Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

top 10 featherweights of all time

Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by ron davis View Post
    Armstrong's best weight was 135 lightweight. Please list the names of the historians that said featherweight.
    - -List the names of historians denying Henry fought below lightweight.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Rufus 1919 View Post
      I think Pedroza was a better fighter and would beat Sanchez in a fight.
      You're in the verrrrrry small minority then. Almost every boxing historian rates Sanchez much higher and believe he would have won h2h.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by just the facts View Post
        You're in the verrrrrry small minority then. Almost every boxing historian rates Sanchez much higher and believe he would have won h2h.
        - -Nothing wrong with being the tiny minority and being right, but Ruffy don't provide any details because he's prob still in a pre-jelled liquid jello state of boxing development.

        I'd point out Sal not reliant on dirty fouling like Pedroza was often accused of, not to mention KTFO ever HOFer standing across from him.

        And all accomplished by age 23, one of the truly great shining stars of boxing!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by just the facts View Post
          You're in the verrrrrry small minority then. Almost every boxing historian rates Sanchez much higher and believe he would have won h2h.
          While Rufus appears committed to simply stirring the pot, It's worth considering that Sanchez's legend has grown over time.

          At the time it was considered a pick 'em.

          Pedroza being big and strong meant he offered a physical dimension Sal had never yet overcome: Gomez was more talented, but natrually smaller; Lopez was more dangerous, but not as physical; Nelson wasn't fully grown. Plus Pedroza was dirty. Look at Saddler and Salido for what dirty tactics can do to level the playing field.

          It's possible that Sal hits a bump in the road.

          That being said, even if he lost their initial encounter, it was most likely only a matter of time before he matured into the better man.

          We don't remember Pedroza like we do Sanchez not because he wasn't as good as Sanchez, but because 1) he didn't have the epic wins/performances, 2) Sal's true potential went unrealized.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by QueensburyRules View Post
            - -List the names of historians denying Henry fought below lightweight.
            what's it matter?

            he didn't fight often enough, consistently enough, or against anyone good enough to warrant being ranked there.

            Lots of fighters pass through divisions and pick-up hardware along the way.

            Armstrong's Featherweight career was so negligible, without the cherry-picked win over Sarron, it wouldn't even be mentioned. It was a farce.

            Comment


            • #36
              I think Sanchez clearly above Pedroza but a closer one is who rates higher between Sanchez and Saldivar? Saldivar has an incredible resume - Winstone X3, Ramos, Laguna, Legra and Famechon. That’s also a wide variety of styles. Given how much difficulty Sanchez had with savvy boxers and movers I’m not sure he comes out with as good a record as did Saldivar vs. that crop.

              Comment


              • #37
                Of course, I meant, Armstrong was regarded at his best as a lightweight.

                Comment


                • #38
                  I’ve always found it interesting that Saldivar is usually regarded as the lesser between the two, especially with such margin given their similarities in career arc and overall record.

                  I'm not saying it's wrong or anything, especially if anyone feels Sanchez was the inherently better/more talented fighter, but it’s a bit surprising considering Saldivar’s successful comeback against Famechon since that sort of accomplishment is commonly used as a tiebreaker when two fighters are otherwise hard to separate.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Rusty Tromboni View Post
                    what's it matter?

                    he didn't fight often enough, consistently enough, or against anyone good enough to warrant being ranked there.

                    Lots of fighters pass through divisions and pick-up hardware along the way.

                    Armstrong's Featherweight career was so negligible, without the cherry-picked win over Sarron, it wouldn't even be mentioned. It was a farce.
                    Quite Lomachenko-esque in that regard, don’t you think Rusty?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Sanchez is obv gonna get a mention, consdering the competition he dismantled and was only 23, as others have said. He seemed to have no flaws, absolute endless stamina and nearly invulnerable to even the hardest punchers, in addition to supreme ring skills and confidence. Sanchez was an ATG and would have gone on to do more.

                      Another great featherweight, was Alexis Arguello. At 126 he destroyed fighters.

                      Vincente Salvidar gets another mention.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP