BoxRec

I'll offer, in order, Pep, Armstrong, Saddler, Miller, Kid Chocolate, Kilbane, Johnny Dundee, Sanchez, and Pedroza.

I know it can be unfashionable to put forward modern fighters in these matters but what about guys like Morales and Barrera at their peaks. Would they give these guys a challenge?

I love Barrera- saw his first fight in the US- and he is very good. I don't think he'd be a walk in the park for anybody, I honestly don't see him competing successfully with most of these fighters, though his best shot would be against Pedroza, I think. In the whole scheme of things I believe his is better, considerably, than Morales, but due to pride ego what have you Morales will always fight him tooth and nail.

I'm very partial to the old-timers, but guys like Barrera and Morales could compete with any featherweight in history! Not saying they would always win, but they would give about anyone at that weight a run for their money!

What do you think about Pedroza vs. Azumah Nelson? That match has never crossed my mind that I can recall... My first thought is that Pedroza would win, though I'm hardly committed to the idea. If there were to be a rematch there would be different winners. Last night I watched some tape of Little Red Lopez and came to the conclusion that Salvador Sanchez was very lucky; had he made the mistake of flooring Lopez he'd never have been heard from again. Back to more recent fighters; I think Barrera would beat Nelson. Ruelas nearly did it in the first fight and Barrera is Ruelas with more wits about him, superior boxing skills, and a better sharper puncher

I don't know about liusting the best featherweights, but I could list my favorite featherweights, which would start at like...Terry McGovern...Danny Lopez...Wilfredo Gomez...Henry Armstrong...Alexis Arguello...

>>>Ruelas nearly did it in the first fight and Barrera is Ruelas with more wits about him, superior boxing skills, and a better sharper puncher<<<

But that was an old Azumah Nelson...in his prime he was probably the best fighter that has ever came out of Africa!

Can you imagine a Gomez/Lopez fight? I have this theory that neither of them really gets going until he goes down (lopez) or hurt real good (gomez). And if your tastes run the other way, how about Pep against Driscoll or Kilbane? Saddler and Arguello? So many top shelf matches and a very deep division. What do you think of Antonio Esparragoza? The only time I know I saw him was half of the Cruz fight, maybe part of another later. I know that facially he resembled Arguello, after that???

tiredoldngrey wrote:Can you imagine a Gomez/Lopez fight? I have this theory that neither of them really gets going until he goes down (lopez) or hurt real good (gomez). And if your tastes run the other way, how about Pep against Driscoll or Kilbane? Saddler and Arguello? So many top shelf matches and a very deep division. What do you think of Antonio Esparragoza? The only time I know I saw him was half of the Cruz fight, maybe part of another later. I know that facially he resembled Arguello, after that???

If I remember correctly a Lopez-Gomez fight was really being talked about by the boxing public and probably would've been made had Lopez not lost twice to Sanchez.Gomez was probably salivating at facing the no defense,cut prone,shakey chinned Lopez but with Danny's power and Wilfredo's on again,off again chin above 122 it would've been interesting.

Gomez and Lopez would probably have happened had Snachez not come along and threw a wrench in the plans as that was a big fight that everyone was wanting and hoping for, so instead of the fireworks that a Gomez-Lopez bout no doubt would have provided we got to watch the excellent Sanchez school both fighters and dish out a couple of pretty good beatings to two of my all-time favorites!

It seems to me that Pep doesn't get the consideration he's due these days. Years ago Saddler got kind of screwed in that he won three of four from Pep yet was always #2. Now it seems like Pep gets left out of the "who would've won.." games, so as not to embarass him with the fact that he wouldn't win at all. And how would he have done against Armstrong, Kid Chocolate, Arguello, Sanchez, or Nelson? I think he could out manuever and out box Nelson, and Arguello (he never liked 'em fleet of foot)but how would he fend off Armstrong?

Pep was amazing, although the fable about him winning a round without throwing a punch is exactly that...a fable. He was a defensive master though and he could punch as well. I think a lot of people look to the 65 knockouts in 229 wins and think that he was a light hitting fighter, but he almost always fought tough competetion and had he fought a resume like most of todays fighters facing relative weak opposition he would have a record of something like 229-11-0 (200 KO).

In my opinion, Henry Armstrong would have been about too strong for nearly any featherweight, that mixed with his super-work-rate and awesome conditioning, well it would give most fighters nightmares just imagining him in the ring at 126!

I think that a Saddler -Armstrong fight would feature every thing short of knives and guns. Armstrong was very busy, but Saddler was no slouch at fighting in close and I think that h may have been the harder puncher. Incidentally I have his loss to Del Flanagan on tape and Flanagan fights like Pep; constant movement, countering with jabs and straight rights, and clinching immediately to keep Saddler from going to work on him. At the end Flanagan was strong and closed out the last two rounds by actually shaking Saddler with rights. I decided that the difference was that Flanagan was stronger than Pep; strong enough to save himself from being manhandled in the clinches, whereas Pep got worn down and frustrated due to getting muscled around.