Salvador Sanchez v Eusebio Pedroza 1981

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Lol, why do you continually ignore that there were no unification fights when this was desired?

[Ambling Alp II]

Not mention that he was pretty loose with the facts.
Pedroza was 29, not 32 (as elmer claimed) when he lost to McGuigan.

Pedroza had 15 title defenses, not 20 as elmer claimed.
At most, you can only count 7 title defenses where Pedroza won in his opponent's "backyard" and that is counting the disputed win over Lockridge in New Jersey.

He also left out the part where Pedroza had 6 title defenses in his hometown of Panama City.

He also seems to think it;s a big deal for an american judge to score a decision for a non-American fighter over an American fighter. Happens routinely. Can come up with a ton examples to show this.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

He had 19 or 20 defenses for sure. They were talking about him chasing Joe's record.

[Ambling Alp II]

I stand corrected. I rechecked it and I must have looked at something wrong. He had 20 title defenses. 9 could be considered in his opponent's backyard. 8 were in Panama City.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Traveling wasn't as dangerous then. The bad decisions didn't necessarily go the way of the home fighter. Two really extreme examples are Everett/escalera & ocasio/dokes. Lockridge too for that matter, though the Gomez Dec was even worse. Give Rocky two of those 3 and he's probably in the hof. More deserving than gatti by a country mile as is.

[Ambling Alp II]

Lockridge also gave Chavez a very close fight. Some people even think Lockridge should have got that one, though I thought Chavez did just enough.
I thought Lockridge should have both decisions against Pedroza, though they were very close. Certainly not robberies.
The Gomez fight was out an out robbery. Even if you give Gomex every close round, Lockridge should have got it.
I think if Lockridge got any one of the these decisions, he would be in the HOF. Two or more and his stock goes way up. Three or four and people would consider him an ATG.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Very good fighter.

[Nile4000]

Who would win this unification fight if it had been held in 1981 to clear up the mess in the featherweight division ?

It could seriously go either way, and I'm a fan of both fighters, but I think Eusebio has enough to pull out a close one over Salvador. I think the reason Sanchez didn't fight Pedroza was more than a WBA/WBC thing.

[SaadOffTheDeck]

Lol

[BroughtonRulesRefuge]

Sanchez got an unpopular decision against a guy pedroza brutalized. Past the lockridge fights, i don't recall any poor decisions. He was definitely dirty on the inside, sal would struggle with that.

- I recall a lump of yer larded rump sliced up looking and frying up like bacon, but still smelling of you.

No thanks. Sal dominated and KOed every HOFer he faced. Pedroza feasted on his table scraps. Boxing aficionados swooned over Sal skills, grit, and ringmanship. They barfed over Pedro and fried you. You always swing with the stinkers, and it's ok, we understand.

[Keko]

Two great boxer but as Barry won so would Salvador who is definitely one of the best of all time. Definitely one of the best skills.Sanchez was clearly better fighter.It would be an interesting match because of fighting styles.

[sweetviolenturge]

But styles make fights & I've always been convinced that Pedroza would beat Sanchez in a tough, close fight.
I think Pedroza's height & reach advantages would play a significant role in such a contest as well. Sanchez had trouble with world class opponents who were taller than him as evidenced by his W15 over Patrick Ford. A fight that I thought Sanchez was awfully lucky to retain his title in.

[Ambling Alp II]

Well if we are going to use the great styles make fights line, then we should also look at this one:
Pedroza struggled against every top fighter he ever fought that was shorter:
Two decisions against Lockridge that could have gone the other way, draw against Taylor that could have been a loss, decision against LaPorte that could have gone the way.
Loss to McGuigan.

[sweetviolenturge]

Well if we are going to use the great styles make fights line, then we should also look at this one:
Pedroza struggled against every top fighter he ever fought that was shorter:
Two decisions against Lockridge that could have gone the other way, draw against Taylor that could have been a loss, decision against LaPorte that could have gone the way.
Loss to McGuigan.

Hate to reach into the cliche jar yet a second time in just two posts, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I mean, there's no right or wrong on this since we can only speculate & reiterate our opinions over & over again, correct?
Peace.
- Jim

[Give up]

Sanchez UD close fight.

[elmersalsa]

I think the great Eusebio Pedroza would've been the man that would give the great Salvador Sanchez fits. It would have been a harder fight than the great Azumah Nelson fight.

I can't see in no circumstance, the great Wilfredo Gomez nor Danny Lopez beating Pedroza. Pedroza was a hell of a fighter. He doesn't get enough credit. I understand the American boxing writers for being mad at him. They really hated him.

[Ambling Alp II]

Well if we are going to use the great styles make fights line, then we should also look at this one:
Pedroza struggled against every top fighter he ever fought that was shorter:
Two decisions against Lockridge that could have gone the other way, draw against Taylor that could have been a loss, decision against LaPorte that could have gone the way.
Loss to McGuigan.

Hate to reach into the cliche jar yet a second time in just two posts, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I mean, there's no right or wrong on this since we can only speculate & reiterate our opinions over & over again, correct?
Peace.
- Jim

True, it 's all speculation. We are predicting a fight that never happened.
I just don't agree that Pedroza would win because he was taller. Yes Sanchez struggled with Ford. My point was that you can just as easily say that Pedroza struggled with shorter fighters.
And Lopez was almost as tall as Pedroza and had a longer reach; Sanchez beat him twice.

You are probably right, we may have to agree to disagree on this particular one.

[elmersalsa]

Pedroza vs Sanchez was one of my top intriguing matchups. Just like Hearns vs McCallum at 154lbs. Two established champions in their primes, but unfortunately, it didn't happened.

Of Sanchez' victims:
Danny Lopez: Was a good solid champion. He relied on his awesome punching power, great stamina, chin and unbelievable desire to win. He just lacked defense and ring generalship. He caught every blow thrown at his face. Easy target. He is not beating Pedroza, who was a magnificent complete boxer. Pedroza wins by UD or stops him late in round 13th or 14th.

Wilfredo Gomez: At 126lbs, he lacked the punch to hurt a real featherweight. He lacked the necessary speed. He would have not be stronger than Eusebio on the inside, that when he was at super bantamweight, he was able to do so. Pedroza would've beaten him with severe and brutal body shots. Gomez wilts in 12 or maybe earlier. This fight would've not gone the distance.

Azumah Nelson: He was a strong fighter. He was a complete boxer. The difference between him and Pedroza was that Pedroza was craftier. Man, was he crafty? Pedroza beats him on points. More stamina more speed at the championship rounds.

[Ezzard]

No right answers. Just what you prefer. Both were truly brilliant.

[Ambling Alp II]

In Pedroza's 5 fights against top featherweight competition, he never scored a convincing victory. Not one. If he couldn't do it against Lockridge, Taylor, LaPorte and McGuigan, he probably would not against Gomez, Lopez, or Nelson.

[Keko]

Pedrosa was 29 years old when he lost to McGuigan, in 1985, it was and I think he was born 1956th.

[elmersalsa]

Pedrosa was 29 years old when he lost to McGuigan, in 1985, it was and I think he was born 1956th.

He was born in 1953, Keko. Don't believe some people in here.

[elmersalsa]

In Pedroza's 5 fights against top featherweight competition, he never scored a convincing victory. Not one. If he couldn't do it against Lockridge, Taylor, LaPorte and McGuigan, he probably would not against Gomez, Lopez, or Nelson.

Pedroza whupped all those guys convincingly. The both Rocky Lockridge fights I had it 8-5-2 in rounds.

Bernard Taylor was running for his life. To beat the champion, you gotta fight and convince the judges. Running for survival can't give you any points. He deserved to lose if you ask me. He got lucky with a draw.

Juan LaPorte was a crying bitch! Pedroza was dirty that day. As a fan of his, I admit Pedroza employed dirty tactics. But he beat the crap out of LaPorte. When LaPorte became the WBC featherweight champion, he didn't ask Pedroza for a rematch. Like all the other champions before him and after, they looked the other way.

Barry McGuigan beat a fading champion. Pedroza was 32, with 20 title defenses in 7 years. He got to slow down at some point. He is human.

Pedroza used to go to your backyard and kick your ass. He did it 10 times. A world record. He is indeed a great fighter no matter how we look at his career.

[Keko]

Pedrosa was 29 years old when he lost to McGuigan, in 1985, it was and I think he was born 1956th.

He was born in 1953, Keko. Don't believe some people in here.

03.02.1956 It says in the book that I read and write and see on Boxrec same date. I'm not saying that is not born earlier but I see two different sources cite 1956th


In real terms, 32 years is not worse than 29 for the boxer.

[elmersalsa]

Pedrosa was 29 years old when he lost to McGuigan, in 1985, it was and I think he was born 1956th.

He was born in 1953, Keko. Don't believe some people in here.

03.02.1956 It says in the book that I read and write and see on Boxrec same date. I'm not saying that is not born earlier but I see two different sources cite 1956th

He was born in '53. Whatever the record books say about his birthdate that he was born in '56 is not accurate.