One of the great FW Wars: Sanchez TKO15 Nelson

This is one of my favorite fights as well as fighters to watch. Sanchez was knocked for his performance in this fight as well as a few previous ones for not rising above his competition. In this case I believe Nelson showed his worth as a warrior which validates sanchez's performance here in any case.

As for the other fights I love Nelson, but Pep would be too slick for him as much as I would like to say otherwise. Pep does a Whitaker and pitches a near shutout.

Barrera and Morales would both drop decisions as the proffesor takes the class.

Naz, I just don't see him being effective against any elite boxer espically at Nelsons level. Azumah by KO in 10

 

I see a parallel between what you are suggesting would have happened to Sanchez, and James Toney - though I suppose agreeing with my point depends on your assessment of the Michael Nunn fight. If you think (as many seem to) that Nunn was schooling Toney until he got tired and/or careless and got KO'd, then I doubt you'd see the parallel. However, if you(like me) believe that Toney was playing the 'long game', perhaps not in the same strategic sense as Sanchez was because Toney was being fairly outboxed early on, but in that Toney was composed, hanging in there, knowing he would start to get to Nunn and start to impose himself on the contest as it wore on, and then broke him down brilliantly, then you would concur. I think Toney could be considered to often 'fight to the level of his opposition'. He brilliantly beat Nunn despite Nunn's physical advantages, was absolutely tremendous in the first McCallum fight (the one anomaly was the Jones fight, but that fight, like Jones, was an anomaly. Hardly anyone in history would cope with speed and genius of that Jones)... then when the opposition went downhill so did he. I can see Sanchez doing likewise like you can, dropping decisions to the Griffins and the Thadzis of his time.


I would find it easier to believe that Naz's skills would transfer into a fight with top-class opposition if he had ever even done so once, one single time, in his entire career. As it is, I don't see how I can. Hamed would not be able to treat Nelson like he did any of the tomato cans in his underwhelming title career. If guys the standard of Daniel Alicea were dropping him, it's a safe bet Azumah would as well, considering Nelson's output and potency. Would Naz's pivots and head movement actually work in a fight with a great fighter like Nelson, or would he be found sorely wanting like he was against the only great fighter he ever fought, MAB? I have to go with the latter, there is no real evidence to even suggest otherwise. Turning Steve Robinson inside out does not say to me that this performance could be replicated against someone like Azumah Nelson, even allowing for your stylistic hypothesis. Naz was careless, Nelson was tough as teak, I still see this behind a back-on-the-ropes caning for Naseem.

 

Two all-time greats! One of those moments where excitement and history intersect to produce a lasting memory.

 

:good

Saying that you know I have a problem with Naz implies that I have some personal irrational dislike of the guy, is that really what you think McGrain? If it is then I doubt anything I say will dissuade you, but it genuinely is not some sort of baseless antipathy because I didn't like his conduct in interviews or some bull**** like that, not at all. I went to see Naz box live more than I have seen anyone else and I always thought he was great entertainment, but the reason I often come down against him in hypotheticals or that I am openly critical of him is that I honestly do feel that many people are blinded by the flying carpets and the belts and the hands down style and the blistering dominations and the admittedly stunning power - for me, this guy was never a top class boxer. Yes, he looked sensational against your Robinsons and the like, but if you watch all of Naseem's fights from '95 till Calvo, his performances decline as the opposition gets better, with the one exception being the brilliant showing against Bungu. I watch Naz and I see a guy with no defence, a careless fighter, a fighter with little technical skill, a fighter over-reliant on power and reflexes, a boxer who has glaring flaws throughout his career that are just waiting to be exposed by an elite level opponent, and this is what comes to be. Is that assessment of his boxing ability "having a problem with him"? If it is, then I guess I'll have to live with that, because that is my genuine opinion on the Prince.

As I said in my first post on this thread re Naz-Nelson, I am aware that Naz had the power to poleaxe the green version of Azumah, I readily accept that outcome is a distinct possibility. However having watched Sanchez-Nelson recently, I just don't believe that someone who gave a ring general like Sanchez such problems would not be able to impose himself on someone with a defence as slack as Naz's. JMHO mate :good

 

Just like I believe the way that the Brawl In Montreal transpired was never Leonard's decision to make (I thoroughly disagree with the "Ray chose the wrong tactics" school of thought, for me SRL never had the choice to make, he was facing one of the greatest infighters/brawlers/swarmers, whatever you choose to call that style, in history who was in rampant, career-peak form; Leonard was being forced to fight like a demon just to survive, he didn't have the option of dancing away and peppering Duran with quick combo's, that option just wasn't possible the way Roberto fought), I don't think this decision would be Naz's to make. Nelson would be all over him like a cheap shellsuit, Naz doesn't have the jab to keep him off IMO.

 

What about Foreman-Moorer? I think he was playin the long game, most think it's luck