Been watching some of his title efforts lately, and was reminded again what a canny, learned, tough, gritty and smart competitor he was. He was also filthy from time to time, but distance is a funny thing; like it is with Zivic or Lamotta, we as fans seem to almost glorify such transgressions with the passing of time. If a modern fighter fouls repeatedly, he's vilified. If it's a classic fighter from yesteryear, he's a beloved, crafty old salt. But enough about that. What about Pedroza? What are your favorite bouts of his? I like his chances against just about any feather you could name; he was just awkward enough, hit hard enough, and was quick enough to trouble anybody, and was a legitimately great body puncher.
Great fighter who Salvador Sanchez should've fought.I think he lost to Taylor due to him not starting his body attack early enough, but really dominated.
I wish Sanchez would have fought him. I think Sanchez would have beaten him. It would have been a huge scalp for Sal. That being said, I view Eusebio less favorably than many on this forum. He was a dirty fighter and although he does hold the impressive record for title defenses he was dreadfully inconsistent. Going back and watching some of his fights against lower level competition its shocking to see how poorly he before against virtual nonentities. But, reversing on myself again, you don't beat Olivares (albeit a badly spent Olivares) or Jorge Lujan by accident.
Whenever anyone complained of Pedroza's repeated low blows, he would say they were nothing more than "llorones" (cry babies). No question in my mind that Juan Laporte had him beaten but the referee allowed him to hit the New Yorker below the belt repeatedly and 'won' by decision.
Both Olivares and Lujan were among Pedrozas worst showings. Olivares was shot and Lujan out of his best weight (great fight though) Look how Pedroza handled Ford relative to the struggle Sal Sanchez had with him. Which non entities did he struggle with? Plenty of footage of Pedroza annihilating subpar opposition as well (Sibaca for instance) Despite all the opinions to the contrary Lockridge was not robbed against Pedroza either time. I prefer Lockridge and rate his super feather career really highly. Close though they may be but it is these victories that prove Pedroza was the goods. I don't think the length of his reign means all that much in assessing his 'greatness' though. As you say, not a glittering list of challengers. Marcel looks better on film and has the higher quality of scalps.
Mainly set at 122lbs, whether it was labelled 'featherweight' or not I don't like lumping him in with those that are seen as the best guys at 9 stone.
Mainly set at 122lbs, whether it was labelled 'featherweight' or not I don't like lumping him in with those that are seen as the best guys at 9 stone.
I disagree that Laporte had beaten him or would have beaten him. Pedroza was badly wobbled in the third, but I remember thinking while watching it that it was a shame he (Pedroza) had to sully an already winning effort with that ****. He had it in the bag. Love the Lockridge fights, too.
