BoxRec

Watching Pedroza vs. Bashew Sibaca and they mention that Pedroza wanted (or was scheduled to face) Salvador Sanchez in '82. Of course we all know that never happened and why.

Who wins?

both great fighters.i would expect a fight of the year out of this one.
sanchez winning a close but ud

I always liked Pedroza's chances in this fight. He was unorthodoxed and very strong inside. I think he mauls his way to a close decision

Salvador seemed to be able to fight well in big fights. He seemed to always be better prepared than his opponent was. He would also have the advantage with stamina and chin. Pedroza would be a difficult matchup due to his style. But Salvador would slip inside of Pedroza's wide shots and pretty much hammer him, especially in the later rounds.

I would say he earns a clear cut unanamous decision or maybe a knockout. Pedroza was a good and worthy champion but I don't see him winning here. The only way he wins it is if Salvador becomes over cautious, which he would probably do for a few rounds, but he always seemed to understand how to manage a fight and would pull it out one way or another. He would eventually adapt to Pedroza's style and take over the fight.

When you talk about why certain big fights never happend their were to many to name. Once they split the title up they seemed to like to keep it that way so you wouldn't have the WBC champ fighting the WBA champ. The more titles they added the less I became a fan of the sport. I have counted up to seven titles in a weight class.

kick asner wrote:Salvador seemed to be able to fight well in big fights. He seemed to always be better prepared than his opponent was. He would also have the advantage with stamina and chin. Pedroza would be a difficult matchup due to his style. But Salvador would slip inside of Pedroza's wide shots and pretty much hammer him, especially in the later rounds.

I would say he earns a clear cut unanamous decision or maybe a knockout. Pedroza was a good and worthy champion but I don't see him winning here. The only way he wins it is if Salvador becomes over cautious, which he would probably do for a few rounds, but he always seemed to understand how to manage a fight and would pull it out one way or another. He would eventually adapt to Pedroza's style and take over the fight.

Pedroza didn't throw wild punches and his stamina was every bit as good as Sal's. He was a slow starter who always rallied down the stretch fighting primarily on the inside.

Sanchez had a chin of granite. Pedroza was stopped at Bantamweight but never rarely would get even buzzed at 26. But the edge goes to Sanchez in a fight that goes the distance every time they fight it.

Can't argue with picking sal. But your thoughts on how he would mean leads me to believe you haven't seen a whole lot of Eusebio.

As I always said before, this fight is one of those fights that has a lot of question marks. The majority of the people will pick Sanchez on this bout and would say that he would win against Pedroza. I am one of those that think that we are OVERLOOKING Pedroza's career and accomplishments and his style (which was a very good style to beat Sanchez) if this fight would have happened.

If that is the case that Sanchez would have beat him, why he never challenged Pedroza for a title unification? He instead opted to fight the great Alexis Arguello for a big money fight, but, unfortunately, it never happened.

If that is the case that Sanchez would have beat Pedroza, THEN, THAT IS THE SAME TO ME as of who would have won between Chavez vs Whitaker and Tyson vs Holyfield if they never fought in the 90s. And what happened? Chavez and Tyson got their asses whupped!!!

I would have put my money on Pedroza. He was that good. The thing was that the American media DID NOT LIKE HIM ONE BIT because of allegations that he was a "DIRTY FIGHTER". Hey, Muhammad Ali was a dirty fighter too by holding behind the neck but NOBODY said NOTHING about it. Mike Tyson was another dirty fighter, but likeable to the media just like Salvador.

To the media Sanchez was the dream and Pedroza was the nightmare. That Sanchez would have beat Pedroza is an SPECULATION just like the speculation that Roy Jones, Jr would have beaten Nigel Benn, Gerald McClellan, Michael Nunn or Dariuz Michalchewski or Tyson beat Holyfield or Chavez beating Whitaker.

Pedroza was a complete technician, able to adapt any opponent style. A Very clever tactician that was always on great shape. He could fight very good in the inside and had a terrific jab. He was as quick as Sanchez and had the same punching power as Sanchez. Pedroza also had the bolo punch down packed. And he could bang you in the body, something that I did not see do in none of Sanchez opponents.

I pick Pedroza by decision.

markl wrote:

kick asner wrote:Salvador seemed to be able to fight well in big fights. He seemed to always be better prepared than his opponent was. He would also have the advantage with stamina and chin. Pedroza would be a difficult matchup due to his style. But Salvador would slip inside of Pedroza's wide shots and pretty much hammer him, especially in the later rounds.

I would say he earns a clear cut unanamous decision or maybe a knockout. Pedroza was a good and worthy champion but I don't see him winning here. The only way he wins it is if Salvador becomes over cautious, which he would probably do for a few rounds, but he always seemed to understand how to manage a fight and would pull it out one way or another. He would eventually adapt to Pedroza's style and take over the fight.

Pedroza didn't throw wild punches and his stamina was every bit as good as Sal's. He was a slow starter who always rallied down the stretch fighting primarily on the inside.

Sanchez had a chin of granite. Pedroza was stopped at Bantamweight but never rarely would get even buzzed at 26. But the edge goes to Sanchez in a fight that goes the distance every time they fight it.

Can't argue with picking sal. But your thoughts on how he would mean leads me to believe you haven't seen a whole lot of Eusebio.

I guess he did not my brother, I guess he did not. Pedroza had also great poise fighting in opponents home turf and in the majority of times, HE CAME OUT VICTORIOUS. No fighter in history had more title defenses in opponents' home turf than Pedroza...None!!! Defending your title in your opponent backyard is a difficult thing to do. Sanchez almost never did that. Pedroza did it consistently for 7 long years and 20 title defenses. The thing is, that Pedroza never had the OPPORTUNITY to fight Wilfredo Gomez, Azumah Nelson and Danny Lopez. Boxing stars that Sanchez whupped. Hey, Pedroza did not even make it probably in the cover of none of the major boxing magazines in the 80s heyday: The Ring, KO or Boxing Illustrated

Did Pedroza ever had a cover in one of those magazines? That says it all.

I agree that Pedrosa is very underrated, and a great champion in his own right, but that said I just think that Sanchez had that little bit extra... he was one of those fighters who could pull something out when he was up against it... basically the bigger the challenge the better Sanchez would fight.... look at how he beat Nelson when he was severely weight drained. I dont think Sanchez was ducking Pedrosa, after all Arguello was hardly an easier option... I think the Pedrosa fight didnt come off due to politics, fate and Sanchezs problems making 126... which was why he wanted the Arguello fight.... even with his weight problems I still think that had Sanchez not died to tragically and had the Arguello fight not come off straight away, then the Pedrosa fight may still have been made in the end... Sanchez on points for me!....

Sanchez avoided Pedroza like the plague. I remember that he didn't even want to talk about Pedroza when asked during interviews. Historically, Sanchez is a bit overrated and Pedroza underrated. Pedroza by grueling decision.

It's one of those that got away.

Sanchez was the best thinker I ever saw. The way he adjusted in fights was amazing. He would/could be bamboozled by speed and an evasive boxer who forced him to lead. Nobody ever did it though.

Pedroza had the right style. And he has the edge there. I think Sanchez was just a little more proven so I lean towards him but not by much.

I will you this, both fighters were COMPLETE BOXERS. They didnot had any flaws in the ring. Too bad this fight never happened.

If Sanchez comes out smokin' like he did in the Lopez, Gomez fights, I think he'd be too busy and have too much stamina for Pedroza, probably winning by 4-5 pts. A slow start by Sanchez could of course result in a much closer bout, and Pedroza was the recipient of a couple dodgy decisions i,e Lockridge I, Taylor, and anything could happen.

I don't think we missed out on a classic. Sanchez was better and probably would have won convincingly.

Ambling Alp II wrote:I don't think we missed out on a classic. Sanchez was better and probably would have won convincingly.

I think you are understimating the great Eusebio Pedroza. He was as good as anybody in the 80s. He just did not get the fights.

Saw a ton of Pedroza in the 80s and he was a tough night for anybody, although I thought he got the benefit of friendly judging a few times. Liked to go to the nuts to rattle opponents more than almost anybody I've seen. Can't see it being easy for either guy and probably wouldn't have been fight-of-the-year material, despite the quality of the two fighters. It goes the distance and I would go with Sanchez by a couple of rounds, with Pedroza's usual late-fight rally coming up a little short.

Pedroza was an absolutely filthy fighter. I just watched his title defense against LaPorte (first time since I watched it live) and it was unbelievable what he got away with. With a good referee and honest judges, there's no way he'd beat Salvador Sanchez.

Seamus wrote:Pedroza was an absolutely filthy fighter. I just watched his title defense against LaPorte (first time since I watched it live) and it was unbelievable what he got away with. With a good referee and honest judges, there's no way he'd beat Salvador Sanchez.

This could be the last time we agree this year. I don't see how Pedroza gets past Sanchez even in a dirty fight. My guess is Sanchez would get annoyed, and might be willing to lower his standards here and there during the fight to give Pedroza something to think about on that score.

a close one, Sal probably. just think that SS, no question about his abilities, has been elevated to a slightly unreal degree.

misterpunch wrote:a close one, Sal probably. just think that SS, no question about his abilities, has been elevated to a slightly unreal degree.

He has, Salvador was my first 'cult' boxing hero - I bought a watercolour portrait of him from an artist that used to advertise in Boxing News. I have had debates and spats with people that have elevated him to an out and out destroyer; he wasn't, he was a very skilled, tough and well conditioned box fighter who struggled with certain styles and had off nights. He was cool as fornicate though and that perm is a classic.

I think I saw that watercolour in boxing news - def a classic 80's looking guy was sanchez