BoxRec

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

I always have said that in this fight between these two great fighters that Eusebio Pedroza beats Salvador Sanchez everytime, except on the night of August 21, 1981. On that night in Vegas, I don't see no featherweight in history beating Sal. The way he outbombed and thrashed the great Wilfredo Gomez was one of the greatest performances I have seen in boxing. He was totally extraordinary that night.

elmersalsa wrote:I always have said that in this fight between these two great fighters that Eusebio Pedroza beats Salvador Sanchez everytime, except on the night of August 21, 1981. On that night in Vegas, I don't see no featherweight in history beating Sal. The way he outbombed and thrashed the great Wilfredo Gomez was one of the greatest performances I have seen in boxing. He was totally extraordinary that night.

Your kidding so only on the night he beat Gomez that's silly Salvador a class above Pedroza beats him 9 time's out of 10

I always liked pedroza in this fight, too bad the wba/wbc feud prevented it.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I always liked pedroza in this fight, too bad the wba/wbc feud prevented it.

I love watching Sanchez but I've always thought pedrosas style would be very awkward for him

elmersalsa wrote:I always have said that in this fight between these two great fighters that Eusebio Pedroza beats Salvador Sanchez everytime, except on the night of August 21, 1981. On that night in Vegas, I don't see no featherweight in history beating Sal. The way he outbombed and thrashed the great Wilfredo Gomez was one of the greatest performances I have seen in boxing. He was totally extraordinary that night.

Sanchez was the best Featherweight ever... He destroys Pedroza... He'd get rid of him easier than he did Gomez every time out... a wipeout.

I've got this 70/30 Sanchez


As ever, these 2 guys are too good to say A beats B 10 times out of 10.

It's fight that could have gone down the rubber match route

81 makes it a hard year to pick. A top 3 of Sanchez, Pedrosa and Gomez, what a spectacular Featherweight period.

I'm leaning toward Sanchez I have to say. But I wouldn't say it with any real conviction.

To me Sanchez was clearly the better fighter. Pedroza had several title fights in which he got the decision which easily could have gone to his opponent. Sanchez beat better competition and usually did it convincingly. Pedroza might have kept it close in an ugly fight and get saved by the judges again, but Sanchez is going to win this the great majority of the time.

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.

Sanchez for me.

Around that year would have been slap-bang in the middle of Sanchez's prime... I would say that Pedroza's best performance was in '79 when he stopped Olivares...

I've a lot of respect for Eusebio but for me - Sanchez proved himself to be The King of them all from around that time.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: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.

Not sure how unpopular the Ford fight is, if that is what you are referring to. I would argue that Ford fought a better against Sanchez than Pedroza.
Besides both of the Lockridge fights, Pedroza easily could have lost the decisions to LaPorte and Taylor, whom he only got a draw with.
He also lost to convincingly to Barry McGuigan. Hard to imagine that happening to Sanchez.

If the referee let the fight get dirty, yeah I could see it being pretty close. If not, Sanchez should win more easily.

As good as Pedroza was, I would give the nod to Sanchez.....and a year or so down the line, I'd give Azumah Nelson the nod at the 1983/4 mark.

With a good referee and 3 honest judges, I'd take Sanchez by about 3-4 pts.

BoxBuzz wrote:As good as Pedroza was, I would give the nod to Sanchez.....and a year or so down the line, I'd give Azumah Nelson the nod at the 1983/4 mark.

Sanchez was 23 when he beat up and stopped Nelson... He was younger than Nelson so a year or 2 later he'd be much better as well.

Kalan wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:As good as Pedroza was, I would give the nod to Sanchez.....and a year or so down the line, I'd give Azumah Nelson the nod at the 1983/4 mark.

Sanchez was 23 when he beat up and stopped Nelson... He was younger than Nelson so a year or 2 later he'd be much better as well.

Not sure you understood......I would give Sanchez the nod over Pedroza....just as you would.......AND I think Nelson would defeat Pedroza as well, at the 83/84 mark. I know you are uncomfortable when we agree...but it seems we do.

Unless you'd care to take Pedroza over Nelson in 84.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

SaadOffTheDeck wrote: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.

Not sure how unpopular the Ford fight is, if that is what you are referring to. I would argue that Ford fought a better against Sanchez than Pedroza.
Besides both of the Lockridge fights, Pedroza easily could have lost the decisions to LaPorte and Taylor, whom he only got a draw with.
He also lost to convincingly to Barry McGuigan. Hard to imagine that happening to Sanchez.

If the referee let the fight get dirty, yeah I could see it being pretty close. If not, Sanchez should win more easily.

Yeah Ford, it was razor close and pedroza destroyed him. Disagree on laporte, Taylor could have gone against him. Not sure what losing to mcguigan has to do with this question. I rate sal higher, just always thought pedroza would beat him.

I think Nelson-Pedrosa would be the better fight fwiw. How do you see that going? I like Nelson there.

BoxBuzz wrote:

Kalan wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:As good as Pedroza was, I would give the nod to Sanchez.....and a year or so down the line, I'd give Azumah Nelson the nod at the 1983/4 mark.

Sanchez was 23 when he beat up and stopped Nelson... He was younger than Nelson so a year or 2 later he'd be much better as well.

Not sure you understood......I would give Sanchez the nod over Pedroza....just as you would.......AND I think Nelson would defeat Pedroza as well, at the 83/84 mark. I know you are uncomfortable when we agree...but it seems we do.

Unless you'd care to take Pedroza over Nelson in 84.

I assumed as much. Since we're comparing Pedroza and Sanchez---make more clear who you'd give Nelson the nod over in 1-2 yrs... and who you wouldn't.

Counter-puncher wrote:I think Nelson-Pedrosa would be the better fight fwiw. How do you see that going? I like Nelson there.

I'd take Nelson there, and also over Sal in a rematch.

I don't think the elite of fighters of that time frame circa 1979-84, wanted anything to do with the great Eusebio Pedroza. Danny Lopez, Salvador Sanchez, Wilfredo Gomez and Azumah Nelson looked the other way than to step up to the plate for a WBC/WBA title match unification against him.

Pedroza was "dirty" in the Juan LaPorte fight in the eyes of the American media. He was hated by many American boxing writers. Maybe it got to do of the fights with American prospects and future stars of Rocky Lockridge and Bernard Taylor. The time of the great Sugar Ray Leonard super star 80s mantra was in effect in those days to promote young American boxers. Pedroza whupped them both in my view. He was not a marketable fighter. He was not American. But, he was one of the most complete fighters I have seen in my lifetime. Boy, can he fight? He could fight inside, he could box, had excellent speed of hands and foot, great ring generalship, stamina, could go to the body, and was a very utterly confident champion. Plus, he was tall for a featherweight. He was a boxer's and promoter's nightmare. He didn't fit the star power bill. But, he was great. A top 100 pound per pound all-time great fighter in my book.

I heard Sanchez was so scared of fighting Pedroza that he wanted to go up to 135 and face Arguello instead.

Seamus wrote:I heard Sanchez was so scared of fighting Pedroza that he wanted to go up to 135 and face Arguello instead.

they weren't permitted to fight each other unless one of them bowe'd their belt. Titles were very important for earning then.

elmersalsa wrote:I don't think the elite of fighters of that time frame circa 1979-84, wanted anything to do with the great Eusebio Pedroza. Danny Lopez, Salvador Sanchez, Wilfredo Gomez and Azumah Nelson looked the other way than to step up to the plate for a WBC/WBA title match unification against him.

Pedroza was "dirty" in the Juan LaPorte fight in the eyes of the American media. He was hated by many American boxing writers. Maybe it got to do of the fights with American prospects and future stars of Rocky Lockridge and Bernard Taylor. The time of the great Sugar Ray Leonard super star 80s mantra was in effect in those days to promote young American boxers. Pedroza whupped them both in my view. He was not a marketable fighter. He was not American. But, he was one of the most complete fighters I have seen in my lifetime. Boy, can he fight? He could fight inside, he could box, had excellent speed of hands and foot, great ring generalship, stamina, could go to the body, and was a very utterly confident champion. Plus, he was tall for a featherweight. He was a boxer's and promoter's nightmare. He didn't fit the star power bill. But, he was great. A top 100 pound per pound all-time great fighter in my book.

Yeah that's probably it. Lopez, Sanchez, Gomez, and Nelson were just terrified of Pedroza. Bunch of scaredy cats.
It took a legend like Barry McGuigan to defeat Pedroza.
Pedroza was called dirty by the American media. Wonder why that was. Maybe it was because he was a dirty fighter?
Interesting that the American media didn't consider non-Americans Sanchez, Gomez, or Nelson to be dirty fighters.
I wonder if anyone else in the Universe thought Pedroza "whupped" Lockridge and Taylor?

Agree that Pedroza was a confident fighter. Of course knowing that the judges are going to give you the decision if it's remotely close would tend to make you confident.

Alp, I think you got this right.

Ambling Alp II wrote:

elmersalsa wrote:I don't think the elite of fighters of that time frame circa 1979-84, wanted anything to do with the great Eusebio Pedroza. Danny Lopez, Salvador Sanchez, Wilfredo Gomez and Azumah Nelson looked the other way than to step up to the plate for a WBC/WBA title match unification against him.

Pedroza was "dirty" in the Juan LaPorte fight in the eyes of the American media. He was hated by many American boxing writers. Maybe it got to do of the fights with American prospects and future stars of Rocky Lockridge and Bernard Taylor. The time of the great Sugar Ray Leonard super star 80s mantra was in effect in those days to promote young American boxers. Pedroza whupped them both in my view. He was not a marketable fighter. He was not American. But, he was one of the most complete fighters I have seen in my lifetime. Boy, can he fight? He could fight inside, he could box, had excellent speed of hands and foot, great ring generalship, stamina, could go to the body, and was a very utterly confident champion. Plus, he was tall for a featherweight. He was a boxer's and promoter's nightmare. He didn't fit the star power bill. But, he was great. A top 100 pound per pound all-time great fighter in my book.

Yeah that's probably it. Lopez, Sanchez, Gomez, and Nelson were just terrified of Pedroza. Bunch of scaredy cats.
It took a legend like Barry McGuigan to defeat Pedroza.
Pedroza was called dirty by the American media. Wonder why that was. Maybe it was because he was a dirty fighter?
Interesting that the American media didn't consider non-Americans Sanchez, Gomez, or Nelson to be dirty fighters.
I wonder if anyone else in the Universe thought Pedroza "whupped" Lockridge and Taylor?

Agree that Pedroza was a confident fighter. Of course knowing that the judges are going to give you the decision if it's remotely close would tend to make you confident.

Pedroza was a complete boxer. He was tall for a featherweight. He could fight very well on the inside and had unbelievable stamina. Those elite fighters didn't want nothing with him. It's a coincidence that they never called him for an unification match. If Pedroza was not that good, why they didn't make the match?

Simple...He was too much risk and not enough money on the table. He was not. He was a promoter's nightmare a la great Bernard Hopkins.

Barry McGuigan caught at the end of Pedroza's last days at the top. He already was 32, with 20 title defenses in 10 places were done at the opponents backyards. He was champion for 7 years. It was time to retire or be taken. If McGuigan would have been one of his early challengers, I don't think he would have beaten Eusebio.

The American boxing press hated him. He was not American. He was beating top American young prospects. He came from behind to win. That was a mark of a great champion. You gotta give it up. The guy was great.

You're talking like if the judges were Panamanians or something. He whupped Rocky Lockridge twice and beat Bernard Taylor. Taylor was running the whole fight and you expect him to win by running? He deserved to lose. You don't win by running for survival. You win by fighting. He beat top and young American prospects and that's why the American press hated his guts. I betcha if Lockridge somehow beats Pedroza, Salvador Sanchez, Wilfredo Gomez or Azumah Nelson would have asked for an unification match. Lockridge would've been considered a dream match with those guys because he was a fresh and young American boxing champion in the scene. But thanks to JAH that it didn't happened that way.