Page 1 of 1
The Great Eusebio Pedroza: dirty fighter or technician?
Posted: 10 Oct 2006, 21:28
by elmersalsa
I got a question for you fans.
I have seen a lot of fights of this all-time great Eusebio Pedroza and I saw that he was a great and clever technician. Was he dirty like lots of people claim him to be? or was he a gifted technician that could solve any style in the ring? your thoughts.
Posted: 10 Oct 2006, 21:42
by Arbachakov
He was both.
Posted: 11 Oct 2006, 04:12
by Ezzard
A truly great fighter who missed out on Sanchez, Gomez and Nelson. A real shame because he was on of the very best.
Posted: 11 Oct 2006, 07:32
by silkov
I dont think he was as dirty as some people make out, ...nothing compared with Rocky Marcinao or Tyson... watch Marciano against Cockell and it makes your eyes water and your stomach go over.... about the only thing he didnt do to him was hit him on the head with his stool!...
Posted: 11 Oct 2006, 07:48
by el tigre del sur
silkov wrote:.... about the only thing he didnt do to him was hit him on the head with his stool!...
That would have been messy!
Posted: 11 Oct 2006, 07:55
by el tigre del sur
Arbachakov wrote:He was both.
Agreed. He was also always superbly conditioned as many of his fights went into the later rounds and to get his frame to 126 he must have worked extremely hard.
He had an unusual punch which was a right hook-uppercut that he would whip into his opponents body as they came in.
He was also on the right side of a couple of questionable decisions - the LaPorte fight springs to mind - it's a good one.
Posted: 11 Oct 2006, 13:25
by Ambling Alp
He was by no means a clean fighter, but there certainly have been fighters who have been more dirty. In many of his fights he didn't seem that impressive but he seemed to do enough to win. Sanchez always seemed to be so much more exciting. Too bad that they never fought. Also as Ezzard mentioned it's too bad that Pedrosa never fought guys like Nelson or Gomez. I'm guessing that he would have lost to Sanchez, and won tough fights with Nelson and Gomez; but we will never know.
He was the champion for a long time and you have to respect that.
Posted: 11 Oct 2006, 13:56
by silkov
Pedrosa does have a lot of good names on his record, I think Sanchez would have beaten him but it would have been a very close fight... a real classic... it would either have been a scientific battle or a brawl... great shame this fight never came off!...
Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 20:51
by torodecayey
he was only dirty when his opponent was getting the better of him...
Posted: 12 Oct 2006, 20:56
by Dentsun4228
I think he got dirty as he got older and lost his prime...In his prime he was an exquiste boxer. A legitimate great . He had height, reach, power and great movement and combination punching. I rank him above Sal Sanchez at featherweight..He definitely had all the tools to defeat any featherweight in history.
Posted: 13 Oct 2006, 17:25
by elmersalsa
Many people might say that Pedroza was a dirty fighter, but I have seen Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson and other fighters that were more dirty than Pedroza.
In about in almost every people's minds, Pedroza would have lost to Sanchez, but if the fight would have been made, my money would have gone to Pedroza. He was not Azumah Nelson nor Wilfredo Gomez. He was more technical and savvy than both of them, and he could fight good in the inside. Also we never know how the outcome might be because if that was the case, right now we would have been saying (If they would have NEVER MET) that Julio Cesar Chavez would have killed Pernell Whitaker or Mike Tyson would have KO'd Holyfield in just 2 rounds. But look what happened? Chavez and Tyson got the beating of their lives.
I think Pedroza like Mike McCallum and Larry Holmes, NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY AND THE BREAKS to face Sanchez, Nelson , Gomez nor even Danny Lopez for cripes sake!!!
I believed deeply that those fighters DUCKED HIM.