Sal Sanchez or JCC?

Discussion in 'World Boxing Forum' started by Sweet Pea Pacquiao, Nov 12, 2007.

  1. Sweet Pea Pacquiao

    Sweet Pea Pacquiao Boxing Addict Full Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,294
    Likes Received:
    1
    Who is the greatest Mexican fighter and why?

    Who would win head to head if they fought at 130 or any catchweight?


    JCC was great, but I pick Sanchez on both counts. He was complete as a fighter as I've ever seen (I wasn't alive for SRR).
     
  2. Thread Stealer

    Thread Stealer Loyal Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    42,079
    Likes Received:
    3,670
    Julio Cesar Chavez is the greater fighter.

    Salvador Sanchez was a hell of a fighter, but gets too much credit on the "what might've been" thing.

    To be honest, I'm not even sure he was the best featherweight in the world when he died.
     
  3. tays001

    tays001 ESB ELITE SQUAD Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    15,124
    Likes Received:
    7
    i'll go with chavez
     
  4. 4Rounder

    4Rounder Boxing Addict Full Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    4,276
    Likes Received:
    22
    JCC of course

    3 division champion, pound for pound king for almost 4 years straight, and beat great number of very good fighters. Undefeated for 14 years and didn't lose until after his prime.

    Head to Head at 130? it would have been quite a sight.
     
  5. brooklyn1550

    brooklyn1550 Roberto Duran Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    Messages:
    24,017
    Likes Received:
    47
    Julio Cesar Chavez

    More quality wins, despite the best names on both resumes being Gomez and Nelson. Started 88-0, finished 108-6, won titles in 3 weight classes.

    Sanchez could have become the best though, but I don't think he should be ranked based on "what might have been?"

    At 130, I would go with Salvador Sanchez by a hair. I think he could have dealed with Chavez at 130 and his counterpunching, defense, and overall skillset would have seen him through to a close decision.
     
  6. Thread Stealer

    Thread Stealer Loyal Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2005
    Messages:
    42,079
    Likes Received:
    3,670
    Wilfredo Gomez.
     
  7. thewoo

    thewoo Boxing Junkie Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    7,769
    Likes Received:
    4
    I agree with 4Rounder. Sanchez gets a little too much credit for what could have been. Just look at Vargas. Suppose he had been killed in a car crash after his fight with Quartey. People would be hyping the **** out of him forever. Youngest 154 champion of all time, wins of Wright and Quartey, undefeated and on a collision course with Tito Trinidad for just his 20th pro fight.

    In the case of the 2 fighters being compared here, one lived on to be truly great. One died before reaching his full potential.
     
  8. Zakman

    Zakman ESB's Chinchecker Full Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2005
    Messages:
    32,080
    Likes Received:
    3,403
    Exactly. Sanchez was a great fighter, no doubt, but gets way overrated - it's kind of like the Jim Morrison or Jack Kennedy effect. Dying young often results in somebody getting overrated.
     
  9. psychopath

    psychopath D' "X" Factor Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    26,390
    Likes Received:
    2
    Both are great fighters IMO and both are part of my all time favorite but we can't compare the two and make a judgement because Chava died while on his peak and has never had a long career like JCC.

    But on the head to head issue I'll pick JCC over Chava at 130 or any other weight higher than 126. Take note that Chava is a NATURAL 126 pounder while JCC started his career at 130. And also take note that Chava went down ONCE against Juan Escobar while Chavez went undefeated until he reaches 140 and suffered his first KD and SD loss against Frankie Randal.
     
  10. marting

    marting Boxing Addict Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    3,616
    Likes Received:
    2,249
    In terms of overall accomplishment Chavez gets a slight nod.

    But, just going on what my eyes told me, Sanchez was the better fighter of the two. Chavez had a lot of walkover fights in his career. Too many to give much credence to the 100+ wins thing. I also think that Lopez, Gomez and Nelson were bigger wins at the 130 and under range than Chavez's in that weight range. Chavez's biggest wins were in the over 130 category but it's also where he had his biggest defeats.
     
  11. skunk

    skunk Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2006
    Messages:
    185
    Likes Received:
    0
    gettin up for fight afta fight is a good accomplishment! u cant take that away from nobody. stayin in shape for every fight! fighters nowadayz wont be able to do that! its a great feat on its own.
     
  12. tays001

    tays001 ESB ELITE SQUAD Full Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    15,124
    Likes Received:
    7
    uh bad comparrison SAL already had like 43 wins and beaten great fighters with with out any doubts.

    vargas hadn't beaten anybody except winky and ike and winky was close plus sanchez was complete and actually won against his trinadad
     
  13. stuistylee

    stuistylee j.c.chavez superstar Full Member

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    chavez fought a bum every other week because it was his style 2 stay sharp...old school ...i think certain type fighters can be brought along well like this...comparing sal 2 vargas is a bit of a stretch
     
  14. Illmatic

    Illmatic Boxing Addict Full Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2004
    Messages:
    6,062
    Likes Received:
    4
    Spot on.
     
  15. yalipito

    yalipito Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    201
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you take away Gomez (going up in weight) and Nelson (had about 15 fights at the time) who did Sanchez beat? I'll agree that the discipline and skills were there, but would of, should of, could of, does not prove the unknown. We know the JCC was the real deal, if not ask Camacho, Taylor and many others
    :?