Head to head : Greatest Featherweights

[ßringer]

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]

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]

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

[ßringer]

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]

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.

[ßringer]

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]

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]

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)

[ßringer]

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.

[ßringer]

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.