Featherweights: Alexis Arguello vs Vicente Saldivar

elmersalsa · Post by **elmersalsa** » 06 Feb 2007, 14:50

I pick Arguello because I only seen just a couple of clips of Saldivar. But of what I saw of this great Mexican, he was a guy that applied a lots of pressure. Arguello at 126 was a monster too, and probably a better technician and hit harder. Who wins???

john2345 · Post by **john2345** » 07 Feb 2007, 05:57

That's a tough one! Both great fighters with power and skill. At featherweight I'd lean slightly towards a peak Saldivar.... constant pressure, ability to take it, and keep coming. He handled a variety of opponents, and his fights with Winstone showed all his attributes. (Though by his own admission he lost the second fight despite the decision)

I see him taking AA's best, coming thru it and eventually getting on top in the second half. Wins by close but UD in a tough draining fight.

J

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 07 Feb 2007, 06:44

Arguello was the naturally bigger man, and he also happened to be something like a half a foot taller than the relatively small (even for 126) Saldivar. Saldivar was a bull, but Arguello's huge height advantage and great countering skills would lead him to a relatively easy win. Something like 8 rounds to 4 in a 12 rounder, and maybe 11 rounds to 4 or a late KO in a 15 rounder.

john2345 · Post by **john2345** » 07 Feb 2007, 07:00

iceman21287 wrote:Arguello was the naturally bigger man, and he also happened to be something like a half a foot taller than the relatively small (even for 126) Saldivar. Saldivar was a bull, but Arguello's huge height advantage and great countering skills would lead him to a relatively easy win. Something like 8 rounds to 4 in a 12 rounder, and maybe 11 rounds to 4 or a late KO in a 15 rounder.

I accept that AA would have had a height advantage, but I think VS would have found a way to overcome that with a sustained body attack. Arguello was one of the greats, but I just feel that at feather Saldivar would have that bit extra strength and outlast him. I don't see Saldivar at his peak losing by KO to Alexis. But just my opinion of course! J

iceman21287 · Post by **iceman21287** » 07 Feb 2007, 07:24

john2345 wrote:
iceman21287 wrote:Arguello was the naturally bigger man, and he also happened to be something like a half a foot taller than the relatively small (even for 126) Saldivar. Saldivar was a bull, but Arguello's huge height advantage and great countering skills would lead him to a relatively easy win. Something like 8 rounds to 4 in a 12 rounder, and maybe 11 rounds to 4 or a late KO in a 15 rounder.
I accept that AA would have had a height advantage, but I think VS would have found a way to overcome that with a sustained body attack. Arguello was one of the greats, but I just feel that at feather Saldivar would have that bit extra strength and outlast him. I don't see Saldivar at his peak losing by KO to Alexis. But just my opinion of course! J

Definitely a valid one at that, as Saldivar was the best featherweight of the 60s. The fact that Saldivar was a southpaw would definitely give AA problems. I just feel as though AA was the smarter fighter, and when I have to pick between to equally great fighters, I tend to go with the guy who I think is 1.) A better boxer and 2.) a smarter fighter.

john2345 · Post by **john2345** » 07 Feb 2007, 07:36

I'm almost beginning to swing towards Aruello now! I guess if Winstone could run Saldivar so close then logically Arguello has a great chance of doing at least the same, and with his additional power and two-handed ability possibly better than Winstone. My hesitation in derserting Vincente (vs Arguello) would be that Winstone was a greatly under-rated fighter, and much stronger and a harder puncher than generally recognised, and beating him was no mean achievement. I still side with Saldivar but I wouldn't be betting on the outcome!

J