BoxRec

Ford got a shot at Pedroza because he gave Sanchez a very difficult fight and Eusebio completely abused him and knocked him out.

Rocky Lockridge not credible? That's pathetic.

Idisagree wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:LOL, Lockridge & Laporte both fought Chavez and the fights could have went either way. I wasn't speaking hypothetically, I watched the fights more than once.

Ford may not have almost won, but he was more competitive with Sanchez than he was with Pedroza. Certainly making him "credible".

Arguello was 3% less for the rematch? LMAO

Taylor was one of the most decorated amateurs in history and well into his professional career. Now he is green because it was his first title fight? Do you revise the dictionary daily? It makes it very difficult to talk to you when you change the meaning of words to fit your argument.


Obviously your definition of credible = great fighter. Which is preposterous. Either that or you are so incredibly stubborn that you can't admit you made a stupid statement. Whichever it is, you're boring me.

You are boring me too with your nonsense. Lockridge and Laporte could have gone either way. Go watch the fight again. Those were clear wins by Chavez.

You must be new at this because amateurs records those not always translate into greatness. Duran amateur record was something like 10 fights and he is one of the all-time greats. Taylor was not deserving of that title shot based on his professional record period.

Obviously your definition of credible is not the same as mine, let's leave it at that.

I'm sorry to bore you with knowledge. You're not seriously trying to act like you saw the Chavez fights with Lockridge and laporte after your last response? You had no idea they had fought, that's obvious in your post. Nice edit there to include Laporte having fought Chavez. You looked it up but clearly had no idea either of those fights took place until this discussion.

That is amazingly sad. you couldn't just stand by your words? Had to go back and edit it and then have the nerve to talk about the fights? That's worse than Granberry. Shame on you. You should check them out someday. They were excellent fights and many people thought Chavez lost. I gave him a narrow edge in both of them. But, as they did throughout their careers, Lockridge & laporte proved to be quite "credible".

I didn't say over 300 amateur fights makes a great pro. you're horribly confused. But it does give them enough experience to fight for a title early in their career without being "green".

Your definition of credible is retarded. You should change it if you want anyone on earth to understand you.

salsa-----boxbuzz is supposed to jump in and save from further pryor comments, but he may be busy building his compost pile, so i have to be the one to ask:


what fighters ducked aaron pryor?

None of the Lightweight contenders were interested in him. After that it would be nobody.

I bought this Ring Magazine special edition back in 2002, and still have it.

Published before Roy Jones dramatic slide.... would be interesting to see where he would be now.
Evander at #22? come on.... thats way too high

jaclem2 wrote:salsa-----boxbuzz is supposed to jump in and save from further pryor comments, but he may be busy building his compost pile, so i have to be the one to ask:


what fighters ducked aaron pryor?

A fighter who's name should not be mentioned in this group, or in this thread has somehow shown up. But now due to an oversight, it apparently has been dropped a few times. I however will not add to the list of those who would mention such names, in such a high quality thread.

. However just like the finest Corinthian leather, things that "should not be there" will occasionaly appear, in order to distinguish itself from Naugahyde......at least that's the spin I'll put on this, in defense of my good friend Jaclem.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Hearns at 67 and Leonard at 9... That's too big a gap.

Chalres should be over Whittaker. Pernell was great but he's too high.

Greb should be in the top 3.

Marciano at 12 and Frazier at 42? Again that's too big a disparity.

Yep, seein' as how Marciano would get his clock cleaned by Joe. The Monzon Hagler discrepancy works out to about right to my way of thinking. But that's going to have some folks here howling the blues.

You know I'm in the Monzon camp too but as long as Marvin and Carlos are in touching distance then I'm happy.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: I'm sorry to bore you with knowledge. You're not seriously trying to act like you saw the Chavez fights with Lockridge and laporte after your last response? You had no idea they had fought, that's obvious in your post. Nice edit there to include Laporte having fought Chavez. You looked it up but clearly had no idea either of those fights took place until this discussion.

That is amazingly sad. you couldn't just stand by your words? Had to go back and edit it and then have the nerve to talk about the fights? That's worse than Granberry. Shame on you. You should check them out someday. They were excellent fights and many people thought Chavez lost. I gave him a narrow edge in both of them. But, as they did throughout their careers, Lockridge & laporte proved to be quite "credible".

I didn't say over 300 amateur fights makes a great pro. you're horribly confused. But it does give them enough experience to fight for a title early in their career without being "green".

Your definition of credible is retarded. You should change it if you want anyone on earth to understand you.

I saw those fights live and yes I’m bound to forget some of them. At my age I had to go back and said wait a minute, they did fight. And it only took me a couple of seconds to realize yes they did fight. And it was the Laporte fight only, I do clearly recall the Lockridge fight and it was good but clear and convincing win by Chavez. Like I said before it has been a while. However, I don’t recall having any doubt as to who clearly won. Show me where there is controversy on any of those fights that says that they could have gone either way? Why don’t you back your argument with facts and show me where there is any controversy with any of these fights.

Also it is very clear you never saw Ford vs Sanchez. On that fight Sanchez look like he was bore and was not interested in fighting that bum and still he dominated the fight and won. Go watch the fight before you make a comment that clearly shows you did not see that fight.

Still you have the nerve to say the Ford almost won. Then you claim that Ford got a title shot vs Pedroza because he did so well against Sanchez. That is completely BS. Pedroza gave him the opportunity because he saw an easy target. Why don’t back up your arguments with facts. What did Ford ever do to deserve a title shot in the first place?
You call this knowledge? Carrasquillo, Ford, and Lujan are credible opponents? You lost all of your credibility with that statement. Still you cannot find facts to support your retarded argument.

Like I said before Lockridge and Laporte were good but not elite. For me they were and always be Class C level type of fighters. I’ll give some credit to Pedroza for defeating them but they are not by any means measurement to greatness. Just by themselves they are not credible enough and that is my opinion.

Lapote in his prime he lost to Sanchez, Gomez, Pedroza, Chavez, and McGuigan.
His best wins were vs Castillo and Lockridge. His best asset was his chin, they guy did have a solid chin, but again very limited skills. Was Laporte good? Yes. Was he elite? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Lockridge in his prime lost to Pedroza (2x), Laporte, Gomez (yes I know many people felt he was robbed, but that was a washed up Gomez that at that point in his career did not belong in the ring.), and Tony Lopez.

Lockridge best win was probably vs Boza Edwards or Mayweather. Was Lockridge good? Yes. Was he elite? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Both of them were exciting fighters that were willing to fight anyone at anytime, but that does not make them credible opponents in my view. Gatti was an exciting fighter willing to fight anybody and give it all in the ring. And yet I don’t find him a credible opponent to measure anyone’s greatness. They are good enough to prove that you are good, but there are not good enough to prove the you are great. Is that simple.

Idisagree wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: I'm sorry to bore you with knowledge. You're not seriously trying to act like you saw the Chavez fights with Lockridge and laporte after your last response? You had no idea they had fought, that's obvious in your post. Nice edit there to include Laporte having fought Chavez. You looked it up but clearly had no idea either of those fights took place until this discussion.

That is amazingly sad. you couldn't just stand by your words? Had to go back and edit it and then have the nerve to talk about the fights? That's worse than Granberry. Shame on you. You should check them out someday. They were excellent fights and many people thought Chavez lost. I gave him a narrow edge in both of them. But, as they did throughout their careers, Lockridge & laporte proved to be quite "credible".

I didn't say over 300 amateur fights makes a great pro. you're horribly confused. But it does give them enough experience to fight for a title early in their career without being "green".

Your definition of credible is retarded. You should change it if you want anyone on earth to understand you.

I saw those fights live and yes I’m bound to forget some of them. At my age I had to go back and said wait a minute, they did fight. And it only took me a couple of seconds to realize yes they did fight. And it was the Laporte fight only, I do clearly recall the Lockridge fight and it was good but clear and convincing win by Chavez. Like I said before it has been a while. However, I don’t recall having any doubt as to who clearly won. Show me where there is controversy on any of those fights that says that they could have gone either way? Why don’t you back your argument with facts and show me where there is any controversy with any of these fights.

Also it is very clear you never saw Ford vs Sanchez. On that fight Sanchez look like he was bore and was not interested in fighting that bum and still he dominated the fight and won. Go watch the fight before you make a comment that clearly shows you did not see that fight.

Still you have the nerve to say the Ford almost won. Then you claim that Ford got a title shot vs Pedroza because he did so well against Sanchez. That is completely BS. Pedroza gave him the opportunity because he saw an easy target. Why don’t back up your arguments with facts. What did Ford ever do to deserve a title shot in the first place?
You call this knowledge? Carrasquillo, Ford, and Lujan are credible opponents? You lost all of your credibility with that statement. Still you cannot find facts to support your retarded argument.

Like I said before Lockridge and Laporte were good but not elite. For me they were and always be Class C level type of fighters. I’ll give some credit to Pedroza for defeating them but they are not by any means measurement to greatness. Just by themselves they are not credible enough and that is my opinion.

Lapote in his prime he lost to Sanchez, Gomez, Pedroza, Chavez, and McGuigan.
His best wins were vs Castillo and Lockridge. His best asset was his chin, they guy did have a solid chin, but again very limited skills. Was Laporte good? Yes. Was he elite? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Lockridge in his prime lost to Pedroza (2x), Laporte, Gomez (yes I know many people felt he was robbed, but that was a washed up Gomez that at that point in his career did not belong in the ring.), and Tony Lopez.

Lockridge best win was probably vs Boza Edwards or Mayweather. Was Lockridge good? Yes. Was he elite? NOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Both of them were exciting fighters that were willing to fight anyone at anytime, but that does not make them credible opponents in my view. Gatti was an exciting fighter willing to fight anybody and give it all in the ring. And yet I don’t find him a credible opponent to measure anyone’s greatness. They are good enough to prove that you are good, but there are not good enough to prove the you are great. Is that simple.

Simple would be for you to just admit that credible is an idiotic word to use to define greatness. Obviously that was impossible for you. We both know what you did and if it only took you a second to remember about the fights why did you double edit and add Laporte after you looked it up? We are deep into a discussion and you finally remember that they fought and at the same time remember exactly how the fight played out? Give me a break.

It really isn't a big deal, I was just surprised you weren't man enough to just admit that you were wrong. I just know now not to bother with your novels because you more than likely have never seen the fights you're blabbering about.

I'll even help you out, you should delete the original.."There is no way I could see Laporte or Lockridge defeating Chavez". That was before you looked it up and noticed I was speaking of actual fights.

Ford was an unknown when he fought Sanchez, absolutely correct. He gave him such a battle that the networks were happy to bring him back against Pedroza. It's your contention that Sanchez white washed a nobody in boring fashion and then CBS decided it would be great to bring him on for another fight? Like most of your statements, that makes no sense.

You ask for facts, the facts are that it was a tough fight. Their was one poor card in that fight, not two. it was much closer to the draw the one judge saw than the blowout card rendered by ray Charles. Eusebio beat the death out of him. If you want proof, watch the fight.

You've either never seen Chavez/Laporte, Chavez/Lockridge & sanchez/Ford or you have no clue what you're watching. Either one is sad and far from CREDIBLE.

Edit: Here is your proof Einstein. The last three rds, do yourself a favor and watch the rest of it. I wont hold my breath waiting for you to admit that you're wrong. But needless to say, this is why Ford got a fight with Pedroza. Any more questions junior?

I also edited out where I admitted I was wrong about ford almost winning. I'm gracious to a fault.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfLvhwa2 ... 1&index=23

I can dig up the Lockridge & Laporte fights against Chavez if you want to see them. Or maybe you've been owned enough for one day?

Ok, I guess we are done here. No hard feelings, enjoy Sanchez/Ford and have a nice weekend.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Ok, I guess we are done here. No hard feelings, enjoy Sanchez/Ford and have a nice weekend.

No sir no hard feelings, I'll get back to you later when I have the time. Now I have a lot of work to do. Monday we keep the argument Enjoy you weekend.

I think Patrick Ford beat Sanchez in my view. I saw the fight, and Sanchez could not cope with Ford's jab. I did not see Sanchez winning that fight at all.

Ok let start were we left off. Now You know that I did not double edited anything. When I made this statement (.."There is no way I could see Laporte or Lockridge defeating Chavez") I was assuming that you did not see the Lockridge fight and is true I did forgot about the Laporte fight but it was just for a second. In my rush to reply I did not remember the Laporte fight. However, I did not take more than a few seconds for me to realize that they too fought. Would you care to quote me on what did I immediately wrote after that.
Now not only did I see the fight when it happen, I have it and I saw it this weekend. I had to go back to my old box of VHS tapes that my wife put in the garage.

Here is my score (114-113 for Chavez):
Chavez took rounds 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12.
Laporte took rounds 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9. (round 9 I score it 10- 8 for the point deduction for low blows)

I have to tell you I don’t recall this fight being so close but it truly was. I did not even remember the boos in the crowd after the fight.

Ford got a second opportunity because Pedroza and his people saw an easy target. On those days fights were televised if you were a champion defending your title. if you look at the first few rounds Sanchez look like he was not interested in fighting that night. Then he came back and took over the fight. It was more Sanchez having a night off than Ford being a good fighter. Then Pedroza saw that and made the offer to Ford. The network accepted because Ford fit the description of the typical fighter for Pedroza. They had no choice but accept that fight if they wanted to televise a championship fight. The networks did not bring him back, it was Pedroza's people choice and they pick like always an easy target.

For me Pedroza and Sarreno always chose to fight the easiest opposition possible and their records reflect that.

Idisagree wrote:For me Pedroza and Sarreno always chose to fight the easiest opposition possible and their records reflect that.

I don't think many would agree with this opinion.

On his best night, Pedroza would have given Sanchez all he could handle.

It is quite possible that Pedroza or Serrano could have given Sanchez or any other elite of that era all they could handle. However, Pedroza and Serrano lacks all the big names of that era. That is all I'm arguing. The reason why I'm arguing this is because many people said that Trinidad and DLH does not belong on that list and I don't agree with that at all. For instance, if Trinidad would have retired after the fight with Vargas, many would have been ranking him along side Robinson, Armstrong, Leonard, Duran, and many other greats. But after he step up in class we found out his deficiencies and now nobody wants to give him a decent ranking based on his loses. At least he move up in class and was willing to fight the best at all weight classes. Serrano and Pedroza did not even fight the best at their own weight class. The big difference I see between a fighter like Hagler and Pedroza for example, is that Hagler did fought all of the best of his division and Pedroza and Serrano did not.

Idisagree wrote:It is quite possible that Pedroza or Serrano could have given Sanchez or any other elite of that era all they could handle. However, Pedroza and Serrano lacks all the big names of that era. That is all I'm arguing. The reason why I'm arguing this is because many people said that Trinidad and DLH does not belong on that list and I don't agree with that at all. For instance, if Trinidad would have retired after the fight with Vargas, many would have been ranking him along side Robinson, Armstrong, Leonard, Duran, and many other greats. But after he step up in class we found out his deficiencies and now nobody wants to give him a decent ranking based on his loses. At least he move up in class and was willing to fight the best at all weight classes. Serrano and Pedroza did not even fight the best at their own weight class. The big difference I see between a fighter like Hagler and Pedroza for example, is that Hagler did fought all of the best of his division and Pedroza and Serrano did not.

Sanchez didn't fight Pedroza, so he didn't fight the best in his division either. And why didn't Trinidad fight Quartey? Sorry, but there are very few fighters in the past 3-4 decades that have fought "all the best of his division".

And yes I know Sanchez died young and probably would have fought Pedroza. But I guess that would have solved your Pedroza dilema, right?

And I don't care when Trinidad retired, he doesn't belong in the same sentence with Robinson and Armstrong. If you are impressed with Trinidads resume, go do some research on those two.

The Great John L wrote:

Idisagree wrote:It is quite possible that Pedroza or Serrano could have given Sanchez or any other elite of that era all they could handle. However, Pedroza and Serrano lacks all the big names of that era. That is all I'm arguing. The reason why I'm arguing this is because many people said that Trinidad and DLH does not belong on that list and I don't agree with that at all. For instance, if Trinidad would have retired after the fight with Vargas, many would have been ranking him along side Robinson, Armstrong, Leonard, Duran, and many other greats. But after he step up in class we found out his deficiencies and now nobody wants to give him a decent ranking based on his loses. At least he move up in class and was willing to fight the best at all weight classes. Serrano and Pedroza did not even fight the best at their own weight class. The big difference I see between a fighter like Hagler and Pedroza for example, is that Hagler did fought all of the best of his division and Pedroza and Serrano did not.

Sanchez didn't fight Pedroza, so he didn't fight the best in his division either. And why didn't Trinidad fight Quartey? Sorry, but there are very few fighters in the past 3-4 decades that have fought "all the best of his division".

And yes I know Sanchez died young and probably would have fought Pedroza. But I guess that would have solved your Pedroza dilema, right?

And I don't care when Trinidad retired, he doesn't belong in the same sentence with Robinson and Armstrong. If you are impressed with Trinidads resume, go do some research on those two.

To answer your question of why Trinidad did not fight Quartey. They did have a fight set up but Quartey came up with a hand injury and the fight did not happen. That was reported on fightnews.com awhile back. Then Quartey sign to fight DLH. No shame in that, he wanted the money. You cannot fault Trinidad for that. Also the middleweight tournament was the result of Trinidad coming up to middleweight. Also a fight was offered to Mosley and it was declined because according to Mosley's father at that time Mosley was not ready.

I never said that I was impressed with Trinidad's record; it is not in the same galaxy as that of Robinson. That is why I said many; I did not say that I would.

Second Sanchez had Laporte, Lopez (2x), Gomez, Nelson, and Castillo and they were talking about a fight vs Arguello just before the accident.

Pedroza has Laporte, Lockridge, a way past his prime Olivares, after that all mediocre fighters. Not in the same galaxy. After the Zamora and Arnal fight it looks like he wanted to stay away from big punchers.

He deserves credit for longevity but not for the quality of opposition.

But Sanchez never fought Pedroza, so clearly he doesn't belong on the list of greats, right?

And you do know that Nelson was green and an unknown when he fought the gallant effort aganist Sanchez?

The Great John L wrote:But Sanchez never fought Pedroza, so clearly he doesn't belong on the list of greats, right?

Sanchez with his record does not need Pedroza. On the other hand Pedroza with his record does need someone like Sanchez on his win column.

Who in your opinion has the better resume?

And yes I do know Nelson was green even if his amateur record is like 50 wins out 52 fights.
However, Lopez, Castillo, and Gomez were prime.

If you don't judge people by who they fight, then how do you judge them?

"...For instance, if Trinidad would have retired after the fight with Vargas, many would have been ranking him along side Robinson, Armstrong, Leonard, Duran, and many other greats..." - ID

Yes, many would...& all of them would have hailed from Puerto Rico.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:"...For instance, if Trinidad would have retired after the fight with Vargas, many would have been ranking him along side Robinson, Armstrong, Leonard, Duran, and many other greats..." - ID

Yes, many would...& all of them would have hailed from Puerto Rico.

Even now many of them claim he is in the same league

Don't get me wrong I do think he was good, I do think he belongs in IBHOF. However, when ranking all-time greats IBHOF he should be ranked at a C + level. Clearly well below fighters like Robinson, Armstrong, Greb, and so on...

Among the best Puerto Ricans, I rank Ortiz, Gomez, Benitez, Basora, Cocoa Kid, and Montañez ahead of him.

Idisagree wrote:Ok let start were we left off. Now You know that I did not double edited anything. When I made this statement (.."There is no way I could see Laporte or Lockridge defeating Chavez") I was assuming that you did not see the Lockridge fight and is true I did forgot about the Laporte fight but it was just for a second. In my rush to reply I did not remember the Laporte fight. However, I did not take more than a few seconds for me to realize that they too fought. Would you care to quote me on what did I immediately wrote after that.
Now not only did I see the fight when it happen, I have it and I saw it this weekend. I had to go back to my old box of VHS tapes that my wife put in the garage.

Here is my score (114-113 for Chavez):
Chavez took rounds 2, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12.
Laporte took rounds 1, 3, 4, 8, and 9. (round 9 I score it 10- 8 for the point deduction for low blows)

I have to tell you I don’t recall this fight being so close but it truly was. I did not even remember the boos in the crowd after the fight.

Ford got a second opportunity because Pedroza and his people saw an easy target. On those days fights were televised if you were a champion defending your title. if you look at the first few rounds Sanchez look like he was not interested in fighting that night. Then he came back and took over the fight. It was more Sanchez having a night off than Ford being a good fighter. Then Pedroza saw that and made the offer to Ford. The network accepted because Ford fit the description of the typical fighter for Pedroza. They had no choice but accept that fight if they wanted to televise a championship fight. The networks did not bring him back, it was Pedroza's people choice and they pick like always an easy target.

For me Pedroza and Sarreno always chose to fight the easiest opposition possible and their records reflect that.

Why would Pedroza's people think Ford was an easy target when many thought he just beat Salvador Sanchez?

The networks had no choice? They had fights lined up to televise. It was a typical Pedroza defense on network TV, a tough fight against a highly credible opponent.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:Ford got a shot at Pedroza because he gave Sanchez a very difficult fight and Eusebio completely abused him and knocked him out.

Rocky Lockridge not credible? That's pathetic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pX8xz7MSi0

Where should Pacquiao and Mayweather fall in that list? Anyone think Barrera or Morales should be there?