BoxRec

Eric, the fact that you see a 0-0-0 on their record doesnt mean that those opponents were making their pro debut, it just means that no data is available for those fighters previous records. There are a lot of names that look as if they were picked up from a Tijuana phone book, I agree, but even if they were stiffs, Zarate did what any great fighter was supposed to, which was to knock them out. Furthermore, when he was a champion he knocked out everybody in his title defenses and in my opinion was robbed against Lupe Pintor.

But I insist, that's just comparing raw data (which in this case is incomplete for his earlier opponents), and that's just a portion of what you have to factor in to arrive at a conclusion of a fighter's greatness.

I think the best conclusions can be drawn from a videotape. Take Zarate's performance against Alfonso Zamora for example. And you don't even have to watch the whole fight, just look at the way he finished him off and you can recognize what a phenomenon this great little man was.

Broncano wrote:Eric, the fact that you see a 0-0-0 on their record doesnt mean that those opponents were making their pro debut, it just means that no data is available for those fighters previous records.

Then there should be "n/a" in that spot, not a 0-0-0 - otherwise, how are we non-editors to know whether it was the guy's pro debut or no records are available? Even if you assume all 18 of those guys were really 20-0, there's still the 13 who were oh-and-something-other-than-zero. My point was, Zarate was a great fighter, but you can't simply conclude that based on his win-loss record coming into the Gomez fight.

Eric the Viking wrote:. My point was, Zarate was a great fighter, but you can't simply conclude that based on his win-loss record coming into the Gomez fight.

Exactly, you have to check out his fights, which was my point all along.
And as far as those fighters records theres a note at the bottom that says

- NB this record may be incomplete/inaccurate and/or the boxer may still be active -

Broncano wrote:Exactly, you have to check out his fights, which was my point all along.
And as far as those fighters records theres a note at the bottom that says

- NB this record may be incomplete/inaccurate and/or the boxer may still be active -

Yes, but why make it necessary to click on all eighteen of the 0-0-0 guys' individual fighter records to find this out, when their record could just be summarized as "n/a" to make it clear that no record is available for the fighter up to that point? 0-0-0 should mean just what it says.

That has to do with the programming, and I'm not sure to what extent that would be possible. If that's not possible, you would have "NA" data for a number of fighters that would have to be manually deleted by an editor after a new previous bout for that 0-0-0 fighter surfaces.

When an editor has certainty that a given fight was a pro debut by one of the contestants, then its entered into the comment field. So in the mean time, if it doesnt say it was his pro debut and you have the disclaimer at the bottom: "this record may be incomplete" then one shouldnt assume it was his professional debut.

Broncano wrote:That has to do with the programming, and I'm not sure to what extent that would be possible. If that's not possible, you would have "NA" data for a number of fighters that would have to be manually deleted by an editor after a new previous bout for that 0-0-0 fighter surfaces.

One could then enter the record based on the known fights, and if it's still suspected to be incomplete, put an asterisk or (inc) after the numbers.

My point is, there's no good reason (unless as you say, the software literally doesn't allow it) to make users have to click on a bazillion individual fighters' records in order to see whether the guys listed as 0-0-0 on someone like Zarate's record are really 0-0-0 or just record-unknowns.

Site software gurus, could you help us out here?

Eric the Viking wrote:One could then enter the record based on the known fights, and if it's still suspected to be incomplete, put an asterisk or (inc) after the numbers.

If the software allows it, I agree that would be a great addition to the database.

As for this topic, we may not know how far Sal Sanchez could have gone, but the Sal Sanchez thread sure went far

Broncano wrote:As for this topic, we may not know how far Sal Sanchez could have gone, but the Sal Sanchez thread sure went far

Do I hear a page 3, ladies and gentlemen? Going once, going twice... ;)

I think Salvadore would have appreciated this discussion!.... he really wanted to be recognised as an alltime great and despite his tragic death he done more than enough during his career to deserve such recognition...

So If he'd not been driving that fateful night, what would have happened to him?
Another points win over LaPorte in his next defence, then probably rematches with Nelson and Gomez.
Was the Puerto Rican ever the same after his first loss? He would've been in hard training for a rematch, after taking Sanchez far too lightly first time round.
And Nelson was improving by the day, becoming one of the most dangerous featherweights of his time - would he have won a rematch, say two years later? Or would Sanchez have destroyed him?

Barry McGuigen v Salvador Sanchez at the kings Hall Belfast?

Damn isn't that three pages yet?!

MightyWarrior wrote:Damn isn't that three pages yet?!

Nope. ;)

Eric the Viking wrote:

MightyWarrior wrote:Damn isn't that three pages yet?!

Nope. ;)

I should add that his personal doctor used to take his blood pressure and found it to be virtualy the same after one round as it was after 15 rounds.

I don't think Sanchez would have stayed at 126 past 1983, so we have to consider how he'd match up against the jr light and lightweights of the early '80s. First, I'm not sure Sanchez would win a rematch with Nelson or a match with Pedroza. I think he would have beaten Gomez a second time, especially after Gomez gave so much vs Pintor.
How about these matches:
Sanchez vs
Camacho
Arguello
Rosario
J.L. Ramirez
J.C. Chavez
and maybe Sanchez-Nelson III at 130?
I say Sanchez wins all except Chavez.

MightyWarrior wrote:

Eric the Viking wrote:

MightyWarrior wrote:Damn isn't that three pages yet?!

Nope. ;)

I should add that his personal doctor used to take his blood pressure and found it to be virtualy the same after one round as it was after 15 rounds.

Fascinating - although I thought it was heart rate more than blood pressure that was a better indicator of overall fitness. When you're exhausted, your BP will generally be low, but your HR tends to rise because of the demands of your body for extra oxygen and nutrients.

He was planning to move up in weight Mighty Warrior, so his next fight would probably have been against Alexis Arguello... he was having a lot of trouble making 126 and I think wanted to move straight up to the Lightweights and face Arguello and miss out the JuniorLightweights totally.
Imagine what a fight Sanchez vs Arguello would have been!... Much as Arguello was great I can see Sanchez beating him, he had the speed and intelligence and presumably would be stronger and more powerful at the higher weight.

Eric the Viking wrote:Fascinating - although I thought it was heart rate more than blood pressure that was a better indicator of overall fitness. When you're exhausted, your BP will generally be low, but your HR tends to rise because of the demands of your body for extra oxygen and nutrients.

Then I meant heart. 8)

Broncano wrote:1) I didnt say you did

2) Go to the previous page ---everyone deserves your criticism but Nelson

1) OK, fair enough.

2) Eh? I still don't see why that must mean I'm "selling" Nelson. In fact, almost everything I said about Sanchez on the previous page was just the facts... since when is bringing up the FACTS wrong? Anyway, what you said doesn't make sense, either... how am I "selling" Nelson if I'm putting down the guys that he fought?

silkov wrote:Don't make me laugh keed, Tapia would be lucky to be in the top 10 at either Bantam, Light feather or Feather in the 70s.... your lack of knowledge regarding Zarate and the Bantams of his time is very dissapointing. Again I ask you to come up with a list of 'quality' Bantamweight, Lightfeather or Featherweight contenders... as I suspected you seem to have only watched the likes of Tapia, Morales Ayala etc....

"Don't make me laugh keed, Tapia would be lucky to be in the top 10 at either Bantam, Light feather or Feather in the 70s"

Please! The second best guy around when Zarate became champ was the wild-swinging brawler Zamora, and I wouldn't pick him over Tapia. Zamora was a big puncher, but NOT a great fighter. To suggest that Tapia couldn't even break the top 10 at bantam at that time is quite a bold statement, and an even bolder one is to insist that anyone who doesn't agree with your VERY subjective argument doesn't know about the fighters of the '70s.


"Again I ask you to come up with a list of 'quality' Bantamweight, Lightfeather or Featherweight contenders... as I suspected you seem to have only watched the likes of Tapia, Morales Ayala etc...."

Really? Before I thought you just wanted me to name what guys today could've hung with the likes of Zarate and Gomez, and I answered that. Now what are you asking for... a list of every great fighter that ever lived?

Eric the Viking wrote:None of which is to say Zarate wasn;t a great fighter, but let's be honest, that 52-0 was massively padded with stiffs and bums off the street.

The Keed wrote:2) Eh? I still don't see why that must mean I'm "selling" Nelson. In fact, almost everything I said about Sanchez on the previous page was just the facts... since when is bringing up the FACTS wrong? Anyway, what you said doesn't make sense, either... how am I "selling" Nelson if I'm putting down the guys that he fought?

I went back and for the life of me couldnt find facts but just opinions on who is overrated and which division was weak or not.

But since we are at it lets get some more opinions:
Where do you put Nelson ? Higher than Sanchez? as a P4P all time great?

Keed, I'm not going to get into a slanging match with you, your entitled to your opinion and I'm entitled to mine... lets leave it there, lifes too short!... 8) 8) 8)

Too right Silkov, this is pretty much a dead horse.

Lets just stick to entering results to the database, huh Keed?

Broncano wrote:

The Keed wrote:2) Eh? I still don't see why that must mean I'm "selling" Nelson. In fact, almost everything I said about Sanchez on the previous page was just the facts... since when is bringing up the FACTS wrong? Anyway, what you said doesn't make sense, either... how am I "selling" Nelson if I'm putting down the guys that he fought?

I went back and for the life of me couldnt find facts but just opinions on who is overrated and which division was weak or not.

But since we are at it lets get some more opinions:
Where do you put Nelson ? Higher than Sanchez? as a P4P all time great?

"I went back and for the life of me couldnt find facts but just opinions on who is overrated and which division was weak or not."

Then you missed my post about Sanchez's close fights and split decisions, and the fact that Nelson only had about 13 fights when he fought Sanchez... that's the post that started this whole discussion.


"But since we are at it lets get some more opinions:
Where do you put Nelson ? Higher than Sanchez? as a P4P all time great?"

Higher than Sanchez? At feather, I might put him a notch higher, but they are both very close. I think my top all-time feather list, off the top of my head, would look something like this:

1) Saddler
2) Pep
3) Nelson
4) Sanchez

If we did a P4P all time, then I definitely would have to put Nelson over Sanchez, simply because Nelson accomplished much more, whereas Sanchez will always be a "What if...?" scenerio. On an all-time list, I would probably put guys like Robinson, Armstrong, Duran, and some others over him, but I think he was at least the equal (if not the better) of JC Chavez, and maybe as good as someone like Alexis Arguello as well. I know if Nelson had ever fought either of those last two guys, I think I would have picked Nelson over them (Chavez certainly... Arguello, maybe).

Duran vs. Nelson, in a P4P match, I think would have also been a great fight too. Most people would pick Duran, but for me it's a little tougher to call than that...

Broncano wrote:Too right Silkov, this is pretty much a dead horse.

Lets just stick to entering results to the database, huh Keed?

Damn... I wish you had posted that before I went through all that trouble over there.

Truce?

Hey Keed, you're 'top five' left out HENRY ARMSTRONG!!!!... a guy who just happened to win world titles at FEATHERWEIGHT... LIGHTWEIGHT! AND WELTERWEIGHT!!!... held them all simultainiously, made about 20 defences of the Welter title and should have been awarded the MIDDLEWEIGHT title too but was robbed by ref... and all the time he was a natural Feather whose manager beefed him up by making him drink beer....... and you forget all about him!... shame on you Keed!!!.....