Toss a coin. Let me say I'd be worried about anyone overly confident on either. Great fighters the pair of them. I go back and forth. I reckon they'd share wins in a trilogy. I'm thinking Luis Rodriguez vs Emile Griffith type close.
A really hard one to call. Going to have to think aboiut this one a bit. A classic fight would follow,I'm sure. Both men two of the greatest feathers ever.
This could have been a 30 rounder, these 2 wouldn't have moaned, engines like no other, very difficult to decide who comes out on top, gun to my head, I go with Sanchez, just thinking he would be the stronger of the two, and be able to bully Pedroza around a bit, impose his will, and maybe just maybe eke out a SD over 15, certainly wouldn't bet on this outcome, Pedroza was a formidable fighter, hard, unrelenting, winging in hurtful body punches, lots straying south of the border, onto an uncomplaining Sanchez, no quarter asked or given, two primeval gladiators whose only exit is flat on their back, a highly unlikely scenario, shame, on shame it didn't happen. stay safe guys.
I always absolutely loved Salvador Sanchez but even back then I had a suspicion that Pedroza might be all wrong for him. Tall, rangy guy who takes away some of Sal’s usual advantages, pretty well handled Patrick Ford while SS struggled with him (and he, too, was a tall, rangy guy). I figure Pedroza by close decision. In a series, depends on how well Sanchez adjusts.
I'm one of those that believes that Pedroza might have been the guy to beat Sanchez had they both fought. Perhaps in a close competitive fight but with Pedroza using every trick in the book to win. Sanchez always had trouble with fighters that moved and thrived on aggressive come forward fighters that went at him. Pedroza would be too smooth and crafty even for a great fighter like Sanchez. Such a shame that fight was stripped away and it would have given us an idea of how Sanchez could adjust to Pedroza's tactics and dirty fighting.
I agree with this pretty much Sanchez had all he could handle vs Ford, who had the same physical attributes as Pedroza. Also see how Pedroza destroyed Ford with ease, i think stylistically Pedroza is a bad style match up for Sanchez. But like everyone else has said Sanchez was great at adapting in fights, but i feel like he would take an L to Pedroza in there 1st meeting. Whether or not Sanchez could win a rematch vs Pedroza well it's possible for sure, but if where talking about just 1 fight winner takes all i think Pedroza takes it.
Salvador Sanchez by a close 15 round decision in a competitive unification bout at 126 lbs. Salvador Sanchez was a calm cool competitor with an iron chin, never having been knocked out. Eusebio Pedroza could be frustrated at times with a good boxer, resorting to foul tactics, backhands, rabbit punching and low blows when the going got tough, Sanchez would adapt to these tactics remaining cool while counterpunching. Alfonso Zamora owns a knockout of Pedroza in round 2 on April 3 1976. This bout would be pretty even until the fouls begin to happen in the championship rounds as the result of frustration on Pedroza's part, both have good stamina but I believe that the more refined disciplined fighter which is Sanchez pulls it out. Foul tactics is not a mark of a good fighter but a desperate one who lacks good fundamentals and ring generalship. This bout should be held in a neutral site such as Madison Square Garden. Sanchez was hit at times in both of his fights against Danny Little Red Lopez without flinching or visiting the canvas. Since on this site resumes are very important, Salvador Sanchez has the better one here even though each have common opponents in Patrick Ford and Juan La Porte who by the way claimed Sanchez was better. I am being a non conformist here, Sanchez takes it as mentioned at the top of my post, 9-6 in rounds.
To be fair Richard Pedroza lost to Zamora at Bantamweight not Featherweight, and clearly Pedroza was still in a learning process at that point, as he suffered 2 back to back KO losses in a row. And once Pedroza moved up he was never stopped again, so Pedroza improved leaps and bounds after that. Remember Sanchez also had a loss and a controversial draw, where he was dropped twice I believe. Whilst he was still young and learning, so I don't think Zamora fight should be used against Pedroza, just like those 2 fights for Sanchez shouldn't be used against him. Both fighters clearly improved alot after those fights. And I don't know how Ford thought Sanchez was better than Pedroza, Ford run Sanchez very close down to the wire. Where as Pedroza dominated and beat up Ford with relative ease.
True, but I was pointing out also that Pedroza seemed to foul when frustrated. Salvador appeared to never get rattled, kept the same composure and adapted to his opponent. Resumes are very important on this site you have to agree, Sanchez defended against the likes of Danny Little Red Lopez, Patrick Ford, Juan La Porte, Wilfredo Gomez, Roberto Castanon, Pat Cowdell, Rocky Garcia and Azumah Nelson. To be honest I never heard of Cecilio Lastra, the guy that Pedroza kayoed for the title. Every televised fight I saw of Pedroza, he fouled his opponent, some say an edge like that is impressive, I have to disagree. If you are a skilled fighter, you do not need to resort to those type of tactics to win, the first Rocky Lockridge fight for Pedroza was questionable. Also when he defended against Ruben Olivares, Olivares was old and worn out, ready for an overhaul. I respect your opinion but it does not matter how many title defenses a fighter makes, it is the quality that matters. There was no lack of quality opponents that Pedroza could have fought. To be honest, I was never impressed by him. I like to watch boxers who are clean fighters. And as you pointed out, the Zamora fight for Pedroza was in his development stages as a fighter. But when Sanchez was decked in his fight against Juan Escobar, he finished the fight on his feet, winning fights and finally taking the WBC title from a more recognized Danny Little Red Lopez on Feb 2 1980 in Phoenix, Arizona by TKO 13.
I never got the impression that Pedroza fouled because he got occasionally frustrated. I just got the impression he did it because he was a dick.
Pedroza didn't foul when frustrated, Pedroza fouled because that was part of his game, lol. But he didn't need to. He was just as talented as Sanchez. Who'd win between the two? Whomever is having the better day. Though I lean towards Sanchez very slightly, he seemed to adjust better in the heat of combat.
"When you're a professional, you don't cry" was his matter of fact response to questions about why he repeatedly fouled Juan Laporte. He was one of the most casually filthy boxers that has ever stepped into ring, and you kind of gut the impression that a low blow and kidney punch was just another tool at his disposal; as important and basic as a jab. It should be noted that he was also in an era where fighters in general were more inclined to foul with greater frequency. Chandler, McCallum, and Hagler didn't seem too contrite whenever they fouled an opponent. Anyway, the fact that both fighters were well schooled, versatile and had penchants for surging in the second half means that this is probably going to be tight the whole way. On a one off, I still lean Pedroza to eke out a close and probably controversial decision. Slightly more elusive on the outside and can certainly stay with Chav in close. Could easily see Sanchez winning, though. And even if Pedroza were to take the first fight, I think I might favor Sanchez in a rematch, especially if it were to take place after 1983.
