the people's opinion. You said that Juan Manuel Marquez beats Eusebio Pedroza. I completely disagree. I saw BOTH of them fight in my lifetime, and by any means I can't picture a guy as Marquez beat someone that I consider the most complete boxer ever in my lifetime.

Pedroza, to me, was much more complete than my favorite boxer Roberto Duran. And Duran was a complete boxer, no doubt about that.

Pedroza was much more complete than Sugar Ray Robinson, Sugar Ray Leonard, Mike McCallum, Salvador Sanchez and Marvelous Marvin Hagler. He was that good.

It's just that the American boxing media hold something against him as a "dirty fighter" in which I completely disagree. The guy Pedroza was a complete boxer and a terrific technician. Muhammad Ali grabbed and hold his opponents behind the neck, but nobody said anything about him being dirty. That's a double standard. If Pedroza was dirty, Ali was dirty also.

Pedroza never hold nobody behind the neck. Ain't holding behind the neck illegal in boxing?

The American boxing media hated him with a passion. And they wanted the whole of the US to follow suit. It worked. But, they knew that Pedroza can fight. If he was an American, he would have been ranked higher. It's just that he beat the American boxing prospects like Rocky Lockridge and Bernard Taylor in the early 80s decade.

American boxing media had a propaganda and agenda, to put their best amateur boxers turning professional to dominate boxing. Guys like Sugar Ray Leonard, Aaron Pryor, Thomas Hearns, Jeff Chandler, Marvelous Marvin Hagler, Leon Randolph and others that became world champions in 1980 were promoted by their agenda.

Why? Because in 1976, they couldn't take the fact that ONLY two Americans were world champions: Muhammad Ali and Danny "Little Red" Lopez, (another that didn't want nothing to do with Pedroza).

Most of the world champions in the 70s decade were Latin boxers. The American boxing media wanted to stop that dominance by supporting their boxers the best they could.

Were they successful? Yes. Were they pissed at Pedroza that beat their American boxing prospects? Yes! That's why the American boxing media called him a dirty fighter. They just didn't like him.

Pedroza was so good that he defended his crown 10 times in opponents' backyards. No other champion had done that all over the world. He was truly a true world champion in any sense of the word.