BoxRec

I will answer your question even you have ducked mine in the past. (Still waiting to see how Duran was old at 29 when he fought Leonard, but Leonard wasn't old when he fought Norris at the age of 34. Also still waiting to hear why Terry Noprris is one of the best welterweights of all time even though he never won a fight at welterweight.)

If the champion at a larger weight class want to fight a guy from a lower weight class, thats fine. However he doesn't owe that guy a fight. Hagler didn't owe Leonard a fight for the middleweight title, but he gave it to him.
(He assumed that it would be an easy payday fighting a guy from a lower weight class who hadn't fought in three years.)
However, if Hagler hadn't fought Leonard, he wouldn't be accused of ducking Leonard.

Here is another question (that you will probably duck) -Name one other champion who gets criticized for not fighting a fighter below his weight class?

I Feel Fine wrote:Caps aren't helping.

Its not just that McCallum wasn't as established as Hagler, there was also a lot more money in fighting Hagler. And Hagler was the more accomplished fighter, so fighting Hagler meant more. Same deal with Arguello; if Sanchez had fought him, it would have been because there was more money in it, but also because Arguello was the more accomplished fighter and he would have been the better opponent.

Evidence would be needed if someone wanted to suggest that Sanchez was somehow "afraid" of Pedroza.

Can you see the evidences? First, he challenges Danny Lopez. Second, while being champion, he fights Wilfredo Gomez. And AFTER Gomez, what? A TITLE UNIFICATION WITH PEDROZA? WHAT IS LEFT TO DO AT 126 lbs? What is left to do?...Oooohhh, he sees that Pedroza is TOO DANGEROUS, TOO SKILLED, TOO SAVY, TOO TOUGH.

Now, Gomez, get anhiliated by Sanchez in 8 rounds. Wants the rematch...The guy dies at 23, but INSTEAD of challenging Pedroza, he THEN challenges Juan LaPorte? A Pedroza and Sanchez victim? Are we going to deviate that LaPorte was BETTER than Pedroza here? Straight ducking!!!

NOW, Azumah Nelson...Gets beat by Sanchez in a grueling fight. That is OK. He could not get a rematch because the guy is dead. Now, instead of fighting Pedroza for the WBA TITLE, he challenges Wilfredo Gomez instead. Was GOMEZ a BETTER FEATHERWEIGHT CHAMPION THAN PEDROZA? ...Wins the title, and Pedroza CALLED HIS NAME on the Lujan title defense in Panama. You could get the tape, it was on ESPN, Bryant Gumbel was the host of the show.

There are CLEAR EVIDENCES that this guy, WBA KING Eusebio Pedroza, one of boxing's greatest ring technicians, was DUCKED....BIG TIME!!!

And all of this has been addressed earlier in this thread. Read what other people have to say instead of saying the same thing over and over as if no one answered you.

elmer,

Thanks for making me more aware of Pedroza.

My guess is the reason they didn't fight him was that he was a ROUGH guy and they knew they would be in for a rough evening.

As Don Dunphy used to say, "He was no cream puff."

Ambling Alp wrote:…Unfortunately, boxing is a business and the most deserving fighters don't always get the big money fights.

Alp, this is probably the best assessment of why Pedroza didn’t get the big matchup. While Pedroza did get some US TV air time, unfortunately there wasn’t that much clamor for the unification fight. I was a HUGE Pedroza fan and I think he would have had an excellent chance of beating Sanchez, which was probably also the general feeling of Sanchez and his people. The risk/reward just didn’t make sense, so they never pursued the fight.

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:…Unfortunately, boxing is a business and the most deserving fighters don't always get the big money fights.

Alp, this is probably the best assessment of why Pedroza didn’t get the big matchup. While Pedroza did get some US TV air time, unfortunately there wasn’t that much clamor for the unification fight. I was a HUGE Pedroza fan and I think he would have had an excellent chance of beating Sanchez, which was probably also the general feeling of Sanchez and his people. The risk/reward just didn’t make sense, so they never pursued the fight.

There it go, there it go...At last, someone that is not granberry or me, got see it like us.

elmersalsa wrote:

The Great John L wrote:

Ambling Alp wrote:…Unfortunately, boxing is a business and the most deserving fighters don't always get the big money fights.

Alp, this is probably the best assessment of why Pedroza didn’t get the big matchup. While Pedroza did get some US TV air time, unfortunately there wasn’t that much clamor for the unification fight. I was a HUGE Pedroza fan and I think he would have had an excellent chance of beating Sanchez, which was probably also the general feeling of Sanchez and his people. The risk/reward just didn’t make sense, so they never pursued the fight.

There it go, there it go...At last, someone that is not granberry or me, got see it like us.

Really?

You are reading too much into it, elmo.

Where does he, or even the ever gullible granberry for that matter, agree that Pedroza was, in your own hysterical words, "one of boxing's MOST DUCKED fighters"?

It seems to me it's a possibility, but a possibility does not make the case. You really need more than the evidence and facts of what did not happen. You've got to find out what did take place and get it on the record if you can.

Otherwise it's just imagineering. Fighters miss each other in the scheme of things for many more reasons than fear, avoidance, pettiness. Conflicts of schedules, geography, management misfires etc. Maybe on honest lack of recognition of a serious challenge, or competing opportunities that force decisions.

If you want to say that every time a fighter chooses not to fight another fighter due to the fact that the risk does not match the reward then the list gets pretty long pretty fast. Bigger risk should get more reward, or it's pretty legit to pass on an opportunity. It's pro prize fighting and who wants to take a beating for no prize? Or a prize that does not pay well for the effort your putting out?

BoxBuzz wrote:It seems to me it's a possibility, but a possibility does not make the case. You really need more than the evidence and facts of what did not happen. You've got to find out what did take place and get it on the record if you can.

Otherwise it's just imagineering. Fighters miss each other in the scheme of things for many more reasons than fear, avoidance, pettiness. Conflicts of schedules, geography, management misfires etc. Maybe on honest lack of recognition of a serious challenge, or competing opportunities that force decisions.

If you want to say that every time a fighter chooses not to fight another fighter due to the fact that the risk does not match the reward then the list gets pretty long pretty fast. Bigger risk should get more reward, or it's pretty legit to pass on an opportunity. It's pro prize fighting and who wants to take a beating for no prize? Or a prize that does not pay well for the effort your putting out?

OK. I thought that to be the BEST, you got to fight the very best of your era. How can we say that Sanchez was the best when Pedroza was one of the very best in his weight class? Pedroza was one of the finest champions of his time. How can we say that he did not ducked him?

I believe that Sanchez did not want no part of this great champion...The evidences were clear.
FIRST, Pedroza did CALL HIM....I saw it, maybe you did not, but he did.

SECOND, Sanchez wanted Arguello not because he was better than Pedroza TECHNICALLY. He wanted Arguello because Arguello FITS HIS STYLE. Pedroza was not Danny Lopez or Arguello, FLATFOOTED FIGHTERS that were easy for Sanchez. Pedroza had something that Sanchez did not want to face: GREAT BOXING SKILLS, GRACE AND TECHNIQUE.

THIRD, Let's start from the beginning: Sanchez, the NUMBER ONE CONTENDER, went for Danny Lopez. OK, Let's say that Lopez was "better" at the time. The fact is, if Pedroza was not as good as Danny, why he did not challenge him? Why then after the Gomez fight, he did not do a title unification against "the second best" featherweight or second best champion in his mind or in the minds and eyes of many?
Here are some examples of champions that fought their counterparts to settle the score and to see who was the best:
Duran fought DeJesus.
Foster fought Rondon
Frazier fought Ali and Ellis
Leonard fought Hearns
Monzon fought Valdez
Zarate fought Zamora

Then why not Sanchez vs Pedroza?...What was he waiting for? Was he scared? it looks like yes, why not think that way?

Pedroza like I said before, was tall, great inside fighter that could adapt to any opponent style, could fight well outside, had a great jab, ALWAYS ON GREAT SHAPE, hard to hit, fast hands, and great ring generalship. He was a COMPLETE FIGHTER just like Sanchez. He could also fight on the road, having great poise and was VERY CONFIDENT IN HIS ABILITIES.

Azumah Nelson did the same thing. Failed for Sanchez, then went after Gomez that was not in his prime. Sanchez squashed Gomez. Are you going to say that Gomez was better than a guy that already has 18 title defenses by 1984?

Whover thinks that Gomez was better than Pedroza at 126 pounds must be NUTS!!!

And Gomez instead of going after the "second best" in Pedroza, he goes for Juan LaPorte? A Pedroza's victim?

What evidences can be clearer than that?
What else I need to explain?

It is clear as water. This guy Pedroza, was DUCKED, one of the most ducked fighters or may I say, one of the must ducked champions of all time.

elmer asks "If Sanchez was so great, why he did not challenged Pedroza instead of Lopez?"

He later asks " Sanchez the #1 contender, went for Danny Lopez. Ok, lets say that Lopez was "better" at the time. The fact is , if Pedroza, was not as good as Danny, why did he (Sanchez) not challenge him Pedroza?"

Read what you are saying. First you imply that Sanchez should have fought Pedroza instead of Lopez, but ducked him because Pedroza was better.
Than you say that Sanchez should have fought Pedroza because Lopez was better! That makes no sense.

You can just as easily make the case that Pedroza ducked other fighters.

Why did Pedroza fight LaPorte after Sanchez already beat ? Btw, Pedroza barely beat LaPorte.

Why didn't Pedroza ever give Azumah Nelson a title shot? He gave lesser fighters a shot.

You ask why did Gomez fight LaPorte for a vacant title after Sanchez died? Well, Pedroza was coming off a draw with Bernard Taylor. (Did Pedroza give Taylor a rematch? No.)
Pedroza was lined up to fight Lockridge in a rematch soon after the Gomez-LaPorte fight. There is a very good chance that Pedroza wasn't available for Gomez to fight.

Btw, Pedroza was far from a dominaint champion. He had atleast 4 close decisions in which he held onto his title:
-Against a very green Lockridge, who had only 16 fights, none against top competition.
-Against LaPorte. Sanchez, and even Gomez had an easier time with LaPorte.
-Against Bernard Taylor. He only got a draw. Never gave Taylor a rematch.
-Against Lockridge again.

As mentioned previously Sanchez probably would have fought Pedroza at some point had he not died. Sanchez was only 23 and had only been the champion for a couple of years.
Just because there was "talk" of Sanchez fighting Arguello doesn't mean that Sanchez wouldn't have fought Pedroza. Arguello-Sanchez may never have happened, and even if it did doesn't mean that Sanchez wouldn't fought Pedroza after fighting Argeullo.

Yes sometimes titles are unified? However, the vast majority of the time they aren't. Both Pedroza and Sanchez had mandatory defenses they had to make once a year. Sometimes one would have to do that while the other guy was available.

How do you know that the either the WBA or the WBC didn't want this fight to happen regardless of what Pedroza or Sanchez wanted?

You should be careful when claiming that someone "ducked" someone else. You have to look at time lines, and what made sense at the time.
If one guy is fighting patises and has several years to fight another guy, then you may have a case. But that's not what happened here.

This is a very biased thread, with too much of the "evidence" being of leap of faith & speculation. It's like Oliver Stone's take on the assassination.

Considering Sanchez' unexpected demise, it's in poor taste to call him out on who he "ducked".

Ambling Alp wrote:elmer asks "If Sanchez was so great, why he did not challenged Pedroza instead of Lopez?"

He later asks " Sanchez the #1 contender, went for Danny Lopez. Ok, lets say that Lopez was "better" at the time. The fact is , if Pedroza, was not as good as Danny, why did he (Sanchez) not challenge him Pedroza?"

Read what you are saying. First you imply that Sanchez should have fought Pedroza instead of Lopez, but ducked him because Pedroza was better.
Than you say that Sanchez should have fought Pedroza because Lopez was better! That makes no sense.

You can just as easily make the case that Pedroza ducked other fighters.

Why did Pedroza fight LaPorte after Sanchez already beat ? Btw, Pedroza barely beat LaPorte.

Why didn't Pedroza ever give Azumah Nelson a title shot? He gave lesser fighters a shot.

You ask why did Gomez fight LaPorte for a vacant title after Sanchez died? Well, Pedroza was coming off a draw with Bernard Taylor. (Did Pedroza give Taylor a rematch? No.)
Pedroza was lined up to fight Lockridge in a rematch soon after the Gomez-LaPorte fight. There is a very good chance that Pedroza wasn't available for Gomez to fight.

Btw, Pedroza was far from a dominaint champion. He had atleast 4 close decisions in which he held onto his title:
-Against a very green Lockridge, who had only 16 fights, none against top competition.
-Against LaPorte. Sanchez, and even Gomez had an easier time with LaPorte.
-Against Bernard Taylor. He only got a draw. Never gave Taylor a rematch.
-Against Lockridge again.

As mentioned previously Sanchez probably would have fought Pedroza at some point had he not died. Sanchez was only 23 and had only been the champion for a couple of years.
Just because there was "talk" of Sanchez fighting Arguello doesn't mean that Sanchez wouldn't have fought Pedroza. Arguello-Sanchez may never have happened, and even if it did doesn't mean that Sanchez wouldn't fought Pedroza after fighting Argeullo.

Yes sometimes titles are unified? However, the vast majority of the time they aren't. Both Pedroza and Sanchez had mandatory defenses they had to make once a year. Sometimes one would have to do that while the other guy was available.

How do you know that the either the WBA or the WBC didn't want this fight to happen regardless of what Pedroza or Sanchez wanted?

You should be careful when claiming that someone "ducked" someone else. You have to look at time lines, and what made sense at the time.
If one guy is fighting patises and has several years to fight another guy, then you may have a case. But that's not what happened here.

You always come with some "LOGIC" THAT NEVER HAD SENSE. Probably, you are one of those fans that love flashy fighters, and not underrated ones. How in the world, Sanchez was NOT DUCKING Pedroza when Pedroza, ACCORDING TO THE MEDIA, OR FANS, was "the second best" featherweight?

Ain't you supposed to fight the best of your division first? And then try for BIGGER FISH? Sanchez tried to do that with fighting Arguello, an opponent that FITTED HIS STYLE. This reminds me when Benny "Kid" Paret tried to avoid Emile Griffith for a third match. He wanted to fight Gene Fullmer for the middleweight title instead, got his ass kicked, and since he could not handle the middleweights, when back down to welterweight and fought Griffith again a third time, which proved that Griffith WAS BETTER.

Now if Arguello kicks Sanchez behind, Sanchez go down to featherweight, and had no choice to fight Pedroza, Pedroza beats him, then people would say:"Ohhhhhh, Sanchez made the mistake on taking Arguello" or "Arguello soften him up for Pedroza" or " Sanchez was through after the Arguello fight"....ALL KINDS OF EXCUSES!!!

Now the BIGGEST EXCUSE of your reply is:

You can just as easily make the case that Pedroza ducked other fighters.

Why did Pedroza fight LaPorte after Sanchez already beat ? Btw, Pedroza barely beat LaPorte.

Why didn't Pedroza ever give Azumah Nelson a title shot? He gave lesser fighters a shot.

You ask why did Gomez fight LaPorte for a vacant title after Sanchez died? Well, Pedroza was coming off a draw with Bernard Taylor. (Did Pedroza give Taylor a rematch? No.)

Yeah, LaPorte was BETTER THAN PEDROZA at 126 according to you and Gomez, when Pedroza gave him a boxing lesson....That does not make sense. How can LaPorte was the better featherweight? Pedroza had 16 title defenses to that point. How can LaPorte was better? That SMELLS LIKE DUCKING.

Now Gomez for a big money fight with Pedroza, is no where to be found. Nelson? becomes champion and what about Pedroza? What is he waiting for? Pedroza called him on ESPN in a title defense in Panama against Jorge Lujan. You could get the tape. It is there.

Pedroza CALLED ALL OF THEM. What the others did? Went the other way. How come Sanchez after the Gomez fight, did not fight Pedroza for an unification match? How much time got to pass?
Ain't Zamora fought Zarate?
Ain't Duran fought DeJesus?
Ain't Monzon fought Valdez?
Ain't Foster fought Rondon?
Ain't your beloved Sugar Ray fought Hearns?
What was he waiting for?

HOW YOU MEASURED WHO IS BETTER? By fighting the next guy next to you. That is how you IS THE BETTER FIGHTER, NOT BY CHALLENGING SOMEONE THAT IS 2 WEIGHT CLASSES ABOVE YOU. Not by implying that Arguello was better fighter than Pedroza.

I am going to ask you a question: Who had better technique? Pedroza or Arguello? You might say that Arguello at the time was considered an all-time great, but technically boxing speaking, better than Pedroza? No way.

Ambling Alp wrote:Btw, Pedroza was far from a dominaint champion. He had atleast 4 close decisions in which he held onto his title:
-Against a very green Lockridge, who had only 16 fights, none against top competition.
-Against LaPorte. Sanchez, and even Gomez had an easier time with LaPorte.
-Against Bernard Taylor. He only got a draw. Never gave Taylor a rematch.
-Against Lockridge again.

Just about all fighters with as many title fights as Pedroza had a few close ones. Sanchez had problems with Cowdell, Ford and a novice version of Nelson. In fact Pedroza destroyed Ford shortly after Sanchez fought him. And the BT express was one of the slickest fighters of that era. He never quite lived up to his potential, but his speed would have probably given Sanchez problems as well.

Also, as far as why Pedroza didn’t fight Nelson -- by the time that Nelson was really recognized as a top fighter Pedroza was lined up to fight McGuigan for a big payday and a severe pounding. By that time, Pedroza was on his way out. Most people forget that when Sanchez fought Nelson, Nelson was pretty much an unknown novice and was regarded as merely a tuneup. In fact Nelson really got very little recognition until he beat Gomez a few years later. Up to that point, he had very little on his resume besides his fine performance against Sanchez.

It can be argued for eternity why Pedroza and Sanchez didn’t fight, but thanks to his brutal stoppages of Lopez, Sanchez clearly got the US media attention and therefore controlled the big fights at 126. More than likely had he not died at such an early age he probably would have eventually fought Pedroza, but my guess would be that he would have waited a few years until Pedroza had declined. Sanchez was a very fine fighter, but one who is probably a bit over rated due to his unfortunate early death.

Nice to hear John L mention Bernard Taylor. The guy is often overlooked. He was a formidable fighter for a number of years.

Ezzard wrote:Nice to hear John L mention Bernard Taylor. The guy is often overlooked. He was a formidable fighter for a number of years.

Just about the fastest fists I've ever seen. I’ll probably take some heat for this opinion, but I think the BT Express could have beaten Sanchez. His speed was on an entirely different level than anyone else in the division, and I could have seen him build up a very big lead against Sanchez and then it would have been a matter of whether or not he could have survived the final 5 as BT tended to slow down in the late stages of some of his fights.

Sanchez was the most effortlessly relaxed fighter over fifteen rounds you'll ever see. Extraordinary to witness him in his corner, mouth closed, breathing smoothly, listening to the advice as though he were in an office chatting with a co-worker.

The only thing more remarkable than Sanchez's chin, was his endurance.

Endurance, chin and intelligence, best sum up Sanchez...

You can see in the Nelson fight how he lsoes the initiative, is getting beaten, but slowly works out the ways to open up Azumah. Great performance.

The Great John L wrote:

Ezzard wrote:Nice to hear John L mention Bernard Taylor. The guy is often overlooked. He was a formidable fighter for a number of years.

Just about the fastest fists I've ever seen. I’ll probably take some heat for this opinion, but I think the BT Express could have beaten Sanchez. His speed was on an entirely different level than anyone else in the division, and I could have seen him build up a very big lead against Sanchez and then it would have been a matter of whether or not he could have survived the final 5 as BT tended to slow down in the late stages of some of his fights.

I don't think he'd have managed those last 5 rounds but B.T. would have benefitted from 12 round fights. In fact, Taylor's spritn start, fast hands, and gradual decline through a fight have become much more discernible in boxing macthes of the last 15 years.

I don't know if people undertood what I was driving at when I mentioned Pedroza's close calls.
Of course Sanchez and most long time champions had some close calls some time along the way. However, it seemed like people were implying that Pedroza was some sort of invincible fighter that Sanchez was scared of. He wasn't and I doubt Sanchez personally was concerned about fighting him.
I was also pointing out that Pedroza didn't give either LaPorte a rematch or Taylor a rematch. You could just as easily argue that Pedroza was concerned about losing to them as Sanchez was to losing to Pedroza.

I want to point out something else that elmer salsa and maybe some other people don't realize.
It's the exception when there are unification fights. Usually they don't happen. It's usually not because one guy is "afraid" of the other guy. It's in the interest of the "Governing Bodies" not to have them. If there is only one champion, obviously their influence decreases.

Elemr listed a few times when there were unification fights. However (and I can't believe I have to point this out) this usually isn't the case.

Does anyone realize that there hasn't been a unisputed featherweight champion since Vincente Saldivar's first retirement in 1967? That's 41 years.

When Sanchez won the WBC title in 1980, it had already been 13 years since there was only one champion. The 11 previous WBC featherweight champions after 1967 had never fought the 8 WBA champions before Pedroza's reign.

After Sanchez died, the 19 WBC champions since have never fought the 13 WBC champions since Perdoza was champion.

All together, we are talking about 30 WBC champions over 41 years not fighting the 21 WBA champions sometimes the WBC champion was better, sometimes the WBA, sometimes they were about the same.

The main point is Sanchez shouldn't be singled out. If either the WBA or the WBC didn't want this fight to happen in this relativley small window of time, it wasn't going to happen even if both fighters want this to happen.

And once again I want to address the whole "calling "out notion. It means nothing. A fighter can call someone out, and have absolutely no intention of fighting him.

It's easy to say someone "ducked" someone. However, you have to look at the details.

All excellent points Alp.

I agree that avoided rather than ducked might be the better term here.

Ambling Alp wrote:I don't know if people undertood what I was driving at when I mentioned Pedroza's close calls.
Of course Sanchez and most long time champions had some close calls some time along the way. However, it seemed like people were implying that Pedroza was some sort of invincible fighter that Sanchez was scared of. He wasn't and I doubt Sanchez personally was concerned about fighting him.
I was also pointing out that Pedroza didn't give either LaPorte a rematch or Taylor a rematch. You could just as easily argue that Pedroza was concerned about losing to them as Sanchez was to losing to Pedroza.

I want to point out something else that elmer salsa and maybe some other people don't realize.
It's the exception when there are unification fights. Usually they don't happen. It's usually not because one guy is "afraid" of the other guy. It's in the interest of the "Governing Bodies" not to have them. If there is only one champion, obviously their influence decreases.

Elemr listed a few times when there were unification fights. However (and I can't believe I have to point this out) this usually isn't the case.

Does anyone realize that there hasn't been a unisputed featherweight champion since Vincente Saldivar's first retirement in 1967? That's 41 years.

When Sanchez won the WBC title in 1980, it had already been 13 years since there was only one champion. The 11 previous WBC featherweight champions after 1967 had never fought the 8 WBA champions before Pedroza's reign.

After Sanchez died, the 19 WBC champions since have never fought the 13 WBC champions since Perdoza was champion.

All together, we are talking about 30 WBC champions over 41 years not fighting the 21 WBC champions sometimes the WBC champion was better, sometimes the WBA, sometimes they were about the same.

The main point is Sanchez shouldn't be singled out. If either the WBA or the WBC didn't want this fight to happen in this relativley small window of time, it wasn't going to happen even if both fighters want this to happen.

And once again I want to address the whole "calling "out notion. It means nothing. A fighter can call someone out, and have absolutely no intention of fighting him.

It's easy to say someone "ducked" someone. However, you have to look at the details.

Calling somebody out means nothing? Then what you want Pedroza to do? Go to Sanchez house and knock on his door?

Did Jack Johnson went all over the world looking for Tommy Burns?

I GUESS NOBODY DUCKED ANYBODY IN BOXING: Charley Burley was not ducked.
Aaron Pryor was not ducked
Pedroza was not ducked
Sonny Liston was not ducked
"Mantequilla" Napoles was not ducked

Hey!!! Nobody was ducked!!!

Then you said:

The main point is Sanchez shouldn't be singled out. If either the WBA or the WBC didn't want this fight to happen in this relativley small window of time, it wasn't going to happen even if both fighters want this to happen.

C'mon Alp. This was a star studded fight. How can this fight could never happened? Not even for a 10 rounder like Zamora vs Zarate?
Oh, I forgot, they are not Sugar Ray Leonard...Then why Leonard fought Hearns? Why Donald Curry fought Milton McCrory?

Do not look for excuses for Salvador Sanchez of why he did not fought Pedroza. Why can't you say he (Pedroza) was ducked? Plain and simple.

Wanted to fight Arguello, an opponent that FITTED HIS STYLE, that was not a feather champ, but the other guys did not wanted no part of this guy. He, Pedroza, was a complete fighter. One of the very best of the last 30 years. Was tall, fast, underrated chin and stamina, crafty and knew every little trick of the boxing book. I guess Sanchez did not wanted to get hit with a bolo punch downstairs. Pedroza was also good with the bolo punch.

Yeah that's it. Sanchez didn't want to get hit with the bolo punch. Whatever.

No, I don't think Pedroza "calling out" someone means anything. Because it doesn't. That is done for the cameras. How many times did Hopkins and Jones call each other out for a rematch? It never happened. Usually their next fight was against a tomato can.
Aaron Pryor would run his mouth for the cameras, but the bottom line is that he never stepped up and fought at welterweight. Had he beaten some welterweight contenders he would have gotton a title shot at welterweight. (He didn't even fight the best Jr Welterweights). It was all talk.

Larry Holmes was the WBC heavyweight champion for 7 years. He didn't scream out that he wanted to fight the WBA champion. Did that mean that he was afraid of the WBA champion? Of course not. Holmes didn't bother doing it becasue he knew that there really wasn't much interest in him fighting the WBA champ.

For once, read what I wrote. Unification fights usually don't happen. They usually only happen when it is by far the biggest fight out there and the "Governing Bodies" can make their $ from sanctioning it. At the time that Sanchez died, Sanchez-Pedroza wasn't seen as a mega fight.
The interest in it didn't remotely approach the other big fights of the time.
Casual fans had barely heard of Pedroza.
In another year or two (with impressive wins by Pedroza) interest may have grown and it may have been.

There are all sorts of reasons why a fight like Sanchez-Pedroza didn't happen. Besides the alphabet soups, you have promters. Maybe they don't want the fight to happen.
You also have to deal with timing. You keep forgetting that often after Sanchez would win a fight and be looking for another, Pedroza was already signed to fight someone else.

Sometimes guys do get ducked. Sonny Liston was by Patterson for awhile, that was obvious. Liston beat everyone else that was a serious contender and Patterson was fighting nobodies. This isn't at all what happened with Pedroza and Sanchez.

Sanchez was only 23 and had only been the champion for two years. Say that to yourself a few times. Let it sink in.

Still waiting for you to explain the following:
"If Sanchez was so great, why he did not challenged Pedroza instead of Lopez?"

Later you ask" Sanchez the #1 contender, went for Danny Lopez. Ok, lets say that Lopez was "better" at the time. The fact is , if Pedroza, was not as good as Danny, why did he (Sanchez) not challenge him Pedroza?"

Those two lines are priceless. You criticize Sanchez for not challenging Pedroza first (implying that he fought Lopez becasue he was the weaker of the two.)
Than later you say he should have fought Pedroza because Pedroza wasn't as good?

Alp, you are wasting your time with this clown.

He knows nothing about that time period and never will.

I think Collins summed it up well in an earlier post when he said that Eusebio was happy doing his WBA thing.
That really is how I remember it.
I dont recall any real talk from either side about Sanchez and Pedroza fighting.
I mean it was a desireable fight sure and it may have happaned eventually but back then there were certain WBA and Wbc fighters who were just kept from each other.
Not saying it was a good thing...
Same deal when Palomino and Cuevas were champs.
I dont recall any serious talk about those two fighting either.
It was just the boxing politics of the day is all.