I think lora or McGrain started a thread like this a wee while back about the Bantamweights. From Willie Pep to Eusebio Pedroza, from Salvador Sanchez to Vicente Saldivar. The Featherweights have a rich tradition of all types of styles, aswell as a collection of superb fighters. So who are your top 4 H2H Featherweights?
Well, Pep and Armstrong are certainly in that group. Saddler probably too, his strength, rough housing and size would trouble anybody. I really would like to throw in Sanchez or Hamed but neither is proven enough to confidently pick them against atgs.
1) Armstrong 2) Pep 3) Saddler These would be my three, if we're allowing them to fight under their own ruleset and that there. The fourth? For me there is no clear candidate. You could list any one of 6-8 fighters probably, and more than that if you are allowing domination over peers (how good a guy was in his own time) rather than than just head to head.
I agree. If you were IN McGovern's era and a featherweight it's very very unlikley you could have beaten him. I'd hold that as true for everyone but the three i've mentioned, and even they are struggling.
I feel absolutely certain that if Saddler was allowed to take the liberties with Sanchez that he took with Pep, Sanchez would get thrashed. In a different era the outcome might be different, but Saddler still brings horrible pressure, great physicality, strength, savy and punching. Put it this way, I would be up for placing money on Saddler to beat Sanchez under his own ruleset, I wouldn't be laying money on Sanchez in the reverse scenario, though I might favour him.
There were fighters as near too or as dirty as saddler in the 80s McGrain.Not many that were that, and AS good, but still. You will always find referee's willing to let you get away with murder, especially if you're a subtle fouler.
Nobody in the 80's took out a disagreeable referee my brother. Out of interest, who do you have in mind?
Pedroza stopped just short of hitting a referee. Pedroza-Laporte was the foulest thing I've ever seen, bar none. That was of course the pinnacle of his filth, but only one example.
"pinnacle of filth" sounds like a really bad student band. Still, Saddler gets to spend more time inside doing the things he loves in his own era, unquestionably. Point taken about this fight though, yeah Sal.
Saddler is a tougher one IMO, at his absolute best he is a nightmare of a style to figure out but he has weaknesses, and they are pretty glaring, it's just getting through him to get to them. Pep was able to do it once, the other times he fell by the way side due to the ugliness of Saddler's style. Could maybe someone like Danny Lopez beat Saddler? Lopez is such a hard hitter and would be dangerous throughout. I think Sanchez is proven enough, he beat a wide variety of styles and fighters in his short career. It is just the more boxing types that give me doubt about him. Hamed I think loses to every great Featherweight. I agree on that. Would you care to name some fighters? I think there is a few more obscure guys who could get a mention here. Definitely. McGovern has a chance at beating everyone IMO, he is an offensive machine, no matter what the rule set. If he gets you hurt or even hits you, you could be in serious trouble. Pedroza IMO is probably better than Saddler technically and just as dirty.
I'll toss out some names, you tell me why they wouldn't make it. I'll pick out five guys. Or maybe six if i think of six Tony Canzoneri Alexis Arguello Eusebio Pedroza Vincente Salvidar Kid Chocolate And if we're allowing era-era comparisons - that is, how far ahead a fighter was of his peers overall - George Dixon.