BoxRec

Looking through the Hall of Fame threads, I noticed that almost all nominations include Salvador Sanchez, but very few include Eusebio Pedroza. This surprises me, as my recollection of when they were rival champions is that most fans and experts thought it was a toss up who was the better fighter. For example, I remember a 1981 issue of Boxing Illustrated where in an article about fantasy matches it forecast that a fight between the two would end in a draw. KO magazine in its review of the 1980s rated Pedroza 1 and Sanchez 2. Steve Farhood said in The Ring on more than one occassion that he thought Pedroza would win a match up.

Based on what I remember I would think that wherever you rank Sanchez Pedroza should at least be close behind. However, the purpose of this thread is not to start an argument about that, as I respect everybody else's opinion. What I am interested in is - why is today's opinion so far adrift from contemporary thinking? What has happened in the last 20 years to seemingly increase Sanchez's reputation and not Pedroza's? What factors are now apparent with the passage of time that we couldn't see in the early 80s?

Yeah, he belongs in the Hall of Fame all right. Nineteen defences, mostly in the other guy's backyard. I think only Abe Attell has made more at featherweight.

Yes agree Pedroza deserves a place in the hall of fame - no doubt about that.

I think the difference is Sanchez was a real superstar: he won his superfight with an amazing performance beating the great Gomez - one for the ages - then followed it with another win over another modern great: Azumah Nelson.

Pedroza, great fighter that he was, never had the same level of great wins Sanchez managed.

a great boxer from the past..one of the best middel..waights the great [carlos monzon]..a great fighter with a great fight record

Eusebio Pedroza is in the Boxing Hall of Fame in Canastota New York. He hasen't made it into the BoxRec Hall of Fame, because this is only our third ballot. Salvador Sanchez hasen't made it into our HOF yet either, but looks like he'll make it this time.

I think alot of people including myself, rate Sanchez higher for a variety of reasons. Sanchez KO'd Wilfredo Gomez when he was considered unbeatable, stopped Azumah Nelson, turned in a pair of scintillating performances against the very popular puncher Danny Lopez, and was already 10-0 in World Title fights when his life was tragically ended at age 23.

Pedroza is an excellent fighter in his own right. 19-2-1 (11 KO's) in World Title bouts, and deservedly a member of the HOF. But in fairness he was also KO'd three times in his first 17 fights. And in my opinion had he fought Sanchez, he would have lost in a close decision. But that's just my opinion, Taverner. So Welcome to the Forum, and if you're a big Pedroza fan, by all means make out a ballot and include him.

CHEERS

taverner wrote:Looking through the Hall of Fame threads, I noticed that almost all nominations include Salvador Sanchez, but very few include Eusebio Pedroza. This surprises me, as my recollection of when they were rival champions is that most fans and experts thought it was a toss up who was the better fighter. For example, I remember a 1981 issue of Boxing Illustrated where in an article about fantasy matches it forecast that a fight between the two would end in a draw. KO magazine in its review of the 1980s rated Pedroza 1 and Sanchez 2. Steve Farhood said in The Ring on more than one occassion that he thought Pedroza would win a match up.

Based on what I remember I would think that wherever you rank Sanchez Pedroza should at least be close behind. However, the purpose of this thread is not to start an argument about that, as I respect everybody else's opinion. What I am interested in is - why is today's opinion so far adrift from contemporary thinking? What has happened in the last 20 years to seemingly increase Sanchez's reputation and not Pedroza's? What factors are now apparent with the passage of time that we couldn't see in the early 80s?

Its a great question. As time goes on it does seem as though it was only Sanchez back then . Pedroza was a very highly regarded champion too though . And yet he isnt really talked about that much. This is just speculation , but it may be that only the great fighters who are almost bigger than the sport are able to retire after a small losing streak and still be remembered as favorably as all time greats (like Sanchez). Fighters like Ali , Louis, Dempsey and some others could drop a few at the end and the fans will not hold it against there "legacy" so to speak. Some guys retire and the fans keep fresh in their minds the end of career losses they took . In Pedrozas case it would be the Mcguigan fight that folks remember most. Of course Sanchez was unbeaten for years and coming off some big victories.

For me Sanchez had the edge on Pedrosa as a boxer but thats not to say that Pedrosa wasnt a great champion in his own right... I think Pedrosa tended to be rather unappreciated during his reign while Sanchez gained a much wider audience and acclaim, especially after beating Gomez... its also worth noting that most of Pedrosa's title defences were either in South America or abroad while most of Sanchezs title fights were in NewYork, Los Angeles, Las Vegas etc... so this helped Sanchezs profile somewhat with the American public I should think...
I don't think Pedrosa's early defeats should be held against him as its fair to say that he improved and despite some early koes I'd say he had a great chin....

I hate to be the sentamentalist here, but when such a great champion is lost to us at such an early age, we as writers tend to give them the very best in terms of our imagined scenarios. I'm not saying that what he actually achieved was not spectacular, indeed it was, however it seems we almost universally imagine him to have gone on to bigger and better things. I've never read a single contribution by a writer that postulated he was about to lose his edge. He remains forever young and pefectly victorious in terms of where we think he was headed. This includes me.
Not sure another story comes close to rivaling Sanchez's for sheer poignancy.

Anyone see the Lockridge fights?

BoxBuzz wrote:I hate to be the sentamentalist here, but when such a great champion is lost to us at such an early age, we as writers tend to give them the very best in terms of our imagined scenarios. I'm not saying that what he actually achieved was not spectacular, indeed it was, however it seems we almost universally imagine him to have gone on to bigger and better things. I've never read a single contribution by a writer that postulated he was about to lose his edge. He remains forever young and pefectly victorious in terms of where we think he was headed. This includes me.
Not sure another story comes close to rivaling Sanchez's for sheer poignancy.

Anyone see the Lockridge fights?

The thing is that it was true with Sanchez... he was on the verge of stepping up in weight and who knows how good he could have been, he was only 23 and with his style of fighting would probably have been at the top for a long while imo...

silkov wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:I hate to be the sentamentalist here, but when such a great champion is lost to us at such an early age, we as writers tend to give them the very best in terms of our imagined scenarios. I'm not saying that what he actually achieved was not spectacular, indeed it was, however it seems we almost universally imagine him to have gone on to bigger and better things. I've never read a single contribution by a writer that postulated he was about to lose his edge. He remains forever young and pefectly victorious in terms of where we think he was headed. This includes me.
Not sure another story comes close to rivaling Sanchez's for sheer poignancy.

Anyone see the Lockridge fights?

The thing is that it was true with Sanchez... he was on the verge of stepping up in weight and who knows how good he could have been, he was only 23 and with his style of fighting would probably have been at the top for a long while imo...

Not to mention it was very possible that he was going to move up in weight. Eusebio Pedroza deserves to be in the Boxrec Hall of Fame as well, but Sanchez cemented his greatness at the age of 23.

vagabundo55 wrote:

silkov wrote:

BoxBuzz wrote:I hate to be the sentamentalist here, but when such a great champion is lost to us at such an early age, we as writers tend to give them the very best in terms of our imagined scenarios. I'm not saying that what he actually achieved was not spectacular, indeed it was, however it seems we almost universally imagine him to have gone on to bigger and better things. I've never read a single contribution by a writer that postulated he was about to lose his edge. He remains forever young and pefectly victorious in terms of where we think he was headed. This includes me.
Not sure another story comes close to rivaling Sanchez's for sheer poignancy.

Anyone see the Lockridge fights?

The thing is that it was true with Sanchez... he was on the verge of stepping up in weight and who knows how good he could have been, he was only 23 and with his style of fighting would probably have been at the top for a long while imo...

Not to mention it was very possible that he was going to move up in weight. Eusebio Pedroza deserves to be in the Boxrec Hall of Fame as well, but Sanchez cemented his greatness at the age of 23.

Yeh, Sanchezs death must be one of the biggest blows ever to boxing regarding the loss of a great champion and talent... aside from the fact that he seemed to be a good guy out of the ring too... his only bad habit being fast cars...

Thanks for the input everyone.

I think, as several people said, the main factor is probably that due to his tragic end he didn't suffer the inevitable decline that most fighters do which can cloud the issue. His greatness is clear, whereas Pedroza went on to lose to McGuigan and others. As time passes people perhaps attach more importance to these late career losses.

I think another factor in the change over the years is that the victory over Nelson looks better in hindsight now we know how good Nelson was than it did at the time. If I recall, at the time a 15th round victory over a 13 fight novice was actually regarded as a poor performance by Sanchez. It was only a couple of years later when he beat Gomez that people started to look at Nelson differently.

Personally, I think both Sanchez and Pedroza are all time top 50 pound for pound fighters, and have included both on my Boxrec Hall of Fame ballot.

taverner wrote:Thanks for the input everyone.

I think, as several people said, the main factor is probably that due to his tragic end he didn't suffer the inevitable decline that most fighters do which can cloud the issue. His greatness is clear, whereas Pedroza went on to lose to McGuigan and others. As time passes people perhaps attach more importance to these late career losses.

I think another factor in the change over the years is that the victory over Nelson looks better in hindsight now we know how good Nelson was than it did at the time. If I recall, at the time a 15th round victory over a 13 fight novice was actually regarded as a poor performance by Sanchez. It was only a couple of years later when he beat Gomez that people started to look at Nelson differently.

Personally, I think both Sanchez and Pedroza are all time top 50 pound for pound fighters, and have included both on my Boxrec Hall of Fame ballot.

Agreed, I would put them both in the top 10 all time featherweights... though its such a talented division its almost impossible to have a fair top 10... its just such a shame that they never fought eachother as that would have been a real classic for the purists!...

I would like to have seen

Pedroza-Nelson
Pedroza-Gomez
Pedroza-Arguello

I think what sometimes counts against Eusebio was that he held onto his title way past his prime and (not unlike Holmes) was squeaking by quality challengers. IMO these fights show Pedroza's greatness in that he was able to still fight to such a high level late in his career.

Does anybody know what he's up to these days???

my question was out of context but I'll repeat it, did anyone see the Pedroza Lockridge fights? Any comments on those?

Did not see them, but was it in these fights that Eusebio got a little bit of a rap for bending a rule or two? or was it vs. Laporte its a little fuzzy.

I only saw the fight once, but if my memory serves me correct, Pedroza really did a job of holding against Juan LaPorte. And while I'm certainly not trying to provoke Taverner, that along with the Lockridge fight gave the perception to most fight fans I knew, back then, that Pedroza wasen't a particularly clean fighter.

Seamus - don't worry about provoking me. I agree that Pedroza could be a dirty fighter, but I still think he was a very good one as well.

I saw them both, (Pedroza-Lockridge I &II) and I just think it was when he gained serious credibility in the U.S. as well. The U.S. had annointed Rocky as the next big thing and of course Pedroza had another plan in mind. I think many were surprised with the Laporte fight as well. Not sure Pedroza was ever given his props.

I actually saw the first fight at the Playboy/Americana resort where I was performing at the time in New Jersey and let me tell you it was a forgone conclusion that Rocky was a lock. But it was not to be, he went home dissapointed.

I can also tell you that it was my first time to hear the name Harold Lederman and I had to wonder what he was smokin. It took me a few years to gain respect for him and now I do have great respect for Harold. But that night I think he ordered one to many gin and tonics because he was watching another fight IMHO.

This has been a very good thread in my estimation.

I have often wondered also how much Eusebio felt left in the shadows in Panama being that there was another boxing icon from there . Manos de Piedra.

Yep in his own country he probably couldnt get props competing with the living legend. Maybe there was room for two in that spotlight but I doubt it.