Ricardo Lopez and Salvador Sanchez

[RubenSonny]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.