BoxRec

Goodnight, Irene wrote: 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.

Oh, indeed. I was basically positing that as JMM is Godlike-Super-Plus-Kick-Arse going backwards, he's merely Godlike going forwards. Hence "much less effective".

If you see what I mean.

Jaybird wrote:Baby Face, not to knock your comment on "Gomez would go on to win a title at 126" but it was against Juan LaPorte which alot of people thought Juan won

You're thinking of the Lockridge fight for the junior lightweight belt. Gomez beat LaPorte pretty easily and nobody at the time thought LaPorte came even close to winning. Lockridge is another story. I am huge Bazooka Gomez fan and I scored it narrowly for Lockridge, although he faded at the end and Gomez had a hometown advantage. IMO, Gomez, at the time, was pretty shot, but he put on an impressive rally.

Re: Sanchez. I couldn't rate him high enough in the 1980s because he was absolutely masterly in beating two of my favorite fighters of that era, Lopez and Gomez. I remember both bangers coming forward and just getting hammered with almost machine-like precision for their trouble.

From my point of view, you can't rate Sanchez highly enough.

The fact that he died aged just 23 & is often referred to an an ATG by so many is proof enough that he wasn't overrated.

It's frightening to think what more he could have achieved had he lived longer.

Datsue wrote:

Goodnight, Irene wrote: 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.

Oh, indeed. I was basically positing that as JMM is Godlike-Super-Plus-Kick-Arse going backwards, he's merely Godlike going forwards. Hence "much less effective".

If you see what I mean.

Sanchez is my favorite fighter of all time and I've seen most of his fights ten times at least.

What I don't understand is why nobody talks about how much he got hit in his fights. He got hit cleanly by everybody. Sure, he took the punishment and never wobbled or got cut, but man did he get hit.

When there was talk that he might move up to fight Arguello I couldn't help but think of the punishment he would take in that fight. He might have beaten Alexis, but he would have eaten an epic amount of leather.

At some point even an all time great fighter is going to lose if he can't stop getting hit. Sanchez included.

Esquire wrote:Sanchez is my favorite fighter of all time and I've seen most of his fights ten times at least.

What I don't understand is why nobody talks about how much he got hit in his fights. He got hit cleanly by everybody. Sure, he took the punishment and never wobbled or got cut, but man did he get hit.

When there was talk that he might move up to fight Arguello I couldn't help but think of the punishment he would take in that fight. He might have beaten Alexis, but he would have eaten an epic amount of leather.

At some point even an all time great fighter is going to lose if he can't stop getting hit. Sanchez included.

That's an honest assessment, & while Sanchez did indeed show remarkable composure & a brilliant set of whiskers, I've always felt the tipping point would've been Arguello, who was just all kinds of lethal at both 126 & 130lbs.

^^^^

aye, on a couple of counts. SS, it seemed to me, almost fell in love with his whiskers in the same way some guys fall in love with their big punch. i believe it was Cosell who talked about him losing his defensive awareness ('growing disdain for defence', i believe he said) as his reign went on.

with Arguello, there's still a lot that SS can do to blunt him, bearing in mind that man did NOT like being given angles. but the fight would be pure epicality due to the above points

I don't think Salvador was overrated but this whole he's going to win multiple titles thing, I don't see it.I can't see him beating a Camacho, Kenty, Davis Jr, or even possibly a Boom Boom Mancini.I'm of the opinion that he didn't really want to face Eusebio either, for whatever reason.

Anyone who puts into consideration "what if he did'nt die early" is already guilty of overrating him.. Nobody should be using that as a plus points for Sanchez, as it could have gone otherwise, nobody is for sure. Or else we should do the same to Masao Ohba, Pancho Villa & Edwin Valero. What has he done in his short career is probably the most compact resume among the greats, but over-all it is too short of a resume that it pulls his entire legacy a bit down.

Is he one of the greats? Yes indeed!
Is he overrated? Yes by some.

I think he should be rated simply by the fights that he did have. However, it's not really that short of a resume.
He had 46 fights, which is not really that few by modern standards.
He had a lot of quality wins: Danny Lopez (twice), Castillo, LaPorte, Gomez, etc.
There is certainly enough to tell us how good he was.

Always wonder why he didn't try to avenge that draw against Juan Escobar, heard he was lucky to have that verdict.