Eddie Reynoso Not A Fan Of Salvador Sanchez

Sal Sanchez is regarded as the greatest if not top 2 mexican boxers of all time. So I'm not surprised to see Canelo's trainer, and likely his fans saying Sal wasn't great.

You raise some really good points. It reminded me of Quinten Tarantino, arguably one of the great American film makers, who constantly praises some of the crappiest movies out there. Nice analogy.

- -So Eddy ain't a Sal fan. Don't mean shtt to Sal whose already one of the top guys in Valhalla, and he didn't get their talkin' stupid smack...:yo:

Yeah I had seen that...You would be surprised, trainers have their own culture and distinct ways of grading fighters. Same with fighters... Ive heard some of the strongest boxers, speaking intelligently, make some of the most outlandish predictions. Don Turner, one of the smartest boxing minds, a trainer, a guy who showed Holyfield how to beat Tyson, swore that Marciano was the best heavyweight ever. And Immanuel Stewart, another great... found Vlad Klitko to be the best he had worked with when it is pretty obvious to most individuals that many fighters who Stewart trained had many more skills than Vlad. My dad was a professional musician and would also bring up names describing great talent that were surprising. So this is what I think with trainers: They get myopic or nostalgic. When they are working a charge... they become so focused on the charge (fighter) that when the charge executes well, etc the trainer is elated. Adrian Broner used to practice a combo on the bag, and then he caught someone with it in the ring, and suddenly he was insanely talented lol. When trainers have no charges they get nostalgic. Then we get the opposite bias. Hence Turner who pined for Marciano. I don't agree with Reynoso. Film shows otherwise... But hay the man is entitled to his opinion and he knows more than me. You raise some really good points. It reminded me of Quinten Tarantino, arguably one of the great American film makers, who constantly praises some of the crappiest movies out there.

The only difference IS rounds. Old trainers controlled boxing for generations and decades, nothing changed for them. Morales would have the same exact style, its not a logical discussion. Nelson was a bs stoppage, have you even seen the fight? He was landing a lot of clean punches right up until the stoppage. Dude, they both moved up in weights. Morales would have stopped Sanchez easy. YDKSAB. You're wanting to argue who had the better run when comparing the two's accomplishments, yet you feel the need to remove accomplishments from Sanchez to justify your argument. What a pointless existence.

Leonard didn't fight any different between 15 and 12 rounders. Neither did Hagler, neither did Duran, nor Hearns, nobody did. That's the most weirdest thing I've ever read that 15 to 12 rounds would completely change a fighter style. Sanchez beat like one big name legit, Nelson was a bs call. Sanchez record is thin and sure he was only pro for 7 years, but the facts are his run was thin and his luck was about to run out. Very weird you're not backing it up with any facts other than he's great. I didn't say anything about rounds. Arguing about fantasy fights is the least logical thing ever because you can't control for how different the fighters would be in each other's era. Each generation builds on the previous one's advances in training techniques, strategy, nutrition, etc. If Erik came up as a fighter in Sanchez's era, his style would have been completely different. Anyway, you need to re-examine Morales' run at feather. He only beat one great fighter, Ayala, and one really good one in Chi. I guess you could throw in a cooked Kevin Kelly, but I'll take Sanchez's wins over Gomez, Nelson, and his two wins over Danny Lopez over what Morales accomplished at feather all day every day. It's not even close, in my opinion. But to each their own.

Based on what though? Morales got him beat on every front. Morales beat better fighters, Morales would have picked Sanchez apart. I don't believe in fantasy matchups. If Morales fought back then, he'd be a completely different fighter and vice versa. Morales run at feather was epic and I loved that era. Lot of good memories watching those fights. But Sanchez's run has not and will not be touched IMO.

Morales or MAB would have wrecked Sanchez. Azumah was touching him and I still don't know why they stopped that fight. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and you are an idiot. I don't know how else to put it. I would ask you why you feel that way but I have no doubt the answer would make me want to end it all jumping out my basement window... and that didn't work last time.

Morales or MAB would have wrecked Sanchez. Azumah was touching him and I still don't know why they stopped that fight. Morales is my favorite fighter of all time. but Sanchez is the greatest featherweight ever.

Yeah. Ricardo Lopez was definitley the more technical. I can't disagree there. But the others? Come on lol. Also, Lopez had years to hone his boxing skills. If we compared the two fighting at the same age, you'd have to say Salvador was the better boxer. I know there's a dig on Lopez for not fighting top competition. But he was undefeated and had some 20 plus title defenses. He did beat some top fighters, and who knows, had one of those fighters beat Lopez, maybe his career (or their career) would have looked different. I might do a comparative analysis of Lopez and Sanchez. It would be interesting. They really did fight differently .... Just thinking now, I wonder if Reynoso's criteria for judging Sanchez is due to Reynoso favoring "not getting hit" over everything else. Look at Canelo. That's his forte, slipping the punch. Look at Valdez. Valdez was a blood and guts fighter, but then went to Reynoso to help him in not getting hit. And then there's the Reynoso comment that Salvador was "great at taking punches." That's kind of a back-handed complement. And Miguel Canto was known for his defense. So yeah, it would seem Reynoso favors not getting hit. ​​​​

Well to be fair, Ricardo Lopez is definitely more "technical" and a better boxer. But yeah, weird thing to say still Yeah. Ricardo Lopez was definitley the more technical. I can't disagree there. But the others? Come on lol. Also, Lopez had years to hone his boxing skills. If we compared the two fighting at the same age, you'd have to say Salvador was the better boxer. I know there's a dig on Lopez for not fighting top competition. But he was undefeated and had some 20 plus title defenses. He did beat some top fighters, and who knows, had one of those fighters beat Lopez, maybe his career (or their career) would have looked different. I might do a comparative analysis of Lopez and Sanchez. It would be interesting. They really did fight differently .... Just thinking now, I wonder if Reynoso's criteria for judging Sanchez is due to Reynoso favoring "not getting hit" over everything else. Look at Canelo. That's his forte, slipping the punch. Look at Valdez. Valdez was a blood and guts fighter, but then went to Reynoso to help him in not getting hit. And then there's the Reynoso comment that Salvador was "great at taking punches." That's kind of a back-handed complement.

Eddie should have just kept his mouth shut. Salvador Sanchez had 3 HOF-ers under his belt already by the time he tragically passed away at 23 years old. Canelo, at 31 years old, has only fought 5 absolute HOF-ers, all of which were past prime.........losing to Mayweather, barely scraping by an old Cotto, having two controversial fights with GGG, and KO'ing an old drained Kovalev which nobody asked for. Can't talk down on a true legend when your own fighter has yet to get a signature CLEAN win. :chairshot:spank::spankme: Loco smacking reynoso around in this post.

That must be the name of the guy that tests canelo, valdez and any other Reynosos fighters.

Probably wasn't a fan because he was actually a clean fighter. Just my guess.

Fat boy don’t know sh$t bout boxing Thank you. !!!!

Well to be fair, Ricardo Lopez is definitely more "technical" and a better boxer. But yeah, weird thing to say still It really depends. People tend to stereotype and confuse technical skill with understanding and applying a method consistently. Marciano walked into boxing old by standards of the day, with two left feet, no reach, no size to speak of... If he became what we associate with as a technical proficient boxer he would have never won a fight. But taking certain principles of the game, that fighters like Armstrong developed, Marciano relentlessly applied a method of fighting that was highly successful and gave him advantages that would have been disadvantages. Is this not technical excellence? Lopez was indeed a better boxer, but both guys had technical methods that made things pop for them. I always look at La Motta and laugh because there are people out there that believe a guy like La Motta, or Margarito, Gatti, just go in there and take it flush on the grill to give back two to everyone, or something like that. There is no way any human being can do that. Guys who take shots learn to deflect force, use subtle movements to go with the blows, etc. Point being there are many technical approaches and they all require a lot of talent to execute. There are "boxers" and "punchers" etc etc.

Eddie should have just kept his mouth shut. Salvador Sanchez had 3 HOF-ers under his belt already by the time he tragically passed away at 23 years old. Canelo, at 31 years old, has only fought 5 absolute HOF-ers, all of which were past prime.........losing to Mayweather, barely scraping by an old Cotto, having two controversial fights with GGG, and KO'ing an old drained Kovalev which nobody asked for. Can't talk down on a true legend when your own fighter has yet to get a signature CLEAN win. Great post!!! Could not agree more.

Well to be fair, Ricardo Lopez is definitely more "technical" and a better boxer. But yeah, weird thing to say still

What are the reynosos claim to fame other than Saul? Typical paisa hate

Sanchez had such a subtle defense and delivered after his defensive moves. It is hard to teach anyone his technics. Always moving so fluid and some how got power in the punches that he delivered. Finito is text book boxing contrary of Sanchez.