View Full Version : Head to head : Greatest Featherweights


▀ringer
05-08-2009, 06:04 AM
I was thinking back on the greatest Featherweights of all time, and the greatest Featherweights of the last era or so. And how they would compare in head to head matchups.

So obviously, I want some insight on this.

Pick a winner in the following, head to head, Featherweight matchups, and possibly a brief description or two on how it plays out, if you could.

1.) Abe Attell vs. Marco Antonio Barrera
2.) Kid Chocolate vs. Alexis Arguello
3.) Henry Armstrong vs. Manny Pacquiao
4.) Sandy Saddler vs. Erik Morales
5.) Willie Pep vs. Juan Manuel Marquez
6.) Salvador Sanchez vs. Naseem Hamed

RightCross94
05-08-2009, 06:21 AM
I was thinking back on the greatest Featherweights of all time, and the greatest Featherweights of the last era or so. And how they would compare in head to head matchups.

So obviously, I want some insight on this.

Pick a winner in the following, head to head, Featherweight matchups, and possibly a brief description or two on how it plays out, if you could.

1.) Abe Attell vs. Marco Antonio Barrera
2.) Kid Chocolate vs. Alexis Arguello
3.) Henry Armstrong vs. Manny Pacquiao
4.) Sandy Saddler vs. Erik Morales
5.) Willie Pep vs. Juan Manuel Marquez
6.) Salvador Sanchez vs. Naseem Hamed

1. Barerra would win this pretty easily, far too skilled and advanced

2. this could be a good fight, arguello could have had trouble with a smart mover and boxer like chocolate, but arguello was a powerful puncher and a smart fighter himself, if chocolate could not get caught and take arguellos punches when he did land he would win this

3. would be an awesome fight, it all depends if armstrong can successfully take mannys shots and press through with his own attacks, if he can come forward, take mannys shots and follow through with his own offence i can see him taking a decision, but he would eat some serious leather trying to get to pacquiao and it would not be suprising if he crumbled after eating a ton of big lefts

4. these two would put on a classic brawl, but i think morales' overall better skills helps him take this, theres also a big possibility sandy gets DQ'd, especially with todays refs

5. i think pep wins this, JMM's precision punches would find their way through peps marvellous defence, but he wouldnt land enough to take a decison, and he would get tagged himself. i think to beat a guy like pep you really need to turn it into an absolute dogfight and just rough them up and be dirty as possible, i dont think JMM would really employ that strategy effectively enough to win

6. i think hamed would win some early rounds but chava being the great boxer he was would start landing some well timed shots and would take over the fight down the stretch, possibly even dropping hamed along the way to winning a decision

RightCross94
05-08-2009, 06:45 AM
I was thinking back on the greatest Featherweights of all time, and the greatest Featherweights of the last era or so. And how they would compare in head to head matchups.

So obviously, I want some insight on this.

Pick a winner in the following, head to head, Featherweight matchups, and possibly a brief description or two on how it plays out, if you could.

1.) Abe Attell vs. Marco Antonio Barrera
2.) Kid Chocolate vs. Alexis Arguello
3.) Henry Armstrong vs. Manny Pacquiao
4.) Sandy Saddler vs. Erik Morales
5.) Willie Pep vs. Juan Manuel Marquez
6.) Salvador Sanchez vs. Naseem Hamed

1. Barerra would win this pretty easily, far too skilled and advanced

2. this could be a good fight, arguello could have had trouble with a smart mover and boxer like chocolate, but arguello was a powerful puncher and a smart fighter himself, if chocolate could not get caught and take arguellos punches when he did land he would win this

3. would be an awesome fight, it all depends if armstrong can successfully take mannys shots and press through with his own attacks, if he can come forward, take mannys shots and follow through with his own offence i can see him taking a decision, but he would eat some serious leather trying to get to pacquiao and it would not be suprising if he crumbled after eating a ton of big lefts

4. these two would put on a classic brawl, but i think morales' overall better skills helps him take this, theres also a big possibility sandy gets DQ'd, especially with todays refs

5. i think pep wins this, JMM's precision punches would find their way through peps marvellous defence, but he wouldnt land enough to take a decison, and he would get tagged himself. i think to beat a guy like pep you really need to turn it into an absolute dogfight and just rough them up and be dirty as possible, i dont think JMM would really employ that strategy effectively enough to win

6. i think hamed would win some early rounds but chava being the great boxer he was would start landing some well timed shots and would take over the fight down the stretch, possibly even dropping hamed along the way to winning a decision

▀ringer
05-08-2009, 07:06 AM
1. Barerra would win this pretty easily, far too skilled and advanced

2. this could be a good fight, arguello could have had trouble with a smart mover and boxer like chocolate, but arguello was a powerful puncher and a smart fighter himself, if chocolate could not get caught and take arguellos punches when he did land he would win this

3. would be an awesome fight, it all depends if armstrong can successfully take mannys shots and press through with his own attacks, if he can come forward, take mannys shots and follow through with his own offence i can see him taking a decision, but he would eat some serious leather trying to get to pacquiao and it would not be suprising if he crumbled after eating a ton of big lefts

4. these two would put on a classic brawl, but i think morales' overall better skills helps him take this, theres also a big possibility sandy gets DQ'd, especially with todays refs

5. i think pep wins this, JMM's precision punches would find their way through peps marvellous defence, but he wouldnt land enough to take a decison, and he would get tagged himself. i think to beat a guy like pep you really need to turn it into an absolute dogfight and just rough them up and be dirty as possible, i dont think JMM would really employ that strategy effectively enough to win

6. i think hamed would win some early rounds but chava being the great boxer he was would start landing some well timed shots and would take over the fight down the stretch, possibly even dropping hamed along the way to winning a decision

I think Barrera takes Attell out, fairly easily. Possibly even by TKO somewhere around the 7th or 8th.

I would favor Kid Chocolate to beat Arguello, but it could go either way. A classic matchup in every sense of the term.

I would favor Pacquiao to TKO Armstrong, late in the fight. As you pointed out, he would be eating a serious amount of left handed bombs in order to get his game going. He would likely win some of the earlier rounds by I see it playing out somewhat similar to Pacquiao/Morales II.

I would also favor Morales to defeat Saddler. In his prime, at Featherweight, Morales was a tank. One hell of a fighter, and given his tremendous talent, and balls I dare say this : I would even have him a slight favorite against Saddler with old school rules.

Pep would likely decision Marquez. That fight, for me, would be a beauty to watch. Pepe's defensive skills, matched up against Marquez's offensive poetry would be a visual feast for any serious boxing fan.

I'd also favor Sanchez to dispatch Hamed, either by a comfortable decision, or a possible late round stoppage.

NOTE : Thinking back on this last era of great Featherweights with guys like Barrera, Morales, Marquez, and Pacquiao...I find it hard for anybody to doubt the potential of all of these fights being sure fire classics.

wmute
05-08-2009, 12:32 PM
I was thinking back on the greatest Featherweights of all time, and the greatest Featherweights of the last era or so. And how they would compare in head to head matchups.

So obviously, I want some insight on this.

Pick a winner in the following, head to head, Featherweight matchups, and possibly a brief description or two on how it plays out, if you could.

1.) Abe Attell vs. Marco Antonio Barrera
2.) Kid Chocolate vs. Alexis Arguello
3.) Henry Armstrong vs. Manny Pacquiao
4.) Sandy Saddler vs. Erik Morales
5.) Willie Pep vs. Juan Manuel Marquez
6.) Salvador Sanchez vs. Naseem Hamed

I am mostly picking the olditmers, but this is only because of the matchups you propose (Morales would have a much better chance against Kid Chocolate than against Saddler for example, and Arguello against Saddler than against Kid Chocolate), and because a few fighters were not at their best at 126. Armstrong, Arguello, Pacquiao. However this affects worse the newer fighters. Because not at their best oldtimers still had 50 fights or so by age 22, on top of amateur fights reaching more than 100 bouts, before their peak. Compare with modern fighters and do the math.

1) This depends entirely on the rules this is fought at of course. You guys above me saying Barrera is too skilled for Attell, are nuts. Attell was a very skilled fighter, moreso than Barrera.

2) Arguello is the greater fighter of the two IMO, but this is a bad style matchup for him, since he dislike movement and Kid Chocolate was a damn good mover. Also Arguello at 126 was not at his best. Kid Chocolate UD.

3) Armstrong stopped by Pacquiao? Seriously slightly past prime Armstrong fights Rabinson at welter without getting stopped, but now pacman stops him at 126? come on...

Pacquiao, like Arguello, was not at his best at 126. He had only one hand. Armstrong was also not at his best at 126, but like I said earlier not at his best back then meant that Armstrong had 90 pro fights before his last featherweight fight. I doubt teh 126 pac has enough to beat Armstrong, much less stop him.

4) Morales gets ****ed up by Saddler. Literally ****ed up. If Morales could stick to a boxing plan, he would have had a chance to beat any FW history. Unfortunately Erik was completely unable to stick to a plan for 12-15 rounds. He would indulge in getting close to Saddler, and that's a no no. The fight at close range is all Saddler's and Erik never knew how to stay away from a fight. Again saying that Erik is too skilled for Saddler is ludicrious. Skills are not just jab-right from the outside. With a modern referee Erik has a better chance.

5) Great fight. Let me see PBF-JMM first and see if PBF plays the slick defensive card. If Marquez shows ways to deal with it, I will give this to Marquez. Pep was a lot smaller than Marquez, so that's a good start for JMM, but JMM struggled (and lost on the cards) with the most defensive oriented fighter he faced so far (John)

6) I wonder if Sanchez being too patient would play into Hamed's hands. But I don't think so.

Match number 5) and 2) are a bit size mismatches btw. As an effect of different weigh in rules.

▀ringer
05-08-2009, 12:47 PM
I am mostly picking the olditmers, but this is only because of the matchups you propose (Morales would have a much better chance against Kid Chocolate than against Saddler for example, and Arguello against Saddler than against Kid Chocolate), and because a few fighters were not at their best at 126. Armstrong, Arguello, Pacquiao. However this affects worse the newer fighters. Because not at their best oldtimers still had 50 fights or so by age 22, on top of amateur fights reaching more than 100 bouts, before their peak. Compare with modern fighters and do the math.

1) This depends entirely on the rules this is fought at of course. You guys above me saying Barrera is too skilled for Attell, are nuts. Attell was a very skilled fighter, moreso than Barrera.

2) Arguello is the greater fighter of the two IMO, but this is a bad style matchup for him, since he dislike movement and Kid Chocolate was a damn good mover. Also Arguello at 126 was not at his best. Kid Chocolate UD.

3) Armstrong stopped by Pacquiao? Seriously slightly past prime Armstrong fights Rabinson at welter without getting stopped, but now pacman stops him at 126? come on...

Pacquiao, like Arguello, was not at his best at 126. He had only one hand. Armstrong was also not at his best at 126, but like I said earlier not at his best back then meant that Armstrong had 90 pro fights before his last featherweight fight. I doubt teh 126 pac has enough to beat Armstrong, much less stop him.

4) Morales gets ****ed up by Saddler. Literally ****ed up. If Morales could stick to a boxing plan, he would have had a chance to beat any FW history. Unfortunately Erik was completely unable to stick to a plan for 12-15 rounds. He would indulge in getting close to Saddler, and that's a no no. The fight at close range is all Saddler's and Erik never knew how to stay away from a fight. Again saying that Erik is too skilled for Saddler is ludicrious. Skills are not just jab-right from the outside. With a modern referee Erik has a better chance.

5) Great fight. Let me see PBF-JMM first and see if PBF plays the slick defensive card. If Marquez shows ways to deal with it, I will give this to Marquez. Pep was a lot smaller than Marquez, so that's a good start for JMM, but JMM struggled (and lost on the cards) with the most defensive oriented fighter he faced so far (John)

6) I wonder if Sanchez being too patient would play into Hamed's hands. But I don't think so.

Match number 5) and 2) are a bit size mismatches btw. As an effect of different weigh in rules.

I can see your points, but I stand by my original picks.

Me picking Pacquiao to stop Armstrong, is not by way of KO. Likely a referee stoppage on accumulation.

And I highly disagree with your statement that Marquez "struggled" with John. I had Marquez winning that fight comfortably. John didn't do anything aside from run around the ring and potshot Marquez with his jab for most of the night.

rican4life
05-08-2009, 12:49 PM
well your list is good but you have forgotten someone and that is none other then the great wilferdo bazooka gomez consider to be the best jrfeatherweight in history. but would you say you forget one of it's greatest fighter

wmute
05-08-2009, 12:53 PM
I can see your points, but I stand by my original picks.

Me picking Pacquiao to stop Armstrong, is not by way of KO. Likely a referee stoppage on accumulation.

And I highly disagree with your statement that Marquez "struggled" with John. I had Marquez winning that fight comfortably. John didn't do anything aside from run around the ring and potshot Marquez with his jab for most of the night.

wrt marquez-john. I say struggled and not lost, but he definitely did struggle.

The fight about which I disagree the most is Saddler-Morales. Erik has a thing for fighting the wrong fight whenever he can. That's terrible with Saddler who is one of the best and dirtiest inside fighters ever. And he was also damn good at making ppl fighting his fight (see his bouts with Pep). The combination of Erik not wanting the right fight to boot and Saddler being able to get the fight where he wanted, spells absolute trouble for Morales.

Armstrong could also be incredibly dirty, whereas Pac certainly isn't. The ref would matter a lot in these two matchups. I don't see why you see a ref stoppage for Pac but not for Armstrong. At 126 it's a two handed fighter versus a one handed fighter...

(As a sidenote, the fouling in Attell-Barrera would reach amazing levels)

▀ringer
05-08-2009, 12:55 PM
well your list is good but you have forgotten someone and that is none other then the great wilferdo bazooka gomez consider to be the best jrfeatherweight in history. but would you say you forget one of it's greatest fighter

I left Gomez out because I didn't have an opponet for him from a recent era.

I was trying to match up the best Featherweights of the last era, with some of the overall greatest Featherweights in history.

Gomez is obviously one of the best featherweights ever, but I was trying to match guys up based on bad styles.

Arguello vs. Chocolate for example.

▀ringer
05-08-2009, 01:01 PM
wrt marquez-john. I say struggled and not lost, but he definitely did struggle.

The fight about which I disagree the most is Saddler-Morales. Erik has a thing for fighting the wrong fight whenever he can. That's terrible with Saddler who is one of the best and dirtiest inside fighters ever. And he was also damn good at making ppl fighting his fight (see his bouts with Pep). The combination of Erik not wanting the right fight to boot and Saddler being able to get the fight where he wanted, spells absolute trouble for Morales.

Armstrong could also be incredibly dirty, whereas Pac certainly isn't. The ref would matter a lot in these two matchups. I don't see why you see a ref stoppage for Pac but not for Armstrong. At 126 it's a two handed fighter versus a one handed fighter...

(As a sidenote, the fouling in Attell-Barrera would reach amazing levels)


Well we can agree to disagree about Marquez/John.

You may very well be right about Saddler/Morales. I can certainly see Erik being too brave for his own good against an opponet like Sandy, but my gut told me that he would still pull it off. So I'm just going on that gut instinct that I had initially, after sizing up the fight.

Armstrong could definitely beat Pacquiao, it's probably the closest of the fights I've listed here. Except for maybe Pep/Marquez. Pacquiao's best weight was likely 130, and he was a one trick pony back then.

But let's not forget that that one trick pony managed to dominate guys like Barrera and Morales.

Tough call.

And LOL@ The fouling of Attell and Barrera. That was part of the reason why I wanted to match them up together.

I always figured Marco was the kind of guy who could've held his own in even the old school era, he was certainly no stranger to rough tactics and cheap shots.

wmute
05-08-2009, 01:21 PM
Well we can agree to disagree about Marquez/John.

You may very well be right about Saddler/Morales. I can certainly see Erik being too brave for his own good against an opponet like Sandy, but my gut told me that he would still pull it off. So I'm just going on that gut instinct that I had initially, after sizing up the fight.

Armstrong could definitely beat Pacquiao, it's probably the closest of the fights I've listed here. Except for maybe Pep/Marquez. Pacquiao's best weight was likely 130, and he was a one trick pony back then.

But let's not forget that that one trick pony managed to dominate guys like Barrera and Morales.

Tough call.

And LOL@ The fouling of Attell and Barrera. That was part of the reason why I wanted to match them up together.

I always figured Marco was the kind of guy who could've held his own in even the old school era, he was certainly no stranger to rough tactics and cheap shots.

I know you like your philly fighters... and hence dirty fighting ( ;) me too btw) so if you didn't do so already I suggest you read accounts of the Pep-Saddler fights (not all of them though, one was cleaner) and of Zivic-Armstrong. If you read the description, it would look there were NO legal punches thrown in those fight.

▀ringer
05-08-2009, 01:38 PM
I know you like your philly fighters... and hence dirty fighting ( ;) me too btw) so if you didn't do so already I suggest you read accounts of the Pep-Saddler fights (not all of them though, one was cleaner) and of Zivic-Armstrong. If you read the description, it would look there were NO legal punches thrown in those fight.

Which of their fights would you say was the dirtiest?

I've seen the third and fourth fights, but I've yet to see the first and second.

wmute
05-08-2009, 02:29 PM
Which of their fights would you say was the dirtiest?

I've seen the third and fourth fights, but I've yet to see the first and second.

I mix them all up... but I think 3 and 4 are the dirtiest, and in one of the two legend says that Saddler broke Pep's arm (or dislocated his shoulder can't remember) in a clinch!

But I was suggesting reading more than actually watch available videos (which I suspect you did) the reports cos they are just funny.

On the other fights, I remember a Zivic interview about one of the armstrong fights, in which he said that he basically got "authorized" by the ref to foul and then he started doing it, but before he was just holding back and being unhappy at Armstrong's fouling.

wmute
05-08-2009, 02:30 PM
This is a bait for manchine, southpaw or yogi to drop some wisdom... where are you guys? The thread question would also benefit greatly from your contributions!

Silencers
05-09-2009, 06:13 AM
I think wmute is right in saying that the rules would play a big factor in the outcome of an Attell-Barrera fight, what size gloves would they wear, how many rounds would they go? etc. Attell was used to fighting 20 round fights.

Kid Chocolate vs Arguello is a very interesting styles matchup, Chocolate knew how to use movement, side to side and in and out but can he consistently keep from getting tagged by Arguello for the duration of the fight? That's hard to say, Arguello was at his best at 130 but he had pretty good success at 126 as well, beating Ruben Olivares after 13 rounds. Either Chocolate by decision or Arguello by knockout and I'm leaning towards the former.

Armstrong vs Pacquiao would be a great, great fight. Armstrong had a very good chin, the 126 pound version of Pacquiao was much more one dimensional compared to the Pacquaio of today, Armstrong would overwhelm a 126 pound version of Pacquiao with his constant aggression. Today's version of Pacquiao in a 126 pounder's body though would be a much more evenly fought match, but I still see Amstrong as the victor, it would be a much tougher fight though.

I don't think Saddler is a good styles matchup for Morales, a lanky guy who can box Morales on the outside and rough Morales up on the inside, who can take a shot and can give one hell of a shot, wouldn't be surprised to see Saddler stop Morales.

Pep vs Marquez is a very interesting technical fight, it would be great from a hardcore boxing fan's standpoint, the level of intelligence and knowledge in that ring would be awesome. I got Pep by competitive decision, I think he would have made Marquez lead eventually which would make Marquez make mistakes, Pep would take advantage of these mistakes with pinpoint counters and win a decision. Marquez would be in the fight though, no doubt about it.

Last fight is a pretty easy one to pick for me, Sanchez would beat Hamed pretty easily IMO, he just has to be careful to not fight at Hamed's level, Sanchez had a bad habit of fighting at his opponents' level at times which led to fight being more competitive than they should have been. Sanchez at his best counterpunches Hamed silly.

Anyways, don't make this out to be me being biased for old school fighters, it's just how I see the fights going.

▀ringer
05-09-2009, 07:05 AM
I think wmute is right in saying that the rules would play a big factor in the outcome of an Attell-Barrera fight, what size gloves would they wear, how many rounds would they go? etc. Attell was used to fighting 20 round fights.

Kid Chocolate vs Arguello is a very interesting styles matchup, Chocolate knew how to use movement, side to side and in and out but can he consistently keep from getting tagged by Arguello for the duration of the fight? That's hard to say, Arguello was at his best at 130 but he had pretty good success at 126 as well, beating Ruben Olivares after 13 rounds. Either Chocolate by decision or Arguello by knockout and I'm leaning towards the former.

Armstrong vs Pacquiao would be a great, great fight. Armstrong had a very good chin, the 126 pound version of Pacquiao was much more one dimensional compared to the Pacquaio of today, Armstrong would overwhelm a 126 pound version of Pacquiao with his constant aggression. Today's version of Pacquiao in a 126 pounder's body though would be a much more evenly fought match, but I still see Amstrong as the victor, it would be a much tougher fight though.

I don't think Saddler is a good styles matchup for Morales, a lanky guy who can box Morales on the outside and rough Morales up on the inside, who can take a shot and can give one hell of a shot, wouldn't be surprised to see Saddler stop Morales.

Pep vs Marquez is a very interesting technical fight, it would be great from a hardcore boxing fan's standpoint, the level of intelligence and knowledge in that ring would be awesome. I got Pep by competitive decision, I think he would have made Marquez lead eventually which would make Marquez make mistakes, Pep would take advantage of these mistakes with pinpoint counters and win a decision. Marquez would be in the fight though, no doubt about it.

Last fight is a pretty easy one to pick for me, Sanchez would beat Hamed pretty easily IMO, he just has to be careful to not fight at Hamed's level, Sanchez had a bad habit of fighting at his opponents' level at times which led to fight being more competitive than they should have been. Sanchez at his best counterpunches Hamed silly.

Anyways, don't make this out to be me being biased for old school fighters, it's just how I see the fights going.

Oh, no way man.

They're really interesting style matchups, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that, Saddler could stop Morales, or Pep would decision Marquez.

That's why I matched them up the way I did ; I wanted everybody to have an opponet who had a style that wasn't designed for them.

Like wmute said, Morales would probably have a beter chance defeating Kid Chocolate. But would it be as interesting to watch as Morales/Saddler?

Silencers
05-09-2009, 07:19 AM
Oh, no way man.

They're really interesting style matchups, and it's not out of the realm of possibility that, Saddler could stop Morales, or Pep would decision Marquez.

That's why I matched them up the way I did ; I wanted everybody to have an opponet who had a style that wasn't designed for them.

Like wmute said, Morales would probably have a beter chance defeating Kid Chocolate. But would it be as interesting to watch as Morales/Saddler?

From an action standpoint probably not, Morales-Saddler would be more entertaining than Morales-Chocolate.

▀ringer
05-09-2009, 07:46 AM
From an action standpoint probably not, Morales-Saddler would be more entertaining than Morales-Chocolate.

And what boxing fan in their right mind wouldn't want to see the ill-tempered Marco Antonio Barrera mix it up with an equally ill-tempered Abe Attell? :)

RightCross94
05-09-2009, 08:06 AM
i thought barrera saddler would be the dirtiest fight ever

armstrong was a pretty rough bastard, maybe he and saddler at 126

Silencers
05-09-2009, 09:21 AM
And what boxing fan in their right mind wouldn't want to see the ill-tempered Marco Antonio Barrera mix it up with an equally ill-tempered Abe Attell? :)

No doubt, foul filled fight right there.

▀ringer
05-09-2009, 09:49 AM
i thought barrera saddler would be the dirtiest fight ever

armstrong was a pretty rough bastard, maybe he and saddler at 126

Barrera/saddler would be epic.

http://mybroadband.co.za/photos/data/500/epic_win.jpg

-CANE-
05-09-2009, 10:04 AM
I was thinking back on the greatest Featherweights of all time, and the greatest Featherweights of the last era or so. And how they would compare in head to head matchups.

So obviously, I want some insight on this.

Pick a winner in the following, head to head, Featherweight matchups, and possibly a brief description or two on how it plays out, if you could.

1.) Abe Attell vs. Marco Antonio Barrera
2.) Kid Chocolate vs. Alexis Arguello
3.) Henry Armstrong vs. Manny Pacquiao
4.) Sandy Saddler vs. Erik Morales
5.) Willie Pep vs. Juan Manuel Marquez
6.) Salvador Sanchez vs. Naseem Hamed

I personally would have Azumah Nelson in there, one of the most underated fighters ever.

MarkScott
05-09-2009, 09:42 PM
The Kid Chocolate vs Arguello fight would have been one for the ages.


http://www.amazon.com/Joe-Gans-Biography-American-Champion/dp/0786439947/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241918984&sr=1-1

Ernie M
05-10-2009, 12:54 AM
Rican, Gomez was a Great super-bantamweight, I think the greatest of all time. But Sanchez handled him with great ease, even punishing him in their fight. So it is hard for me to consider him with the all time greats at FW. Still a fantastic fighter though. Good mention.

BennyST
05-12-2009, 01:11 AM
3. would be an awesome fight, it all depends if armstrong can successfully take mannys shots and press through with his own attacks, if he can come forward, take mannys shots and follow through with his own offence i can see him taking a decision, but he would eat some serious leather trying to get to pacquiao and it would not be suprising if he crumbled after eating a ton of big lefts


I would favor Pacquiao to TKO Armstrong, late in the fight. As you pointed out, he would be eating a serious amount of left handed bombs in order to get his game going. He would likely win some of the earlier rounds by I see it playing out somewhat similar to Pacquiao/Morales II.


Just out of curiosity, what made you come up with these conclusions? How would the FW version of Pac stop Armtsrong due to too much punishment?

He lost his first ever fight by KO when he was a wee little teen at BW or SBW and was then never stopped and showed one of the toughest chins to that point in history until he was way past it fighting a prime 120-10, or something like that, champ Fritzie Zivic at WW after a very long run as champ.

There were many bigger, better fighters than Pac that couldn't get close to stopping him but the FW version of Pac does? Man, like I said yesterday, this forum is going batty.

Answer this at least. How does Pac even beat a guy that would drive him backwards and break him down inside when he had no clue about fighting backwards and is not a good inside fighter? Let alone stop him! At his FW peak Armstrong was not only never close to being stopped, he was hardly ever close to losing at all. :dunno:

A guy that would be on top of Pac all fifteen, twelve rounds from go to woe that gives you no room to throw big bombs, banging away at his body and head non stop.....

Pac couldn't box at FW to save himself. He didn't move well. He stood in front and a guy like Armstrong would have a field day because he would not have to try and get in, as PAc had a non existent jab and right hand, nor would he take much punishment on the way in at all. Stop Armstrong? C'mon....

gibo
05-12-2009, 02:36 AM
Rican, Gomez was a Great super-bantamweight, I think the greatest of all time. But Sanchez handled him with great ease, even punishing him in their fight. So it is hard for me to consider him with the all time greats at FW. Still a fantastic fighter though. Good mention.

Sanchez wasn't all that. He beat a smaller GOMEZ, won his title over an easy LOPEZ, bearly beat COWDELL (SD15) had to knock him down to earn the SD, and almost lost to 13-0 NELSON..

BennyST
05-12-2009, 05:17 AM
Sanchez wasn't all that. He beat a smaller GOMEZ, won his title over an easy LOPEZ, bearly beat COWDELL (SD15) had to knock him down to earn the SD, and almost lost to 13-0 NELSON..

This is the kind of classic post that shows you can knock any fighter in history by focusing on a very few small points. Gibo, you could also say that he beat an undefeated Gomez who was only fighting, quite literally, a few pounds away at SBW. Not much difference at all. Really, basically in the same weight class.

Danny Lopez lost during his great undefeated title reign. He was fighting nearly as good as ever. He had just beaten down Mike Ayala in that great fight and had been on his best string of wins in his career. No one ever found Lopez easy. He was one of the toughest, most determined fighters in history, bar none.

Well, while you say an easy Lopez, I would say a Lopez that had had a string of wins that included a knockout of the great Ruben Olivares, an undefeated Sean O'Grady, revenging one of his only losses to Gomez (Octavio) by vicious KO, beating the great Art Hafey, David Kotey, and undefeated Roberto Castanon, the aforementioned Ayala, and Chucho Castillo. He beat all of these guys in a row without a loss, among other fine contenders, until he ran into Sanchez, upon which he lost by KO twice. That's seriously impressive.

I don't think anyone could ever say he is overrated with any sense of seriousness. By the freakishly young age of twenty three he had only lost one quite controversial fight, from what I understand anyway, by SD very early on as a young teenager. Anyway, he went on to have a title run of nine straight defenses including his great title winning KO of Lopez as well as a return bout, and also beat, among others, Ruben Castillo (had only lost one fight in over forty to the great Arguello), an undefeated Azumah Nelson, an undefeated Wilfredo Gomez, an undefeated Patrick Ford (who happened to be a six foot FW with a massive reach advantage of over six inches!), the great Juan LaPorte who had also only lost one fight, the aforementioned Roberto Castanon who's only loss to that point was to Lopez, along with the fine contender Nicky Perez.

Now, as to the Nelson fight, if you have seen it, it is quite likely that Nelson would have beaten any other FW in the world on the same night, or on any other night in fact. Actually, he did! Nelson was simply a fighting machine, massively underrated. The fact he was the only ever fighter to knock Nelson out, who was without a doubt one of the toughest fighters to ever lace up gloves, speaks for itself. This is withstanding the fact that very soon after the loss Nelson won the title by destroying W. Gomez and going undefeated across two weight divisions for very close to ten years! The only reason he lost was because he jumped up in weight to fight a young, prime LW Pernell Whitaker by the time he himself was well past thirty years of age and was about the only guy to not look foolish and out of his league doing so. Huge win for Sanchez by any stretch.

All of this by 23.

wmute
05-12-2009, 12:59 PM
Sanchez wasn't all that. He beat a smaller GOMEZ, won his title over an easy LOPEZ, bearly beat COWDELL (SD15) had to knock him down to earn the SD, and almost lost to 13-0 NELSON..

Do you know that "almost lost to NELSON" is the best anyone has done against Nelson for the following 12 years at 126 and 130?