BoxRec

Yes, understand. Overall Spinks win over Holmes takes it.

But in terms of what they achieved in their best divisions...

I consider Gomez and Nelson better fighters than Qawi but Dwight was at his peak and in his weight class. Gomez was moving up and Nelson, whilst almost there, was still growing into the fighter he woulod become.

Ezzard wrote:Yes, understand. Overall Spinks win over Holmes takes it.

But in terms of what they achieved in their best divisions...

I consider Gomez and Nelson better fighters than Qawi but Dwight was at his peak and in his weight class. Gomez was moving up and Nelson, whilst almost there, was still growing into the fighter he woulod become.

It's hard for me not to favor a more seasoned Azumah in a rematch with Sanchez too. Perhaps that is where GI is going by saying yes to the question. I think Sal would have torn Chavez apart though in an eventual fight at 30 or 35.

What Sanchez had, like Monzon, was a great ability to think through his opponent. After Sanchez drops Nelson (think it was the 5th) with the left hook he just sets him up for it again and again. Nelson managed to fight through it because he was so brilliant. But by the end of the fight the right-side of his face is disfigured from the left hook.

Had they fought again what I can be sure of is that Nelson would be even better and Sanchez would have been even more prepared.

Know you don’t want to hear it but I loved Chavez. Even so, I don’t think he had the dimensions to his game to beat Sanchez. Salvador had the defence, the patience, the chin and the counter-punching to beat the aggressive fighters (McGuigan, Fenech, Lockridge). Sanchez would beat Chavez and then struggle with a relative unknown. That’s the way he was. Which leads me to think that I’d probably side with him in a rematch with Nelson.

I think the late 70s to the end of the 1980s was, on reflection, a golden age for the feathers but one way or another most of the top fights didn’t happen. You’ve got Arguello, Lopez, Sanchez, Pedroza, Nelson, Gomez, McGuigan and Fenech all operating in that division during those years but few of them met due to circumstances.

Very nice post, my issue with Chavez fans are the rabid ones that think he is a top 10 all time kind of fighter. I can see why people would like him, other than the farce that was the quitting victory in the randall fight he certainly had a career to be proud of. I just rebelled against the hype very early on. My ears are wide open to any rationale opinion on any fighter, regardless of my personal feelings.

Sanchez's greatest attribute, for mine, was his endurance. Just remarkable.

What about his greatest deficiency? I have my own take on this subject, but for now, any opinions?

Saying he was better than Chavez is definitely overrating him.

Whats funny is that Sanchez was a brawler, or more so, earlier in his career but he didnt have alot of power to be a brawler. What amazes me was he never swelled or showed markings. Ford bloodied his nose but other than that, he swellled as much as Ali threw body punches...which is never. I've never seen a greater counter puncher in my life. I met Mills Lane in atlanta once, who ref'd the Sanchez -Lopez II fight and asked him his opinion on Sanchez. He said Sanchez was the best featherweight he EVER saw


Jay

verballistic wrote:

theone wrote:Saying he was better than Chavez is definitely overrating him.

beg to differ...sanchez died at age 23 & had barely turned 21 when he won his first world title. by the time he died he had 10 world title fights in just over 2 years as champ, by the time chavez had 10 world title fights under his belt he was already 25.

chavez TOTAL career had more accomplishments...just because of longevity he made more noise, but if sanchez had lived a full boxing life, he would have exceeded JCC's achievements.

sanchez would clearly have won world titles at numerous weights, probably at least up to 140...

salvador had 10 world title wins by the time he died at 23, chavez had 32 in a MUCH longer career. chavez had a lot of non-title fights mixed in with those title fights since he was obsessed with hitting 100 wins...

as someone pointed out, sanchez' ENDURANCE was phenomenal...most of his KOs were scored after the 12th round, while chavez never had to fight more than 12 rounds in his career. it would have been a good matchup with lots of excitement, but IMO salvador would have worn down JCC for a KO14 or KO15.

I can see someone saying Sanchez would've beaten Chavez, but a lot of what you say here reminds me of the old addage, "If the Queen had balls, she'd be the King." Fact is, Sanchez did none of those things he, "would have done," & by any reasonable measure, Chavez had the greater career by far. I'm not even sure I would favour Sanchez to have beaten him --- if pushed, I think I would have, but it's no foregone conclusion.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:
What about his greatest deficiency?

IMO he was significantly less effective against guys who didn't just bring it straight at him, so wasn't so good against the cagier boxer-types, wasn't quite so good when asked to lead instead of counter.

his stamina, i agree, was superb, and i think much of it had to do with his exceptional relaxation and pacing of a round/ fight.

No, he definately was not. The great massacre that he gave to one of the greatest punchers in boxing history in Wilfredo Gomez, in his prime, speak volumes for me. Sanchez was a complete fighter. One of the most complete fighters I have ever seen. He had class, endurance, speed, great chin, reflexes, could fight inside as well as outside and had an underrated punch. His weakness probably could be with someone that had a good jab, like Patrick Ford exposed him. I think Ford won that fight or at least, was a draw. I would have love to see him fight in a title unification match with the great Eusebio Pedroza. The winner would have been the world's undisputed champion. I don't know why Sanchez did not take the fight. It could be that he saw something in Pedroza. Like Ford, Pedroza was tall and had a good jab. But if he would have beaten Pedroza and then beat the great Alexis Arguello at lightweight at the time, he certainly would have been a top 10 all time great fighter and maybe the greatest featherweight ever. But he did a lot by the time of his death. He was only 23. I remember when he died. It was a very sad day for boxing.

Sanchez wasn't moving to LW to beat Arguello --- count on it. He wouldn't have tried, & he wouldn't have succeeded if he had.

Not sure about either of those statements, his feet would have given Alexis fits. The most overrated thing I 've read in a while is Wilfredo gomez being one of the greatest punchers in Boxing history.

Counter-puncher wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:
What about his greatest deficiency?

IMO he was significantly less effective against guys who didn't just bring it straight at him, so wasn't so good against the cagier boxer-types, wasn't quite so good when asked to lead instead of counter.

Agreed. In this sense he is like Hagler and Hopkins who don't like being forced to lead. Monzon too, but with him perhaps to a lesser extent.

Ezzard wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:
What about his greatest deficiency?

IMO he was significantly less effective against guys who didn't just bring it straight at him, so wasn't so good against the cagier boxer-types, wasn't quite so good when asked to lead instead of counter.

Agreed. In this sense he is like Hagler and Hopkins who don't like being forced to lead. Monzon too, but with him perhaps to a lesser extent.

I agree, & also think we can add Juan Manuel Marquez to this category. Come to him & he'll dissect you, but back off & it's a whole different ballgame.

O/T: who was Sanchez' trainer?

The ballgame had the same result for Marquez when he fought Casamayor, I'll say that much.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:The ballgame had the same result for Marquez when he fought Casamayor, I'll say that much.

All right all right all right. But you'll forgive me my morning hyperbole & agree that Marquez is far less effective going forward than going backwards, no?

as someone pointed out, sanchez' ENDURANCE was phenomenal...most of his KOs were scored after the 12th round, while chavez never had to fight more than 12 rounds in his career. it would have been a good matchup with lots of excitement, but IMO salvador would have worn down JCC for a KO14 or KO15.

There is nothing absolutely nothing to suggest that the 130 or 135lb Chavez would have been stopped by anyone at those weights especially around that time. He had one of the greatest chins of alltime and although he may not have had to go 15rds his endurance appeared to be more than sufficent for the task. Its a shame after all he accomplished Chavez gets so little respect on this site these days.

Datsue wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:The ballgame had the same result for Marquez when he fought Casamayor, I'll say that much.

All right all right all right. But you'll forgive me my morning hyperbole & agree that Marquez is far less effective going forward than going backwards, no?

I wouldn't say he's far less effective, not necessarily any more effective yes, but not noticeably bad. He looked great trading forward/backward stances against Barrera and hunted down and battered Jaca, and though he had some early issues with Casamayor (which was almost always the case with a guy as difficult to figure out as he was) he managed to goad Joel into enough trades to knock him out. He only had major difficulty hunting down Juan Diaz when the Baby Bull went into hit-and-run mode because Diaz knows how to survive with low risk if he has to, he just rarely has to.

The old cliche "he doesn't fight wel going backwards" applies to almost everyone, rarely do you find guys like Sanchez and Marquez who do fight well going backwards, in which case they usually fight just fine going forwards as well unless they're facing significantly good defensive fighters themselves. Only the bigger, faster Mayweather could take Marquez completely out of a fight, which probably would've had to have been the case for Sanchez as well, because it's hard to picture anyone his size gaining any sort of significant advantage over him for long.

Datsue wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote:The ballgame had the same result for Marquez when he fought Casamayor, I'll say that much.

All right all right all right. But you'll forgive me my morning hyperbole & agree that Marquez is far less effective going forward than going backwards, no?

Hmmm. I certainly want to, because I see where you're coming from. I guess there is a big enough disparity between Marquez's effectiveness going forward or backward to call him, "far less effective going forward," but if that implies Marquez is anything short of competent fighting in that manner, I'd reject it.

I'd say you're right, but Marquez can box on the front-foot, & do so with impact. It's true, though, that he won't really shine doing so --- that's reserved for when he's permitted to box with angles & either standing off just a little, or backing up altogether. It's to the man's credit that he virtually always has his opposition coming to him in just the manner he wishes.

Datsue wrote:

Ezzard wrote:

Counter-puncher wrote: IMO he was significantly less effective against guys who didn't just bring it straight at him, so wasn't so good against the cagier boxer-types, wasn't quite so good when asked to lead instead of counter.

Agreed. In this sense he is like Hagler and Hopkins who don't like being forced to lead. Monzon too, but with him perhaps to a lesser extent.

I agree, & also think we can add Juan Manuel Marquez to this category. Come to him & he'll dissect you, but back off & it's a whole different ballgame.

O/T: who was Sanchez' trainer?

Sanchez' trainer was Cristobal Elmer Rosas

theone wrote:Its a shame after all he accomplished Chavez gets so little respect on this site these days.

Agree.

theory wrote:

theone wrote:Its a shame after all he accomplished Chavez gets so little respect on this site these days.

Agree.

It seems like all fighters go through periods of being underrated and overrated. An important thing to remember regarding Chavez is that he was the P4P #1 fighter in Boxing for several years, which is a very big deal, few fighters ever reach that spot, not to mention holding it for any kind of extended period. After him you had Whitaker, De La Hoya, Trinidad, Mosley, Jones, Hopkins, Mayweather and Pacquiao. That's pretty impressive company.

^^^Good post.

Cristobal Rosas trained both Sanchez and Chavez.

Diamond WEAPON wrote:

theory wrote:

theone wrote:Its a shame after all he accomplished Chavez gets so little respect on this site these days.

Agree.

It seems like all fighters go through periods of being underrated and overrated. An important thing to remember regarding Chavez is that he was the P4P #1 fighter in Boxing for several years, which is a very big deal, few fighters ever reach that spot, not to mention holding it for any kind of extended period. After him you had Whitaker, De La Hoya, Trinidad, Mosley, Jones, Hopkins, Mayweather and Pacquiao. That's pretty impressive company.

For maybe 8 straight years Chavez was arguably the best fighter in the world. He has the best Championship fight record in boxing history and although he doesn't have any other all-time greats on that record (although I believe Meldrick Taylor would have been if not for...) he has a long impressive list of very top notch opponents on his resume. Most of them completely dominated. Yes he fought alot of "Tijuana cab drivers" as Haugen put it; but that was because he liked to stay busy and if you remember his prime, you would remember the quality opposition mixed in with them every year.
But all that aside, just watch his fights from his prime days. The man was an absolute fighting machine. Someone on this site implied that Chavez was just lucky he came around at the right time. Easily one of the dumbest comments I've ever "heard" from someone claiming to be a boxing fan.