BoxRec

Sanchez is widely recognized as an all time great. Pedroza is in the Hall of Fame but he isn't mentioned as often. Were these guys ever in negotiations to fight one another? Did one guy seem to duck the other? Pedroza defended his title 20 times, not bad.

saad wrote:Sanchez is widely recognized as an all time great. Pedroza is in the Hall of Fame but he isn't mentioned as often. Were these guys ever in negotiations to fight one another? Did one guy seem to duck the other? Pedroza defended his title 20 times, not bad.

Both were EXCELLENT CHAMPIONS!!!. But now watching the tapes of these two great ones I will give the EDGE to Sanchez although Pedroza WANTED THIS FIGHT VERY BADLY. There were never negotiations for this bout in which in my opinion, would have been A CLASSIC FIGHT. None of the two duck each other. Sanchez Unfortunately died.

elmersalsa wrote:

saad wrote:Sanchez is widely recognized as an all time great. Pedroza is in the Hall of Fame but he isn't mentioned as often. Were these guys ever in negotiations to fight one another? Did one guy seem to duck the other? Pedroza defended his title 20 times, not bad.

Both were EXCELLENT CHAMPIONS!!!. But now watching the tapes of these two great ones I will give the EDGE to Sanchez although Pedroza WANTED THIS FIGHT VERY BADLY. There were never negotiations for this bout in which in my opinion, would have been A CLASSIC FIGHT. None of the two duck each other. Sanchez Unfortunately died.

Bout could go either way, but Sanchez probably ekes out a close decision win.

There was a thread about this matchup last month.

bump

There was a WBA/WBC feud at the time akin to the TopRank/GBP stuff that has gone on recently. I always slightly favored Pedroza in the match up. He was very rough inside and Sanchez had some difficulties dealing with awkward styles. I think it would be extremely close and a distance fight that almsot assuredly would have provided a sequel.

Sanchez was the greater fighter in my estimation. but i had a hunch that eusebio would edge him.

I have always had a problem with Pedroza’s record. I will always argue that at that time he could have fought better competition. However, I will acknowledge that he was a good fighter. Having said that I think Sanchez was good enough to counter him effectively and win a close decision. I’ll give the edge to Sanchez 60-40, but Pedroza would’ve been a live underdog.

I'm assuming that Pedroza would've been the underdog if the fight was made sometime after 1981.

Pedroza was a great fighter, but he was incredibly dirty and won more than a few close decisions to keep his title. Don't remember ever seeing a fighter who was better at changing the momentum of a fight with a well-timed punch to the balls. He wore a lot of guys down that way. I remember seeing both bouts against Rocky Lockridge, his foul-fest win over Juan LaPorte in which he should have been DQ'd, and his close fights with Bernard Taylor (a draw that I scored for Pedroza) and Jose Caba.

Sanchez, IMO, would have won an ugly decision over Pedroza. There was a lot of talk about the fight at the time, but I don't remember if it ever got to the negotiating stage.

SaadOffTheDeck wrote:I always slightly favored Pedroza in the match up. He was very rough inside and Sanchez had some difficulties dealing with awkward styles. I think it would be extremely close and a distance fight that almsot assuredly would have provided a sequel.

Sanchez was the greater fighter in my estimation. but i had a hunch that eusebio would edge him.

agreed, stylewise i think Perdosa's a more difficult match for Sanchez than my high regard for Sanchez would normally allow. plus Sanchez didn't like people who didn't come straight at him, which Pedrosa most assuredly would not do. whatever, this is close and pretty messy.

It's a damn shame Sanchez died a tragic death. If he wouldn't of died, I think he would of been in the Top 5 featherweights, all time. Who agrees?

I disagree, but not how you probably think. I still have him the #3 featherweight of All-Time. He was that great.

theory wrote:It's a damn shame Sanchez died a tragic death. If he wouldn't of died, I think he would of been in the Top 5 featherweights, all time. Who agrees?

I do, but it wouldn't be a sure-thing, based on what we did get to see. Top-three I find a little lofty, but he was a brilliant, brilliant fighter, & even though he said he wasn't going to stay in the sport, he was only, what, twenty-two? Twenty-three? If he'd changed his mind, oh, boy...

I think with Sanchez, a lot of people just look at the fact that he died at the age of 23 and think what if? And it is hard not to do that. He probably would have won several more big fights. Who know? Maybe he would have been regarded as the best featherweight of All-time and one of the Top 10 pound per pound fighters ever.

However, if you just look at what he was able to accomplish you can see that he already had an amazing career.
He beat Lopez twice decisively, who was a very good featherweight champion.
He whipped Gomez badly when Gomez was consider one the top pound per pound fighters in the world.
He beat really good fighters like Ruben Castillo and Juan LaPorte.

In his last fight he beat the great Azumah Nelson. Often people say that Nelson was inexperienced and that it was not that big of a win. I would argue that Nelson may have been the rare fighter that was close to his best very early in his career. Not only was he undefeated before he fought Sanchez, but he didn't lose again for 8 years. I think Nelson was already a great fighter when Sanchez beat him.

Sanchez never lost at featherweight (his only loss was at bantamweight) and he made 9 successful title defenses of his featherweight title.
Watch him on film and he looks great.

He had to have been one of the very best featherweights of All-Time.

I would still like to think, watching him, I could find three men better in all of history.

This is actually moot to the subject at hand, but why do people act as though Sanchez had a normal career mapped out? He was quite intent on breaking with Boxing permanently by age twenty-five --- people act like that was never going to happen.

The What if's with sanchez are just what he could have done. It isn't hard to match him up with other fighters. Yes, he beat Lopez twice, smashed Gomez and outlasted a green nelson. But he also was lucky to get by Patrick Ford and had trouble with Pat Cowdell.

I would have taken Azumah in a rematch, not with any kind of conviction. But I had Nelson ahead when he was stopped in the first fight.

My memory is that Nelson was brought in as a last minute opponent for Sanchez. Don King nicknamed Nelson "the Terrible Terror" to try and enhance the promotion, but surely Sanchez wouldn't have taken the unknown sub very seriously.

Sanchez is an all-time favorite of mine. He reminded me of a featherweight Muhammad Ali, bringing out the best of his opponents and rising to the occasion in the big matches. He wasn't a typical Mexican style, but threw fast combinations and a terrific counter puncher.

Pedroza was a great boxer who did whatever it took and was known for throwing many low punches. If Sanchez/Pedroza did take place, Salvador would be focused and I think he was unbeatable. He was effective against every style that I saw.

Goodnight, Irene wrote:I would still like to think, watching him, I could find three men better in all of history.

This is actually moot to the subject at hand, but why do people act as though Sanchez had a normal career mapped out? He was quite intent on breaking with Boxing permanently by age twenty-five --- people act like that was never going to happen.

Maybe he would have, but I doubt it. What a 23 year thinks he will do doesn't often happen. Not to mention this is boxing. He may have quit for a year or so, but he would have comeback.

However, I agree you have to judge a fighter on what actually happened, not what could have been. I think in Sanchez's case people some people spend more time speculating what might have been and overlook what he already accomplished.

As mentioned by others he had a couple of fights when he had difficulty. However, who hasn't? You can do that with anyone. He already did enough to be considered one of the very best featherweights of all-time.

No doubt about that. Pep, Saddler & Attell would be my top 3. But he would rank ahead of fighters I consider greater overall like Canzoneri & Arguello based on his resume at the weight.

He beat 4 HOF fighters in a pretty short time span. That can never be taken away, no matter how his career ended. He was the best Mexican fighter I've ever seen.