Tweet
Primitive? Go and study the era. You are being way too ignorant. Just admit you don't know the era and you've not done your research. I'd have more respect than you just brushing it off because you don't know it.
Gomez was not remotely as great as Saddler. You actually can't be serious? Besides Gomez really did nothing above 122 and Saddler is the consensus #2 all-time at 126 according to ALL historians. You probably don't even know the significance of that series and indeed Pep's win either. He had a near fatal plane crash where it was unknown if he'd walk again, let alone fight again and was 134-1. He defeated Manuel Ortiz was ease and there's also Chalky Wright and plenty others. Ortiz was an all-time great and if you knew who he was and his background (i.e he's Mexican-American) you'd love him and his legacy.
Besides if ONE win stands out and trumps out another resume or guy then why so high on Chavez? Chavez didn't beat one single great fighter in his entire career. You'd be using a double standard. I do know Chavez is great but if you are pointing out one win as an indicator then there's over 100 fighters with better signature wins than Chavez. That would be preposterous to rank Chavez that low (though he's clearly behind Whitaker for example).
Pep's not "primitive", he was ruling in the golden era when Sugar Ray Robinson was around so hardly "primitive". If peak Sanchez had troubles with the speed and defense of Pat Ford, Ruben Castillo and Pat Cowdell how you think he'd fare chasing Pep around and forced to create openings?
Pep's resume IMO falls far short of Greb p4p too. Greb scored 48 wins (a record) over 16 HOF members (a record) as a middleweight dominating all-time great light heavyweights and beating all the best heavyweights of his time but Dempsey who ducked him. Pep's resume also can't quite match Benny Leonard also but his numbers can his style holds the test of time and then some.
Sanchez IMO is #3 all-time at 126 though I generally see him ranked just outside the top 5 with some siding with Attell, Dixon, Saldivar ahead of him.
Gomez was not remotely as great as Saddler. You actually can't be serious? Besides Gomez really did nothing above 122 and Saddler is the consensus #2 all-time at 126 according to ALL historians. You probably don't even know the significance of that series and indeed Pep's win either. He had a near fatal plane crash where it was unknown if he'd walk again, let alone fight again and was 134-1. He defeated Manuel Ortiz was ease and there's also Chalky Wright and plenty others. Ortiz was an all-time great and if you knew who he was and his background (i.e he's Mexican-American) you'd love him and his legacy.
Besides if ONE win stands out and trumps out another resume or guy then why so high on Chavez? Chavez didn't beat one single great fighter in his entire career. You'd be using a double standard. I do know Chavez is great but if you are pointing out one win as an indicator then there's over 100 fighters with better signature wins than Chavez. That would be preposterous to rank Chavez that low (though he's clearly behind Whitaker for example).
Pep's not "primitive", he was ruling in the golden era when Sugar Ray Robinson was around so hardly "primitive". If peak Sanchez had troubles with the speed and defense of Pat Ford, Ruben Castillo and Pat Cowdell how you think he'd fare chasing Pep around and forced to create openings?
Pep's resume IMO falls far short of Greb p4p too. Greb scored 48 wins (a record) over 16 HOF members (a record) as a middleweight dominating all-time great light heavyweights and beating all the best heavyweights of his time but Dempsey who ducked him. Pep's resume also can't quite match Benny Leonard also but his numbers can his style holds the test of time and then some.
Sanchez IMO is #3 all-time at 126 though I generally see him ranked just outside the top 5 with some siding with Attell, Dixon, Saldivar ahead of him.
Comment