Tyson's Legacy, Sanchez's Legacy. Please Read Please Opine

[BoxBuzz]

Tyson's stock is going down because his body of work is getting shabbier and shabbier with time. Sad but true.

Salvadore Sanchez is frozen in time as one of, if not the, pound for pound greatest that has ever lived.

If Mike would have met his demise for his crazy living before he fought Buster Douglas would that change opinions?

I have argued that at Mikes peak he would defeat Larry Holmes at his peak. My confidence has been shaken somewhat by the "body of work" they both have turned in. There has been much debate on this.

But are opinions on "peak" performance being skewed? Sanchez never got a chance to show age, bad decisions, or the effect of fame and the "good life". And I have never seen a single poster (including myself) here say anyone could beat him in his weight class. So did the very best in that division just happen to be taken from us? Or are our opinions changed because he is frozen in time and never allowed to be "human".

ON the other Hand some are saying Tyson (at his very best) may not be one of the Top Heavyweights of all time. Is he being demoted for having lived?

"Body of Work" vs "At their Peak" have vastly different meanings to me.

I do not have the answer, I am curious as to opinions.

It seemed like fair game for the grist mill.

[vagabundo55]

I've heard people say other's in his weight class can beat Sanchez. I don't think anyone could beat him though. But i've heard it before. And you're pretty much comparing an outrageous boxer with a almost mythic boxer. Nobody knows how great Sanchez could have been... but we do know that for the short time he was here he destroyed "great" boxers with ease almost effortlessly. He might just be the greatest counter puncher that ever lived. He would stand in front of his opponents and not get hit.. then when he did get hit he'd hit his opponents 5 times for each hit. Too bad... as for Tyson... well that guy is just plain crazy. Of course i'm not saying Sanchez was invincible i'm just saying on his best night.. he wouldn't lose to anyone. But we'll never really know. It's just my opinion. At least it's safe to say he'd be competitive with any boxer in his weight class from any era.

[BoxBuzz]

Right on all counts. I'm with you with Sanchez. And they both dominated rather effortlessly at the same ages.

[dnahar32]

Very interesting post, BoxBuzz. You got me thinking about my own views of looking at a fighter.

I personally base fighter observations on what I see and read, posts on boxing boards like these from people I respect, and then take factors like skills, style, short careers, ducking fighters, opposition quality, etc. into account. If a fighter relies on sheer athleticism, it's fair to wait and see how they would react if they get hurt or face adversity (like Roy Jones or Ali). Fighters like Sanchez, Teofilo Stevenson, Tony Ayala, Les Darcy, Marciano and others do get "mythologized" somewhat, but most objective fans will make a relative comparison of a fighter's prime vs. a fighter's prime. I haven't seen Sanchez fight, but I don't think it is a slam dunk that Sanchez makes a p4p list because in essence he didn't fight his top contender (Pedroza).

I separate a fighter's career between when he was a top contender and afterwards. Guys like Hector Camacho or Julio Cesar Chavez can fight all they want, but in my mind's eye, their careers ended when they stopped being a Top 10 contender. For example, I don't judge Larry Holmes on anything he did after 1986, or Holyfield after 1999.

I also think that when judging fighters, their pre-championship credentials are very important. Fighters today are relatively risk-free against carefully selected opponents on their way up, but fighters in the past had to face top contender after top contender to get consideration for a title shot. For example, a fighter like Hagler navigating through Philly raises his stock in my eyes.

I also think it is important for international fighters where they fought (home or away). Always fighting at home or ducking competition shows weakness and I downgrade fighters for that when judging them. I also try and find out what happened outside the ring to see how committed a fighter was to his craft and what led to the fight.

Tyson really is a special case, because he fits no stereotype and virtually every fan of the sport has seen him fight and has an opinion. I compare it to all the TV viewers who became "judges" and had an opinion on the OJ case. I think of Tyson as the bully that kept razzing other fighters without resistance, but folded when he met it. The opposition wasn't there to test Tyson, but if he hadn't been mindf***ed by Don King and Robin Givens, he could have been an All-Time great. I am a huge basketball fan, and I think Magic Johnson expressed it best when he said that greatness brings out greatness. If Tyson kept his original team (Atlas, Rooney, Jacobs, Cayton), he still would have flamed out relatively soon after he did from the lackluster competition. But if he had that team and fought in the mid-70s, he would have been a greater havyweight, both peak and career, than he has been because he would have been motivated to work harder to achieve greatness. But unlike most Tyson fans, I don't look at the would've, could've, and should've with Tyson, I look at what he actually did (stopping at 1996) and feel he wasted his talent.

[The Great John L]

Salvadore Sanchez is frozen in time as one of, if not the, pound for pound greatest that has ever lived.

But are opinions on "peak" performance being skewed? Sanchez never got a chance to show age, bad decisions, or the effect of fame and the "good life". And I have never seen a single poster (including myself) here say anyone could beat him in his weight class. So did the very best in that division just happen to be taken from us? Or are our opinions changed because he is frozen in time and never allowed to be "human".

Sanchez best P4P that ever lived? I can't imagine that anyone could come to that conclusion. While he did beat an inexperienced Nelson in a very close and exciting match, I don't think you could possibly say that he handled him easily. He did blow out Gomez, but he also barely got by Ford and Cowdell. A very good, perhaps great fighter, but P4P best ever is a stretch. Didn't Willie Pep and Sandy Sadler fight at featherweight? And I think Henry Armstrong won a title at featherweight. I'd take any of those guys over Sanchez.

[BoxBuzz]

I do believe I may have overstated Sanchez imperial rule over his division for all time. Thanks John L. But I hope my point won't completely be lost by this bit of clumsiness.

[vagabundo55]

It might just be the Mexican in me... but for some reason i've always believed that Sanchez had the potential to be the greatest featherweight of any era. It is safe to say though that he'd be competitive with any featherweight from any era as I stated earlier. As for the Nelson fight, well, Sanchez sometimes fought down to the level of his opposition.. also Nelson took the fight with short notice so maybe Sanchez wasn't prepared for him. It's also very probable that Sanchez didn't expect it to be such a tough fight. But once he realized that he might be behind on the score cards... he utterly destroyed Nelson. And in my opinion he'd beat Nelson in the rematch if there ever was one. For the guy who said he's never seen Sanchez... go buy Sanchez vs Little Red.. then you'll see how effortlessly he destroyed a champ whom everyone believed would beat Sanchez. But I respect that many believe otherwise... still I can't help but believe that.

[dempseyfire]

PFP great all time? I've never seen a respectable historian even put Sanchez NEAR a top ten all time PFP. And he's maybe not even a top 5 featherweight . . .George Dixon, Johnny Kilbane, Henry Armstrong, Willie Pep, Sandy Saddler, and even Erik Morales were better featherweights in my opinion. Sanchez was entertaining and a very good fighter but most don't hold him in such high regard. You could make a million points about 'what if' a fighter had died before so and so. What if Foreman was froced to retire after Norton? Or if Louis never came back after the War? This argument could go on forever b/c great fighters always have increments of their careers when they appear unbeatable. And Sanchez was never even in that class of fighters, as he showed many vulnerabilities in many of his fights.

[vagabundo55]

We have different opinions then.

[Sweet Scientist]

Tyson's stock is going down because his body of work is getting shabbier and shabbier with time. Sad but true.

Salvadore Sanchez is frozen in time as one of, if not the, pound for pound greatest that has ever lived.

If Mike would have met his demise for his crazy living before he fought Buster Douglas would that change opinions?

I have argued that at Mikes peak he would defeat Larry Holmes at his peak. My confidence has been shaken somewhat by the "body of work" they both have turned in. There has been much debate on this.

Interesting topic...I once responded on another thread (to BB49, I think) that if Tyson had died in a plane crash in late '89...he (BB49) would have a better arguement about Tyson being an all time great.

Salvador Sanchez didn't have the same opportunity to 'go south' so to speak...that's not to say he would have, of course...

Once somebody dies young...they become greater in death (frequently) than they were in life. I'm not neccessarily refering to Sanchez, but I suppose it's possible in the minds of some. Certainly celebrities like JFK, Marilyn Monroe & Elvis Presley did become greater in death...people tend to forget the downside of someone who dies young...for many reasons.

If Tyson died in '89, there would be no solid proof of his lack of 'heart', his uncontrollable rage (ear biting), his poor training habits (if you don't lose, nobody can really argue about your training), as well as no proof he could be beaten...it would all be theory as to whether he was an 'all time great'...and with his career ending in death, he would be thought of in the same way as Kennedy, Monroe and others...he was unable to fulfill his true potential and he would have only gotten better...

But...he didn't die!!!...fortunately for him, and fortunately for everyone...as we now know what did happen over the last 15 years...there is solid proof of his lack of 'heart', his uncontrollable rage, poor training habits, unbelievable immaturity, etc.

So...yes...we probably would think of Tyson much, much differently without the 'proof' he supplied us with...

If an undefeated heavyweight champ dies at 24, with a record of 37-0-0...you're going to think he would have kept on going...I never thought he was going to lose to Douglas...niether did anyone else (except Buster)...

...and if Sanchez lives on and loses a couple...he might not be thought of the same way either...

Tyson really got the better deal here...better to be alive and a loser than dead and a winner...as harsh as that may sound...

[BoxBuzz]

Life has always appealed to me as more desirable to the alternative.
So I'm with you there. As long as one is allowed to live the life they choose.

"Give me liberty or give me death." "Live free or die" has appeal to some of us. It is balanced on the other side by "Where there is life, there is hope."

In the case of Mike, only the most imaginitive of us could see him ever getting his second wind in boxing. Not that he doesnt have wind, he has stunk up several events recently. For the record, I predict his day has come and gone with all reasonable certainty. I do hope he finds another interest that can sustain him. Maybe yacht sales?

Only one Lazarus, Only one Foreman. So far.

[vagabundo55]

Great post Scientist! That's a good way of seeing things. Of course in my mind Sanchez would have been greater p4p than Tyson, it's very possible that he could have just lost his next match to Juan, causing his carreer to spiral downward. But it's just a matter of what if.. and in my mind Sanchez will always be one of the greats.

[meade95]

Without a doubt Sanchez was a great fighter - Top 10 FW of all time -

Though the greatest?? - That is hard to swallow - IMO -

I think a little more seasoned Azumah Nelson beats him if there was ever a rematch -

[vagabundo55]

Without a doubt Sanchez was a great fighter - Top 10 FW of all time -

Though the greatest?? - That is hard to swallow - IMO -

I think a little more seasoned Azumah Nelson beats him if there was ever a rematch -

I think Sanchez wins that 7 out of 10 times! (Different opinions.)
All these Boxer A vs. Boxer B threads got me thinking, what about Nelson vs Morales? There's a Nelson vs. Barrera thread.. it's mostly agreed Nelson would be too strong.. but what about against Morales? Maybe the same? Maybe different? I have to think about this one for awhile.

[Ezzard]

The main point for me is that Sanchez did not lose to Nelson. He may ahve been behind but eh came back to stop his man. The fight with Cowdell was very close but (as I remember) he dropped Pat late on (final round?) and made sure. It's true that he sometimes appeared to fight at the level of his opposition but eh still won. He fought a lot of top names in his career in a short time. I'nm a big fan of Pedroza but I'd give Sanchez the edge.

Tyson did not finmd a way of winning his diffciult fights. He mostly either blew opponents away or got beaten. It's Tyson's lack of heart and mental strength that really hurts him. Whether he trained or not or was in his prime or not these aspects of his armoury were always lacking.

[vagabundo55]

The main point for me is that Sanchez did not lose to Nelson. He may ahve been behind but eh came back to stop his man. The fight with Cowdell was very close but (as I remember) he dropped Pat late on (final round?) and made sure. It's true that he sometimes appeared to fight at the level of his opposition but eh still won. He fought a lot of top names in his career in a short time. I'm a big fan of Pedroza but I'd give Sanchez the edge.

Agreed.

[wlvrne]

Tyson's stock is going down because his body of work is getting shabbier and shabbier with time. Sad but true.

Salvadore Sanchez is frozen in time as one of, if not the, pound for pound greatest that has ever lived.

If Mike would have met his demise for his crazy living before he fought Buster Douglas would that change opinions?

I have argued that at Mikes peak he would defeat Larry Holmes at his peak. My confidence has been shaken somewhat by the "body of work" they both have turned in. There has been much debate on this.

Interesting topic...I once responded on another thread (to BB49, I think) that if Tyson had died in a plane crash in late '89...he (BB49) would have a better arguement about Tyson being an all time great.

Salvador Sanchez didn't have the same opportunity to 'go south' so to speak...that's not to say he would have, of course...

Once somebody dies young...they become greater in death (frequently) than they were in life. I'm not neccessarily refering to Sanchez, but I suppose it's possible in the minds of some. Certainly celebrities like JFK, Marilyn Monroe & Elvis Presley did become greater in death...people tend to forget the downside of someone who dies young...for many reasons.

If Tyson died in '89, there would be no solid proof of his lack of 'heart', his uncontrollable rage (ear biting), his poor training habits (if you don't lose, nobody can really argue about your training), as well as no proof he could be beaten...it would all be theory as to whether he was an 'all time great'...and with his career ending in death, he would be thought of in the same way as Kennedy, Monroe and others...he was unable to fulfill his true potential and he would have only gotten better...

But...he didn't die!!!...fortunately for him, and fortunately for everyone...as we now know what did happen over the last 15 years...there is solid proof of his lack of 'heart', his uncontrollable rage, poor training habits, unbelievable immaturity, etc.

So...yes...we probably would think of Tyson much, much differently without the 'proof' he supplied us with...

If an undefeated heavyweight champ dies at 24, with a record of 37-0-0...you're going to think he would have kept on going...I never thought he was going to lose to Douglas...niether did anyone else (except Buster)...

...and if Sanchez lives on and loses a couple...he might not be thought of the same way either...

Tyson really got the better deal here...better to be alive and a loser than dead and a winner...as harsh as that may sound...

blah....blah...blah.....any chance to get a blast in at Tyson.

[BoxBuzz]

I don't see anyone blasting Tyson, just rationale responses. Some disagreement to be sure.