BoxRec

On February 2, 1985, Eusebio Pedroza fought Jorge Lujan. Eusebio beat Jorge by a unanimous decision. Had Pedroza retired right after this fight.


Do you think that Eusebio could be considered one of the greatest Featherweight boxers of all time? If so, why?

If not, why not?




Do you think that Eusebio Pedroza could be considered one of the top boxers in boxing's "Pound for Pound" category? If so, why?

If not, why not?





Please explain.

Eugenio Pedroza is an all time great featherweight and pound per pound boxer. He clearly is a top 100 all time pound per pound great. Look at his resume. It is very impressive. Twenty title defenses against the top featherweight contenders of his era, in which he has THE ALL TIME WORLD RECORD of most title defenses done in opposition's home turf or back yard. Something hard to do. He needed to fight the very elite like the great Salvador Sanchez for a title unification match. The greats Wilfredo Gomez nor Azumah Nelson didn't look his way. Neither, Danny Lopez. I am very sure that he would have beaten them, but, the fights never materialized.

He was THE MOST COMPLETE BOXER of my lifetime. Yes, he could fight. Great stamina for the late rounds, speed of feet and hands, good chin, ring generalship, decent punching power, and could box inside and outside. But, he was disdained by the American media as a dirty fighter, which was unjust considering his skill set.

elmersalsa wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 08:57 But, he was disdained by the American media as a dirty fighter, which was unjust considering his skill set.

you think the American media just INVENTED all those shots to the balls?

just ask Juan Laporte if Pedrosa was a dirty fighter, buddy, he's probably still feeling those fouls NOW!

I'm calling time on your show here, elmo.

YOU'RE BEING WATCHED here, comprende?

Eusebio Pedroza was a terrific fighter with fine, if somewhat unorthodox, boxing skills. But I wonder if he was that durable or an all-time great in the featherweight division. In addition, he most certainly was a dirty fighter. one who seemed to fight dirty if he knew that he could get away with it. I have never seen a fighter get away with committing so many fouls like Pedroza did in his bout with Juan Laporte. No, there was NOT any American conspiracy in labeling Pedroza a dirty fighter.

- Chuck Johnston

Chuck1052 wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 11:38 Eusebio Pedroza was a terrific fighter with fine, if somewhat unorthodox, boxing skills. But I wonder if he was that durable or an all-time great in the featherweight division. In addition, he must certainly was a dirty fighter. one who seemed to fight dirty if he knew that he could get away with it. I have never seen a fighter get away with committing so many fouls like Pedroza did in his bout with Juan Laporte. No, there was NOT any American conspiracy in labeling Pedroza a dirty fighter.

- Chuck Johnston

You can't just label a fighter as dirty in only one fight. I admit that he was dirty in the Juan LaPorte fight, but was there another fight that he was considered dirty, or that he repeated the same sins?

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 05:55

elmersalsa wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 08:57 But, he was disdained by the American media as a dirty fighter, which was unjust considering his skill set.

you think the American media just INVENTED all those shots to the balls?

just ask Juan Laporte if Pedrosa was a dirty fighter, buddy, he's probably still feeling those fouls NOW!

I'm calling time on your show here, elmo.

YOU'RE BEING WATCHED here, comprende?

One fight should not determine or judge you by being a dirty fighter. That's like saying that the great Roberto Duran is a quitter for just one fight against the great Sugar Ray Leonard in fight #2.

NYDominican wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 04:47 On February 2, 1985, Eusebio Pedroza fought Jorge Lujan. Eusebio beat Jorge by a unanimous decision. Had Pedroza retired right after this fight.


Do you think that Eusebio could be considered one of the greatest Featherweight boxers of all time? If so, why?

If not, why not?




Do you think that Eusebio Pedroza could be considered one of the top boxers in boxing's "Pound for Pound" category? If so, why?

If not, why not?





Please explain.

Yeah, Eusebio should be considered one of the greatest featherweights of all-time, if just for that 7 year reign. It is not his fault that Salvador didn't fight him, in a fight in which he could have won. Pound for Pound, maybe, but if opponents had did what Bernard had done, and thats hit dirty as well, that pro lem could have been taken care of.

Nile4000 pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Pedroza could be rough, but so could many of the great ones. As to the general premise, I don't think his historical reputation varies if he retires after Lujan or not. He would be viewed the same regardless of what happened with McGuigan and the few fights afterward.

Eusebio Pedroza was a hell of a fighter. If Sugar Ray Leonard does not get his due in boxrec, then it is worse for Pedroza.

As an aside, Zamora's KO of Pedroza was brutal

Counter-puncher wrote: ↑17 Nov 2017, 05:55

elmersalsa wrote: ↑16 Nov 2017, 08:57 But, he was disdained by the American media as a dirty fighter, which was unjust considering his skill set.

you think the American media just INVENTED all those shots to the balls?

just ask Juan Laporte if Pedrosa was a dirty fighter, buddy, he's probably still feeling those fouls NOW!

I'm calling time on your show here, elmo.

YOU'RE BEING WATCHED here, comprende?

Obviously it's the media! The United States boxing media, which never says anything good about foreign fighters. Except that they do.
Great fighter, but he gets his due. Got the benefit of the doubt many times from the judges. He would be rated lower if that would not have happened.

Also remember that the Zamora kayo was when he was a bantamweight.