View Full Version : Ricardo Lopez and Salvador Sanchez


Flo_Raiden
03-28-2011, 02:12 PM
Two of my favorite fighters and IMO the greatest Mexican boxers ever.

What are your thoughts on these two legends? How do you rate their skills and technique, and who do you think was the better fighter overall?

SCtrojansbaby
03-28-2011, 07:43 PM
JCC is the greatest mexican boxer of all time by just about any objective measure. I wish Lopez would have moved up a few weight classes he had the style to beat just about any bantamweight or flyweight of the 90s. Minimumweight is like cruiserweight hardly any good competition through out the history of boxing

Wild Blue Yonda
03-28-2011, 08:14 PM
JCC is the greatest mexican boxer of all time by just about any objective measure. I wish Lopez would have moved up a few weight classes he had the style to beat just about any bantamweight or flyweight of the 90s. Minimumweight is like cruiserweight hardly any good competition through out the history of boxing

Chavez is the most famous Mexican boxer by about any objective measure, but it's stretching things to call him the greatest, hands down. Lopez, IMO, & Sanchez quite possibly as well, were better fighters who didn't have better careers. Lopez is the most gifted Mexican fighter ever, & Sanchez is the most accomplished for such a short span of fights. They are both definitively top-10 of all-time. I was in particular a huge fan of Lopez.

The best Mexican taking all into account, for me, is Olivares.

IronDanHamza
03-28-2011, 08:21 PM
Chavez is the most famous Mexican boxer by about any objective measure, but it's stretching things to call him the greatest, hands down. Lopez, IMO, & Sanchez quite possibly as well, were better fighters who didn't have better careers. Lopez is the most gifted Mexican fighter ever, & Sanchez is the most accomplished for such a short span of fights. They are both definitively top-10 of all-time. I was in particular a huge fan of Lopez.

The best Mexican taking all into account, for me, is Olivares.

I agree with that.

Lopez and Sanchez are two of my favourite fighters, though.

I prefer all 3 to Chavez personally.

SCtrojansbaby
03-28-2011, 08:27 PM
Chavez is the most accomplished and has by far the best resume of any Mexican ever

Wild Blue Yonda
03-28-2011, 08:31 PM
That is just not the reality.

SCtrojansbaby
03-28-2011, 08:41 PM
That is just not the reality.

Here we go. No other Mexican has as many signature wins as Chavez and its not close Salvador Sanchez would probable be 1a 1b but he obviously died at a young age. In Mexican boxing circles which I am very much apart of in SoCal, and in any ranking done by ESPN Ring etc, Chavez is always #1.

I am done on the subject though because this board has some crazy bias against Chavez which I don't understand.

SBleeder
03-28-2011, 08:57 PM
Lopez is, IMO, a top 10 P4P of all time. True, he doesn't have the major names on his resume as other greats, but he is by far one of the most skilled fighters who has ever lived... and if you follow strawweight boxing (as I have for years), you'll know that that division was far more competitive than it's given credit for during Lopez's reign.

I rank Sanchez at #59 on my all-time P4P list. Extremely gifted fighter who was very exciting to watch.

SCtrojansbaby
03-28-2011, 09:01 PM
Lopez is, IMO, a top 10 P4P of all time. True, he doesn't have the major names on his resume as other greats, but he is by far one of the most skilled fighters who has ever lived... and if you follow strawweight boxing (as I have for years), you'll know that that division was far more competitive than it's given credit for during Lopez's reign.

I rank Sanchez at #59 on my all-time P4P list. Extremely gifted fighter who was very exciting to watch.

I just wish Lopez had moved up I don't think Arbachakov Saskul or Tapia could have beaten him

Wild Blue Yonda
03-28-2011, 10:07 PM
Here we go. No other Mexican has as many signature wins as Chavez and its not close Salvador Sanchez would probable be 1a 1b but he obviously died at a young age. In Mexican boxing circles which I am very much apart of in SoCal, and in any ranking done by ESPN Ring etc, Chavez is always #1.

I am done on the subject though because this board has some crazy bias against Chavez which I don't understand.

What a pity you know nothing about Olivares & his career. It's somewhat important to my contention.

SCtrojansbaby
03-28-2011, 10:22 PM
What a pity you know nothing about Olivares & his career. It's somewhat important to my contention.

You are right I don't know much about Olivares but just from looking at boxrec the best wins were Chacon who he was 2-1 against and a 19 year old Ramirez who he knocked out in 2. But he has a looooot of losses many to guys like David Kotey. I don't see how he could be considered better then Chavez Barrera or Sanchez

Wild Blue Yonda
03-28-2011, 10:49 PM
You are right I don't know much about Olivares but just from looking at boxrec the best wins were Chacon who he was 2-1 against and a 19 year old Ramirez who he knocked out in 2. But he has a looooot of losses many to guys like David Kotey. I don't see how he could be considered better then Chavez Barrera or Sanchez

Of course you don't see. How could you? By your own admission, you are dismissing a fighter you don't have the knowledge of to do so.

Unlike you, I am well-versed in the careers of both Chavez and Olivares. I guess it just does not occur to you to learn a thing or two beyond BoxRec before accusing people of being anti-this or biased that.

I guess Freddie Roach is also anti-Chavez. He, too, picked Olivares as Mexico's greatest.

Steak
03-29-2011, 12:50 AM
Olivares was an excellent fighter, but I dont know if I would put him above Chavez. his wins over Burruni, Kanzawa, Sakurai, Rose, Rudkin, Castillox2, Pimentel, Chaconx2, and Hafey were all very impressive, but he didnt have the longevity of Chavez nor fought as much top competition.

I do find it pretty interesting he beat a very young Ramirez however. funny how things play out.


um...anyways, as for the title...Sanchez really had one of the most incredible short years of a title reign I think Ive ever seen. in his two years of being champ he has 4 victories over HOF fighters...ridiculous! and on top of that he had wins over Castillo, LaPorte and Castanon which were pretty damn good as well. I think he would have burnt out fast and a Nelson rematch would have been pretty tough for him imo, but I definitely wish we could have seen his career play out. very interesting style, outstanding late round fighter and a smart, deceiving counter punching too.

I havent got the chance to study Lopez's career too much, but Ill get around to it some day.

SCtrojansbaby
03-29-2011, 01:17 AM
Of course you don't see. How could you? By your own admission, you are dismissing a fighter you don't have the knowledge of to do so.

Unlike you, I am well-versed in the careers of both Chavez and Olivares. I guess it just does not occur to you to learn a thing or two beyond BoxRec before accusing people of being anti-this or biased that.

I guess Freddie Roach is also anti-Chavez. He, too, picked Olivares as Mexico's greatest.


I don't think you have to be that well versed to know that a guy getting knocked out by C class fighters like Art Hafey and Jose Cervantes in his 20s isn't as good as Julio Cesar Chavez

Steak
03-29-2011, 01:42 AM
I don't think you have to be that well versed to know that a guy getting knocked out by C class fighters like Art Hafey and Jose Cervantes in his 20s isn't as good as Julio Cesar Chavez
to be fair, Olivares was not in his prime in those fights despite his age. certain fighters become shot quicker than others...most notably Wilfred Benitez and Pipino Cuevas. it happens when you start fighting high level competition very early in your career, and Olivares' style was one that took punishment. it adds up quickly.

I think Chavez fairly clearly had the better career as well, but Olivares had an excellent one with plenty of wins over high level competition.

SCtrojansbaby
03-29-2011, 02:27 AM
to be fair, Olivares was not in his prime in those fights despite his age. certain fighters become shot quicker than others...most notably Wilfred Benitez and Pipino Cuevas. it happens when you start fighting high level competition very early in your career, and Olivares' style was one that took punishment. it adds up quickly.

I think Chavez fairly clearly had the better career as well, but Olivares had an excellent one with plenty of wins over high level competition.


How was he not in his prime? He got knocked out by Art Hafey in 73 and Cervantes in 76. Arguable his two best wins came when he knocked Chacon in 75 and Ramirez in 78

$coinblatt$
03-29-2011, 02:46 AM
Lopez is quite possibly the most disciplined fighter that ever lived, enjoy watching his fights.


I havent got the chance to study Lopez's career too much, but Ill get around to it some day.

his career set is available here: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=417569&highlight=ricardo+lopez

not all in the best quality but its all his title fights .

Steak
03-29-2011, 02:46 AM
How was he not in his prime? He got knocked out by Art Hafey in 73 and Cervantes in 76. Arguable his two best wins came when he knocked Chacon in 75 and Ramirez in 78
best wins does not = your prime automatically. Ramirez was way too young and inexperienced, it wasnt a very good win.

I thought Olivares was prime around the time he beat Lionel Rose in '69, maybe a little later on. The Castillo fights probably took a lot out of him.

losses arent that big a deal to me, as long as you beat high level competition. and Olivares did that.

Steak
03-29-2011, 02:49 AM
Lopez is quite possibly the most disciplined fighter that ever lived, enjoy watching his fights.



his career set is available here: http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=417569&highlight=ricardo+lopez

not all in the best quality but its all his title fights .

thank you. Ive watched some of his matches on youtube and he is pretty impressive.

the problem I have is that I dont know anything about his competition...and if I dont know about his competition, imo I cant accurately judge the fighter. my knowledge fails me when it comes to the lower weight classes. Ill take the time to learn about it some day.

Wild Blue Yonda
03-29-2011, 02:50 AM
I don't think you have to be that well versed to know that a guy getting knocked out by C class fighters like Art Hafey and Jose Cervantes in his 20s isn't as good as Julio Cesar Chavez

& that is why I will reserve myself on this topic to someone who is well-versed.

At this point, the following parting question seems fair --- have you even seen Olivares fight?

Wild Blue Yonda
03-29-2011, 02:52 AM
to be fair, Olivares was not in his prime in those fights despite his age. certain fighters become shot quicker than others...most notably Wilfred Benitez and Pipino Cuevas. it happens when you start fighting high level competition very early in your career, and Olivares' style was one that took punishment. it adds up quickly.

I think Chavez fairly clearly had the better career as well, but Olivares had an excellent one with plenty of wins over high level competition.

If you notice, though, I called Olivares the best Mexican taking all things into account, collectively --- not purely judging by resumes (though I do contend that taking Chavez through the route which was Olivares' career pretty well stone-cold guarantees he doesn't make it to something like 80-0 before losing).

$coinblatt$
03-29-2011, 02:57 AM
thank you. Ive watched some of his matches on youtube and he is pretty impressive.

the problem I have is that I dont know anything about his competition...and if I dont know about his competition, imo I cant accurately judge the fighter. my knowledge fails me when it comes to the lower weight classes. Ill take the time to learn about it some day.

Hes one of my favorite fighters, he doesn't get a lot of recognition because of his weight class (unless your a hardcore boxing fan).Also, he was criticized for never moving up in weight to face guys like carbajal or chiquita gonzalez. JK1700 made a thread on where he should be ranked as far as atg's and he got me into him. http://www.boxingscene.com/forums/showthread.php?t=417890 this thread pretty much discusses him and his career if you want to read up.

Steak
03-29-2011, 03:01 AM
If you notice, though, I called Olivares the best Mexican taking all things into account, collectively --- not purely judging by resumes (though I do contend that taking Chavez through the route which was Olivares' career pretty well stone-cold guarantees he doesn't make it to something like 80-0 before losing).
Im not sure what you mean. who you beat(and how and when) is essentially all that matters to me in terms of legacy. and although I respect the hell out of Olivares, the guy struggled(and lost) much more than Chavez did most of his career, so if we were taking into account purely in ring performances overall I would still have to favor Chavez.

and Chavez would have definitely gone through Olivares' opponents undefeated...the only one thats a maybe is Arguello.(and personally I doubt that based on Arguello's should be loss against Chavez's sparring partner Ramirez). Chavez was bigger than all the top fighters Olivares beat.
trying to imagine Chavez as a bantamweight size is essentially impossible, you simply cant do it.

Wild Blue Yonda
03-29-2011, 03:05 AM
Olivares, to me, was a superior fighter, who fought (at a minimum) equal competition to Chavez, took a harder road up the mountain, & his biggest signature victories are bigger than Chavez's.

I don't want to come across as stubborn here, because on this topic, I'm really not. I have little problem with Chavez as somebody's number-one, but I take umbrage to SC & many others using sentimentality & familiarity as guidelines for determing greatness. That is flat irresponsible.

Steak
03-29-2011, 03:13 AM
Olivares, to me, was a superior fighter, who fought (at a minimum) equal competition to Chavez, took a harder road up the mountain, & his biggest signature victories are bigger than Chavez's.

I don't want to come across as stubborn here, because on this topic, I'm really not. I have little problem with Chavez as somebody's number-one, but I take umbrage to SC & many others using sentimentality & familiarity as guidelines for determing greatness. That is flat irresponsible.
what would you consider Olivares' best 3 wins to be? Chacon, Castillo and Rose?

some people look into losses too much, thats probably why they underrate fighters like Olivares.

SCtrojansbaby
03-29-2011, 03:54 AM
best wins does not = your prime automatically. Ramirez was way too young and inexperienced, it wasnt a very good win.

I thought Olivares was prime around the time he beat Lionel Rose in '69, maybe a little later on. The Castillo fights probably took a lot out of him.

losses arent that big a deal to me, as long as you beat high level competition. and Olivares did that.

2 of your top 5 wins come during the time you are in or close to your prime

Losses to other great fighters or even B level fighter aren't such a big deal but but getting knocked out by C level guys is.


Danmmit I said I wasn't going to do this

Wild Blue Yonda
03-29-2011, 05:56 AM
Rose alone is a better single fighter than anyone Chavez bested.

The Surgeon
03-29-2011, 07:12 AM
Ive only seen a handfull of Lopez fights if im honest, he looked the nuts but who was he fighting? I personally just dont know how good these guys were but none the less i was very very impressed with him but Sanchez is one of my favs, i like him alot and i KNOW his opposition was top drawer

Diabolical D
03-29-2011, 10:01 AM
Two of the best, Finitos uppercut against preecha, against anyone was devistating.His boxing skills were awesome. Sanchez had the world in front of him he was the complete fighter and I would have loved to see a gomez rematch. If they had the same amount of time, competition and exposure as chavez had it would be hard to say, but since they didnt I have to agree with Chavez being the #1 mexican boxer

SCtrojansbaby
03-29-2011, 11:27 AM
Rose alone is a better single fighter than anyone Chavez bested.

lol.............

IronDanHamza
03-29-2011, 11:32 AM
Im not sure what you mean. who you beat(and how and when) is essentially all that matters to me in terms of legacy. and although I respect the hell out of Olivares, the guy struggled(and lost) much more than Chavez did most of his career, so if we were taking into account purely in ring performances overall I would still have to favor Chavez.

and Chavez would have definitely gone through Olivares' opponents undefeated...the only one thats a maybe is Arguello.(and personally I doubt that based on Arguello's should be loss against Chavez's sparring partner Ramirez). Chavez was bigger than all the top fighters Olivares beat.
trying to imagine Chavez as a bantamweight size is essentially impossible, you simply cant do it.

Come on, BI. Triangle Theories?

That comparison really doesn't mean much considering Ramirez and Chavez don't fight alike, pretty much at all.

And Arguello-Ramirez was a close fight, anyway. Not like Ramirez dominated.

pacquia0
03-29-2011, 02:05 PM
Chavez is the greatest mexican fighter of all time by far. Chavez has the best resume. In his prime he completely dominated elite fighters. Chavez also has the longest unbeaten run in boxing history.

Steak
03-29-2011, 02:17 PM
Come on, BI. Triangle Theories?

That comparison really doesn't mean much considering Ramirez and Chavez don't fight alike, pretty much at all.

And Arguello-Ramirez was a close fight, anyway. Not like Ramirez dominated.
triagle theories dont work, no, but seeing as they sparred together on the regular I figure that Chavez's tricks and style would have rubbed off on Ramirez...they certainly werent identical, but imo their defense and general disposition were quite comparable. I just think Chavez would have beaten Arguello, but lets not get super off topic here.
very good fight.
Rose alone is a better single fighter than anyone Chavez bested. I will have to disagree. do you have any reason to think that? he did beat fighting Harada(nearing the end of his career), but Rose had struggled in a number of his matches before Olivares, most notably against Castillo and Rudkin, and within 4 more months after Olivares he was getting knocked out by journeymen.
<iframe title="YouTube video player" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/0bzhDY5Cbmg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

not to discredit Olivares' win over him, which was very good, but I dont think it was any better than a Rosario win.

PunchesNbuncheS
03-29-2011, 02:38 PM
Chavez? Olivares? Lopez? Sanchez?

Just the fact that were sitting here debating about which of these four is the best Mexican boxer of all brings a smile to my face because it means that Mexico produces some damn good fighters. I've been thinking about it and I can't really decide because I can make an argument for all four of them and that's what makes me feel proud about Mexican boxing.

TOBYLEE1
03-29-2011, 02:50 PM
Lopez is the most skilled but Sanchez faced the better opposition, so it is hard to pick.

Chavez had a long victorious career but got tainted at the end.

IronDanHamza
03-29-2011, 04:46 PM
triagle theories dont work, no, but seeing as they sparred together on the regular I figure that Chavez's tricks and style would have rubbed off on Ramirez...they certainly werent identical, but imo their defense and general disposition were quite comparable. I just think Chavez would have beaten Arguello, but lets not get super off topic here.
very good fight.

I disagree. Tricks? maybe. Style and defense? Can't see it.

But yeah let's not get off topic :lol1: We can save the Arguello-Chavez for a rainy day.

McGrain
03-29-2011, 04:56 PM
Lopez is the greatest punching technician i've seen at the weight, but his temperament wasn't the best...Sanchez was better defensively and only very slightly behind on offence whilst his temperament was absolutely extraordinary for his age.

Sanchez was more accomplished, Lopez is one of my very favourites, possibly my very favourite to watch in the modern era.

NChristo
03-29-2011, 05:08 PM
I hate how Saldivar never gets mentioned in these type of discussions.

He beat Ismael Laguna, Sugar Ramos, Howard Winstone, Johnny Famechon and Jose Legra.

That's a great set of wins for the shortish career add to that his reign / defences and for me put's him above Lopez at least resume wise, if you are going via skill then it's debatable, Saldivar was one of the most skilled southpaws I've ever seen.

Flo_Raiden
04-09-2011, 02:39 AM
Bump.
Great discussion anyways guys.

Steak
04-09-2011, 02:42 AM
I hate how Saldivar never gets mentioned in these type of discussions.

He beat Ismael Laguna, Sugar Ramos, Howard Winstone, Johnny Famechon and Jose Legra.

That's a great set of wins for the shortish career add to that his reign / defences and for me put's him above Lopez at least resume wise, if you are going via skill then it's debatable, Saldivar was one of the most skilled southpaws I've ever seen.
it is odd that Sadivar is never mentioned among other Mexican greats. he did have a lot of good wins.

probably because hes the oldest and has the least amount of footage available of him.

SCtrojansbaby
04-09-2011, 01:52 PM
The standard is extreamly high heck I don't think IMO the 2nd best Mexican fighter ever(Barrera) has even been mentioned.

- v e t -
04-09-2011, 01:55 PM
Finito baby!!!!

Flo_Raiden
04-26-2011, 03:42 PM
Bump.
Feast your eyes on these two Mexican legends.:boxing:

Salvador "Chava" Sanchez
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFCvazd6AVU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYuN6YmH_jw

Ricardo "El Finito" Lopez

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQfc58XeQXQ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cc0A_e8-DKI

Boxing Bob
04-27-2011, 01:22 AM
I been a hard core boxing fan since 1973 and these two were as good as I've ever seen. Both could outbox boxers and outpunch punchers. Lopez was soooooo dominate, always in shape, and rarely lost rounds let alone a fight. The real tradgedy was Sanchez. My dad and I argue about it all the time but I think he handles Arguello. We both agree Pedroza(while a good fighter) was not in his league. His future had no limits

Quarry
04-27-2011, 10:08 AM
I been a hard core boxing fan since 1973 and these two were as good as I've ever seen. Both could outbox boxers and outpunch punchers. Lopez was soooooo dominate, always in shape, and rarely lost rounds let alone a fight. The real tradgedy was Sanchez. My dad and I argue about it all the time but I think he handles Arguello. We both agree Pedroza(while a good fighter) was not in his league. His future had no limits

Hi Bob, just my opinion but do you not think Pat Cowdell's performance against Sanchez takes something away from Sanchez legacy. what i mean is Cowdell should never have been able to take Sanchez to a close decision on foreign soil like he did if Sanchez was the world-beater he is portrayed as being. IMO Sanchez gets rather over rated by boxing fans and i simply cannot go along with you in that he would beat Arguello going on his performances against Cowdell, Juan Laporte, Pat Ford & Garcia.

RubenSonny
04-27-2011, 11:15 AM
Hi Bob, just my opinion but do you not think Pat Cowdell's performance against Sanchez takes something away from Sanchez legacy. what i mean is Cowdell should never have been able to take Sanchez to a close decision on foreign soil like he did if Sanchez was the world-beater he is portrayed as being. IMO Sanchez gets rather over rated by boxing fans and i simply cannot go along with you in that he would beat Arguello going on his performances against Cowdell, Juan Laporte, Pat Ford & Garcia.

Cowdell fight was nowhere near as close as the split decision indicates (how anyone could have Cowdell winning that fight is beyond me), Sanchez clearly won that fight (I think I scored about 10 rounds for him), Cowdell wasn't terrible either, though he wasn't suppose to do that well. I do agree that he is overrated by a lot of people, but that was naturally going to happen considering his short life. I think the Nelson fight was also an indicator of him being overrated, JMO though.

Boxing Bob
04-28-2011, 12:06 AM
Quarry, I must admit I've never seen the Cowdell fight, but doing some research the judge for Cowdell only had him winning by 1 pt, while the other two had Sanchez by 6 and 11 pts. Still I would have thought he would have taken Cowdell out.

Rueben, IMO the Nelson fight confirms Sanchez's greatness not takes away from it!

RubenSonny
04-28-2011, 08:19 AM
Quarry, I must admit I've never seen the Cowdell fight, but doing some research the judge for Cowdell only had him winning by 1 pt, while the other two had Sanchez by 6 and 11 pts. Still I would have thought he would have taken Cowdell out.

It wasn't even a close fight IMO, anyone that had Cowdell winning or just losing is an idiot if you ask me...

Rueben, IMO the Nelson fight confirms Sanchez's greatness not takes away from it!

Nelson was a 13 fight novice and had fought no one at that point in his career, and took the fight on less than 2 weeks notice and he took a great like Sanchez to the brink....it really confirms Nelsons greatness if you ask me.

Steak
04-28-2011, 05:00 PM
Sanchez vs Nelson confirms that both of them were great. excellent fight.

While its very true that Nelson was unprepared and a little green, he was still an excellent fighter, all you have to do is watch their fight to know that. And Sanchez was still really young, he could have gotten better from that point.

Had Sanchez and Nelson II happened, I think that fight would have been a toss up.

Sanchez probably would have burnt out quickly...he was fighting HOF fighters and top ranked guys on the regular, and over long bouts, and at a young age. but it would have been a hell of a ride.

joseph5620
04-28-2011, 05:38 PM
Sanchez vs Nelson confirms that both of them were great. excellent fight.

While its very true that Nelson was unprepared and a little green, he was still an excellent fighter, all you have to do is watch their fight to know that. And Sanchez was still really young, he could have gotten better from that point.

Had Sanchez and Nelson II happened, I think that fight would have been a toss up.

Sanchez probably would have burnt out quickly...he was fighting HOF fighters and top ranked guys on the regular, and over long bouts, and at a young age. but it would have been a hell of a ride.



Only 13 fights is more than a little green when you're thrown in a championship fight. Sanchez was one of the best fighters in the world at the time and you don't see that type of situation today with the way fighters are protected. Julio Cesar Chavez jr has had probably close to 50 fights and still has yet to face a real threat.



I think Sanchez would have continued to be a great fighter but that fight with Nelson says far more for Nelson than it does for Sanchez. Sanchez had already beaten Danny Little Red Lopez and Wilfredo Gomez. Beating a replacement with 13 pro fights doesn't add to that IMO.

joseph5620
04-28-2011, 05:46 PM
Two of my favorite fighters and IMO the greatest Mexican boxers ever.

What are your thoughts on these two legends? How do you rate their skills and technique, and who do you think was the better fighter overall?

Overall I rate Lopez higher based on longevity. How far Sanchez could have gone will never be known. In terms of tecnique both rate high but I would give the edge to Lopez there too.

Steak
04-28-2011, 05:46 PM
Only 13 fights is more than a little green when you're thrown in a championship fight. Sanchez was one of the best fighters in the world at the time and you don't see that type of situation today with the way fighters are protected. Julio Cesar Chavez jr has had probably close to 50 fights and still has yet to face a real threat.



I think Sanchez would have continued to be a great fighter but that fight with Nelson says far more for Nelson than it does for Sanchez. Sanchez had already beaten Danny Little Red Lopez and Wilfredo Gomez. Beating a replacement with 13 pro fights doesn't add to that IMO.

I dont care about the number of fights, its just a number and misleading. A guy with 50 pro fights can still be more green than a guy with 9. All you have to do is watch their fight to notice that Nelson was already a quality fighter, and not too far removed from his performance against Wilfredo Gomez.

And of course beating a pro with 13 pro fights matters if that guy is an ATG named Azumah Nelson.

Was Nelson in perfect condition? No. He was not prime. But seeing him in action in that fight its clear as day that he was still an excellent fighter. And you could easily argue that Sanchez hadnt even reach his prime either.
Nelson could have beaten him in a rematch, but Sanchez could also have beaten him again. Its all speculation.

SCtrojansbaby
04-28-2011, 05:52 PM
1.Chavez
2.Barrera
3.Sanchez

everything else is up for grabs

joseph5620
04-28-2011, 06:07 PM
I dont care about the number of fights, its just a number and misleading. A guy with 50 pro fights can still be more green than a guy with 9. All you have to do is watch their fight to notice that Nelson was already a quality fighter, and not too far removed from his performance against Wilfredo Gomez.

And of course beating a pro with 13 pro fights matters if that guy is an ATG named Azumah Nelson.

Was Nelson in perfect condition? No. He was not prime. But seeing him in action in that fight its clear as day that he was still an excellent fighter. And you could easily argue that Sanchez hadnt even reach his prime either.
Nelson could have beaten him in a rematch, but Sanchez could also have beaten him again. Its all speculation.

Only 13 pro fights are not misleading. It is what it is. Nelson was an inexperienced fighter at that time. Which is why you rarely see fighters at that stage of their careers put in that situation. And you can pick any fighter in history no matter how great, they were not rushed in championship fights after only 13 fights for a reason. That goes for Robinson, Duran, Leonard, or whoever. The fighters who were rushed were almost always either exposed or burned out quickly. Which was the whole point that this fight said a lot more for Nelson than it did Sanchez.

Steak
04-28-2011, 06:11 PM
Only 13 pro fights are not misleading. It is what it is. Nelson was an inexperienced fighter at that time. Which is why you rarely see fighters at that stage of their careers put in that situation. And you can pick any fighter in history no matter how great, they were not rushed in championship fight after only 13 fights. That goes for Robinson, Duran, Leonard, or whoever. The fighters who were rushed were either exposed or burned out quickly. Which was the whole point that this fight said a lot more for Nelson than it did Sanchez.
there are many fighters who were prime before they even had 13 pro fights. Simply having 13 pro fights doesnt automatically make you super green.

Nelson wasnt prime, but still an excellent fighter. In the Sanchez fight, he doesnt look drastically different from how he looked against Gomez.

Ill whoeheartedly agree that the loss was actually more of a win for Nelson than it was for Sanchez, but I still give a lot of credit to Sanchez for the win nonetheless.

RubenSonny
04-28-2011, 06:33 PM
Sanchez vs Nelson confirms that both of them were great. excellent fight.

While its very true that Nelson was unprepared and a little green, he was still an excellent fighter, all you have to do is watch their fight to know that. And Sanchez was still really young, he could have gotten better from that point.

Had Sanchez and Nelson II happened, I think that fight would have been a toss up.

Sanchez probably would have burnt out quickly...he was fighting HOF fighters and top ranked guys on the regular, and over long bouts, and at a young age. but it would have been a hell of a ride.

He had never fought outside of Africa and none of his opposition was of note or rank, so its more than a little green now isn't it. He took the fight on about 11 days notice and without a proper mouth piece (the reason why his mouth was so swollen in that fight) and he managed to take a great to hell and back. Sanchez was great there is no denying that, but that fight certainly didn't prove it, and I'd doubt you'd give anyone else this much credit for the same thing (save for Chavez and Hearns of course :)).

Clegg
04-28-2011, 07:05 PM
Only 13 pro fights are not misleading. It is what it is. Nelson was an inexperienced fighter at that time. Which is why you rarely see fighters at that stage of their careers put in that situation. And you can pick any fighter in history no matter how great, they were not rushed in championship fights after only 13 fights for a reason. That goes for Robinson, Duran, Leonard, or whoever. The fighters who were rushed were almost always either exposed or burned out quickly. Which was the whole point that this fight said a lot more for Nelson than it did Sanchez.

I pretty much agree with this, a guy with 13 fights giving a boxer who (young or not) had already done enough to achieve HOF status, such a tough fight says a hell of a lot for him, especially as he didn't have much notice.

But at the same time I still think it's a notch on Sanchez' belt, so to speak. When I think of the 13-fight Nelson, I see a boxer who would've been good enough to beat a lot of very good fighters.

It's not exactly the same, but I think the situation bears some comparison to RJJ-Hopkins.

Steak
04-28-2011, 08:34 PM
He had never fought outside of Africa and none of his opposition was of note or rank, so its more than a little green now isn't it. He took the fight on about 11 days notice and without a proper mouth piece (the reason why his mouth was so swollen in that fight) and he managed to take a great to hell and back. Sanchez was great there is no denying that, but that fight certainly didn't prove it, and I'd doubt you'd give anyone else this much credit for the same thing (save for Chavez and Hearns of course :)).
I never said thats what made Sanchez great, his wins over Lopez and Gomez were more career defining since Nelson wasnt prime.

the win over Nelson is just a very solid win that adds to his legacy, but doesnt define it.

likewise, although Nelson gained a ton of respect from me in the loss, his career isnt defined by that loss whatsoever, his body of work and high level wins are what make him great.

Their fight just reaffirms that both of them were great. Nelson was one of my favorite fighters of all time, I even made a highlight video of him.

RubenSonny
04-28-2011, 08:45 PM
I never said thats what made Sanchez great, his wins over Lopez and Gomez were more career defining since Nelson wasnt prime.

the win over Nelson is just a very solid win that adds to his legacy, but doesnt define it.

likewise, although Nelson gained a ton of respect from me in the loss, his career isnt defined by that loss whatsoever, his body of work and high level wins are what make him great.

Their fight just reaffirms that both of them were great. Nelson was one of my favorite fighters of all time, I even made a highlight video of him.

....................
Sanchez vs Nelson confirms that both of them were great. excellent fight.

Nelson win doesn't do much for me especially considering that he had so little time preparing for it, not to mention the fact he went life and death with an opponent in very bad circumstances. It confirms that people hold name value in much higher regard than the condition of a fighter.

Steak
04-28-2011, 08:58 PM
....................


Nelson win doesn't do much for me especially considering that he had so little time preparing for it, not to mention the fact he went life and death with an opponent in very bad circumstances. It confirms that people hold name value in much higher regard than the condition of a fighter.
confirms does not = makes. it means reaffirms.

and all you have to do is watch the Sanchez and Nelson fight to see that Nelson, while unprepared and still a little green, was still an excellent fighter.

incidently, Nelson had fought in the USA prior to fighting Sanchez and won by KO, and wouldnt lose again for years. You dont need to have beaten anyone of note to be a good fighter, which Nelson obviously was when he fought Sanchez, although(again) not prime and unprepared.

I think of it somewhat like Hopkins-Jones. Hopkins wasnt prime, nor had beaten any worthwhile competition. but it was still a very good win in hindsight. Im not pretending Nelson was prime at all, but its obvious that Nelson would have beaten almost anyone else at featherweight at that point.

RubenSonny
04-28-2011, 09:05 PM
confirms does not = makes. it means reaffirms.

and all you have to do is watch the Sanchez and Nelson fight to see that Nelson, while unprepared and still a little green, was still an excellent fighter.

incidently, Nelson had fought in the USA prior to fighting Sanchez and won by KO, and wouldnt lose again for years. You dont need to have beaten anyone of note to be a good fighter, which Nelson obviously was when he fought Sanchez, although(again) not prime and unprepared.

I think of it somewhat like Hopkins-Jones. Hopkins wasnt prime, nor had beaten any worthwhile competition. but it was still a very good win in hindsight. Im not pretending Nelson was prime at all, but its obvious that Nelson would have beaten almost anyone else at featherweight at that point.

Sorry didn't realise he knocked out THE Miguel Ruiz.

Except Hopkins had proper preparation and a custom mouthpiece. It seems your just making nothing the fact that he took the fight on 11 days notice, thats a huge thing. That was also a 12 round fight, not a sound comparison.

Steak
04-28-2011, 09:08 PM
Sorry didn't realise he knocked out THE Miguel Ruiz.

Except Hopkins had proper preparation and a custom mouthpiece. It seems your just making nothing the fact that he took the fight on 11 days notice, thats a huge thing.
OK. All that put aside, take a look at how good Nelson looked against Sanchez. that version of him would have pretty much every other guy at featherweight, wouldnt he?

Sanchez beating Nelson wasnt a career defining win, but it was still obviously very good.

RubenSonny
04-28-2011, 09:26 PM
OK. All that put aside, take a look at how good Nelson looked against Sanchez. that version of him would have pretty much every other guy at featherweight, wouldnt he?

Sanchez beating Nelson wasnt a career defining win, but it was still obviously very good.

The thing is you can't put all that aside, it would be completely absurd to do that, they are all facts and its all absolutely relevant and I actually stand corrected: it was actually 8 days. Nelson wasn't ranked at all and Hopkins was ranked very highly against Jones.

Pure conjecture, we will never know who he could've beat at that point, since he took steps back immediately after that fight, it was 2 and a half years before he got back to world level...why do you think that was?

I give him some credit, but not nearly as much as you and I could never regard it as a very good win.

Steak
04-28-2011, 10:00 PM
The thing is you can't put all that aside, it would be completely absurd to do that, they are all facts and its all absolutely relevant and I actually stand corrected: it was actually 8 days. Nelson wasn't ranked at all and Hopkins was ranked very highly against Jones.

Pure conjecture, we will never know who he could've beat at that point, since he took steps back immediately after that fight, it was 2 and a half years before he got back to world level...why do you think that was?

I give him some credit, but not nearly as much as you and I could never regard it as a very good win.
All you have to do is watch the fight to see how good Nelson was already. beating someone that good is a very good win, regardless of the fact that he hadnt beaten anyone of note yet. Nelson was immediately ranked in the top 5 at featherweight following that fight, even though he lost. That wasnt done in Hopkins' case.

maybe its one of those things were going to have to disagree on, but I dont see how you couldnt give Sanchez credit for beating Nelson, even if he was green and unprepared. If he looked like **** in the fight it would be one thing, but he looked excellent. it was a quality win.

IronDanHamza
04-28-2011, 10:11 PM
I think that although beating Azumah Nelson can't be completely discredited.

The fact he took the fight on such short notice has to factor somewhere.

Along with other factors.

Steak
04-28-2011, 10:37 PM
I think that although beating Azumah Nelson can't be completely discredited.

The fact he took the fight on such short notice has to factor somewhere.

Along with other factors.
and thats fair. Sanchez didnt beat a prime or prime conditioned Nelson.

It was still a quality win, as evidence by how good Nelson looked in the fight and how he was subsequently moved up highly in the rankings despite losing.

I dont get why it has to be viewed as an 'all or nothing' situation.

joseph5620
04-28-2011, 10:42 PM
confirms does not = makes. it means reaffirms.

and all you have to do is watch the Sanchez and Nelson fight to see that Nelson, while unprepared and still a little green, was still an excellent fighter.

incidently, Nelson had fought in the USA prior to fighting Sanchez and won by KO, and wouldnt lose again for years. You dont need to have beaten anyone of note to be a good fighter, which Nelson obviously was when he fought Sanchez, although(again) not prime and unprepared.

I think of it somewhat like Hopkins-Jones. Hopkins wasnt prime, nor had beaten any worthwhile competition. but it was still a very good win in hindsight. Im not pretending Nelson was prime at all, but its obvious that Nelson would have beaten almost anyone else at featherweight at that point.




I don't understand your comparison here. Hopkins was not only more experienced than Nelson, he was also much better prepared. On top of that, Jones was not all that experienced as a pro either. Jones was considered an extremely talented rising prospect.He was not a world champion nor had he proven anything big yet. Sanchez was a world champion, a huge favorite, with wins two elite fighters. One being a HOF lock. When you compare this situation to Nelson it discredits what Nelson did to be honest.




If you want to credit Sanchez,fine. But Sanchez did not beat the best Azumah Nelson by a long shot. I give him some credit but not enough to the point where it enhances his legacy.

RubenSonny
04-28-2011, 10:45 PM
All you have to do is watch the fight to see how good Nelson was already. beating someone that good is a very good win, regardless of the fact that he hadnt beaten anyone of note yet. Nelson was immediately ranked in the top 5 at featherweight following that fight, even though he lost. That wasnt done in Hopkins' case.

maybe its one of those things were going to have to disagree on, but I dont see how you couldnt give Sanchez credit for beating Nelson, even if he was green and unprepared. If he looked like **** in the fight it would be one thing, but he looked excellent. it was a quality win.

So every time a fighter held in high regard doesn't look as excellent against opposition that was suppose to do worse we should chalk it up to the opponent being excellent? Was Pat Ford an ATG for the night?

Like I said I give him some credit but it shouldn't be regarded as a very good win, like you put it.

Steak
04-28-2011, 10:55 PM
I don't understand your comparison here. Hopkins was not only more experienced than Nelson, he was also much better prepared. On top of that, Jones was not all that experienced as a pro either. Jones was considered an extremely talented rising prospect.He was not a world champion nor had he proven anything big yet. Sanchez was a world champion, a huge favorite, with wins two elite fighters. One being a HOF lock. When you compare this situation to Nelson it discredits what Nelson did to be honest.
I never once discredited what Nelson did. ever.

and I dont see how Hopkins was more experienced. Nelson had a 50-2 amateur record and Hopkins hadnt beaten anyone better than Nelson leading up to Roy Jones.

its funny that you cant even give Sanchez credit for a good win without someone getting on your case about some silly bull****, when Ive already clearly stated multiple times that Nelson was not prime for the fight and had they rematched he could have won.

joseph5620
04-28-2011, 11:00 PM
I never once discredited what Nelson did. ever.

and I dont see how Hopkins was more experienced. Nelson had a 50-2 amateur record and Hopkins hadnt beaten anyone better than Nelson leading up to Roy Jones.

its funny that you cant even give Sanchez credit for a good win without someone getting on your case about some silly bull****, when Ive already clearly stated multiple times that Nelson was not prime for the fight and had they rematched he could have won.

It's pretty obvious that you don't see it. Which is why I concluded that you can believe what you want. But I'm not changing my opinion or my stance on the issue.

Steak
04-28-2011, 11:02 PM
So every time a fighter held in high regard doesn't look as excellent against opposition that was suppose to do worse we should chalk it up to the opponent being excellent? Was Pat Ford an ATG for the night?

Like I said I give him some credit but it shouldn't be regarded as a very good win, like you put it.
we must have different opinions on a 'very good win' then. A win over an ATG when the ATG looked excellent is a very good win in my book(even if he wasnt at his best), especially when that version of Nelson would have beaten pretty much anyone else in the division.

the fight wasnt a case of Sanchez having a bad night. He was on top of it that night, and Nelson was still good enough to fight to his level. I think that version Nelson would have still beaten Gomez.

Steak
04-28-2011, 11:03 PM
It's pretty obvious that you don't see it. Which is why I concluded that you can believe what you want. But I'm not changing my opinion or my stance on the issue.

thats because youre being one minded, and will pretend that Hopkins was more experienced even though Nelson had a long successful 50-2 amateur career, and had been consistantly boxing as a professional almost as long as Hopkins had been.

joseph5620
04-28-2011, 11:12 PM
thats because youre being one minded, and will pretend that Hopkins was more experienced even though Nelson had a long successful 50-2 amateur career, and had been consistantly boxing as a professional almost as long as Hopkins had been.



Hopkins had 11 more fights than Nelson, fought and beat better opponents than Nelson had, and unlike Nelson, he had months to mentally and physically prepare. It's not being "one minded" when I say he was more experienced than Nelson. It's a fact. Dennis Milton alone was better than any opponent for Nelson at that point. Nelson's amateur career is irrelevant when he's thrown a championship fight on short notice with only 13 pro fights. Three round fights don't prepare you for that. And BTW, Hopkins had a longer amateur career than Nelson.

RubenSonny
04-28-2011, 11:15 PM
we must have different opinions on a 'very good win' then. A win over an ATG when the ATG looked excellent is a very good win in my book(even if he wasnt at his best), especially when that version of Nelson would have beaten pretty much anyone else in the division.

the fight wasnt a case of Sanchez having a bad night. He was on top of it that night, and Nelson was still good enough to fight to his level. I think that version Nelson would have still beaten Gomez.

Sanchez fought an unranked novice who took the fight on 8 days notice and without a custom mouthpiece (the swelling was evident and effected Nelson), who would go onto be an ATG, all facts, but I do take the point of different definitions of a 'very good win'. Again, its all conjecture on your part, I feel Sanchez can be overrated, I also think its one of the most overrated wins I've seen discussed.

thats because youre being one minded, and will pretend that Hopkins was more experienced even though Nelson had a long successful 50-2 amateur career, and had been consistantly boxing as a professional almost as long as Hopkins had been.

I thought Hopkins had over 90 amateur fights? Don't think it really matters anyway the pros are different and all fighters aren't the same.

RubenSonny
04-28-2011, 11:16 PM
Hopkins had 11 more fights than Nelson, fought and beat better opponents than Nelson had, and unlike Nelson, he had months to mentally and physically prepare. It's not being "one minded" when I say he was more experienced than Nelson. It's a fact. Dennis Milton alone was better than any opponent for Nelson at that point. Nelson's amateur career is irrelevant when he's thrown a championship fight on short notice with only 13 pro fights. Three round fights don't prepare you for that. And BTW, Hopkins had a longer amateur career than Nelson.

There is a BIG difference between a 15 and 12 rounds.

Steak
04-28-2011, 11:23 PM
Hopkins had 11 more fights than Nelson, fought and beat better opponents than Nelson had, and unlike Nelson, he had months to mentally and physically prepare. It's not being "one minded" when I say he was more experienced than Nelson. It's a fact. Dennis Milton alone was better than any opponent for Nelson at that point. Nelson's amateur career is irrelevant when he's thrown a championship fight on short notice with only 13 pro fights. Three round fights don't prepare you for that. And BTW, Hopkins had a longer amateur career than Nelson.
Hopkins had beaten no one in the top ten either.

How did Hopkins have a longer amateur career than Nelson? He started his professional career the year he got out of prison. unless youre trying to count something he did as a child...?

Did Hopkins ever get as far as this in the amateurs?
Nelson Azumah had a busy amateur year in 1978, he competed in the African Championship, as well as the World Military Championship, but his year peaked, when he won Gold in the Commonwealth Games in Edmonton, Canada.

After competing in a World Cup tournament in New York, Azumah, returned to Ghana, where he began his pro career.


and Nelson had already prepared previously for a 15 rounder 2 fights beforehand, and had gone 10 rounds in it.

RubenSonny
04-28-2011, 11:27 PM
Hopkins had beaten no one in the top ten either.

How did Hopkins have a longer amateur career than Nelson? He started his professional career the year he got out of prison. unless youre trying to count something he did as a child...?

Did Hopkins ever get as far as this in the amateurs?


and Nelson had already prepared previously for a 15 rounder 2 fights beforehand, and had gone 10 rounds in it.

Pros and amateurs are completely different, your better than this...

Yeah and it was against so-so opposition, it was for an African title, he was no properly prepared to go 15 rounds with an established elite, that much is obvious.

joseph5620
04-28-2011, 11:32 PM
Hopkins had beaten no one in the top ten either.

How did Hopkins have a longer amateur career than Nelson? He started his professional career the year he got out of prison. unless youre trying to count something he did as a child...?

Did Hopkins ever get as far as this in the amateurs?


and Nelson had already prepared previously for a 15 rounder 2 fights beforehand, and had gone 10 rounds in it.



You do know there is a distinction between those two dont you?

And as I said before. Hopkins had beaten better opponents than Nelson and had more pro and amateur fights. That's not even debatable.


Anyway, I'm done talking about it. If you want to see for yourself here it is.


http://www.canadastarboxing.com/Fighters/bernard-hopkins-profile.htm


"The Executioner"
BERNARD HOPKINS



50 Wins - 5 Losses 1 Draw,
32 KO's



Fast Facts
Born January 15, 1965
Age 43
Born and resides in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
6' 1"
70" reach
Promoted by Golden Boy Promotions
Trainers: Freddie Roach, Nazim Richardson

Professional Debut
October 11, 1988
Age 23



Professional Career Highlights
Former WBC, IBF, WBA WBO "Undisputed" Middleweight World Champion
The Ring "2001 Fighter of the Year"
Former USBA Champion, four successful title defences

Personal and Amateur Background
Hopkins started boxing at age 10
Reportedly had 99 amateur bouts (95-4)
Pro Career delayed as a result of spending almost five years from the age 17 to 22 in Graterford Penitentiary on a robbery conviction.

Steak
04-28-2011, 11:36 PM
Pros and amateurs are completely different, your better than this...

Yeah and it was against so-so opposition, it was for an African title, he was no properly prepared to go 15 rounds with an established elite, that much is obvious.
I never had an issue with saying that Nelson was not properly prepared for Sanchez. because its true.

me bringing up amateur records and garbage at this point is to debate the experience levels of Nelson to Hopkins. Hopkins was not more experienced than Nelson jsut because he fought 11 more fights over bums as a pro. Nelson was the more accomplished amateur and had Hopkins had fought no better competition than Nelson had as a professional.

Nelson looked just as good or better than Hopkins in their respective first title challenges and both are ATGs, so I find the wins comparable. Again, dont you think that the version of Nelson that Sanchez fought would have beaten Gomez?

Steak
04-28-2011, 11:41 PM
You do know there is a distinction between those two dont you?

And as I said before. Hopkins had beaten better opponents than Nelson and had more pro and amateur fights. That's not even debatable.


Anyway, I'm done talking about it. If you want to see for yourself here it is.


http://www.canadastarboxing.com/Fighters/bernard-hopkins-profile.htm


"The Executioner"
BERNARD HOPKINS



50 Wins - 5 Losses 1 Draw,
32 KO's



Fast Facts
Born January 15, 1965
Age 43
Born and resides in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
6' 1"
70" reach
Promoted by Golden Boy Promotions
Trainers: Freddie Roach, Nazim Richardson

Professional Debut
October 11, 1988
Age 23



Professional Career Highlights
Former WBC, IBF, WBA WBO "Undisputed" Middleweight World Champion
The Ring "2001 Fighter of the Year"
Former USBA Champion, four successful title defences

Personal and Amateur Background
Hopkins started boxing at age 10
Reportedly had 99 amateur bouts (95-4)
Pro Career delayed as a result of spending almost five years from the age 17 to 22 in Graterford Penitentiary on a robbery conviction.
excellent, so youre counting the amateur wins he had as a 10 year old till when he was 17? You dont think that fighting in World cup amateur competitions brings more experience than fighting as a teenager in the amateurs? very interesting.

RubenSonny
04-28-2011, 11:53 PM
I never had an issue with saying that Nelson was not properly prepared for Sanchez. because its true.

me bringing up amateur records and garbage at this point is to debate the experience levels of Nelson to Hopkins. Hopkins was not more experienced than Nelson jsut because he fought 11 more fights over bums as a pro. Nelson was the more accomplished amateur and had Hopkins had fought no better competition than Nelson had as a professional.

Nelson looked just as good or better than Hopkins in their respective first title challenges and both are ATGs, so I find the wins comparable. Again, dont you think that the version of Nelson that Sanchez fought would have beaten Gomez?

I think Hopkins had more fights at a slightly better level and therefore the more experienced fighter, plus he was going up against a lesser established fighter than Nelson.

We will never know, I think Nelson was an absolute beast and I put a huge amount of stock into intangibles, the real difference between good and great fighters for me, and Nelson had every intangible of the greats in abundance and this was evident in the Sanchez fight and why I give him credit. Having said that, you simply cannot ignore the horrible circumstance Nelson was in, if he fought Gomez and beat him instead like you say he would and Gomez was kept in the same regard as he was now I would call him overrated without a doubt (elite fighters shouldn't lose to novices in bad conditions). I don't think it really matters and its hugely subjective anyway, its all speculation, we honestly don't know how good Sanchez was (of course I still think he is an ATG), him dying shortly after doesn't help things either, I've just tried to keep this objective and I stated all the facts and that's why I don't think its a very good win.

Steak
04-28-2011, 11:57 PM
well, we'll leave it at this then: it was at least a somewhat good win for Sanchez, but definitely can not be considered a win over the best version of Nelson.

fair enough?

RubenSonny
04-29-2011, 12:01 AM
well, we'll leave it at this then: it was at least a somewhat good win for Sanchez, but definitely can not be considered a win over the best version of Nelson.

fair enough?

Yeah, I can admittedly be a bit touchy when it comes to this subject.

Steak
04-29-2011, 12:04 AM
Yeah, I can admittedly be a bit touchy when it comes to this subject.

nah, its all good fun, otherwise we wouldnt bother arguing on the internet. No one ever ends up changing their mind, after all.

we clash heads a lot on subjects, but I respect your boxing knowledge more than most the people on this website.

RubenSonny
04-29-2011, 07:16 AM
nah, its all good fun, otherwise we wouldnt bother arguing on the internet. No one ever ends up changing their mind, after all.

we clash heads a lot on subjects, but I respect your boxing knowledge more than most the people on this website.

True.

Yeah of course, I can't remember the last time we agreed on something :lol1: and likewise.