I don’t rate Pedroza quite on the tier of Saldivar and Sanchez….but I like it. I think Pedroza is on par with them, so I like it even though I don’t. Anything in particular in you placing him above them?
Dixon has a great case McGovern two losses to young Corbett where does Corbett rate? Please don’t bring up Gans a blatant fixed fight i just moved saldivar to number 4 well deserving
There are fine lines there, for sure, and I have a difficult time separating them. I certainly wouldn't argue with similar ratings with a few of the names being transposed. For mine, it is the body of work that makes the difference in rating Pedroza - forged primarily over a period of 8+ years, during which he went undefeated and defended his title 19 times. It is a strong indicator for him, which compared with Sanchez and Saldivar, leaves a clear gap in this respect. One could, of course, argue that both the latter two had the better wins: Lopez, Gomez and Nelson read well for Sanchez. Winstone, Legra and Shibata do the same for Saldivar. When weighing it all up, these better wins might have been the difference, had Pedroza been a total slouch in the opposition department - but he has some fairly solid wins himself; not on the same level as Sanchez and Saldivar, but combined with the longevity, make for a very noteworthy title reign.
Corbett didn't spend a ton of time at the weight. McGovern has the deeper overall resume. I think there is a case that McGovern was greater and Corbett just had his number.
I mean...no offence but who cares? It's the top ten all time list. There are loads of wins like this associated with that list. Pacquiao is 4-0-1 at this weight I think and the second best scalp of his career is Narongrit Pirang. Head to head, he's approximately as good as a pre-prime Juan Manuel Marquez, and clearly improved pretty dramatically post-featherwieght. The case for having him ahead of Sugar Ramos is non-existant IMO. Putting him in the top ten isn't really something that can be defended. Because if you're putting him there because he "dominated and knocked out prime MAB", where is Chico Rosa, who got by Sandy Saddler three months before he destroyed Willie Pep?
I'm not that up to speed on the feathers so just a couple of observational queries.Is there a case for putting Saddler above Pep on the basis of their results against each other? I have Pep at no1 just playing devils advocate here. I'm not convinced that Sanchez was better than Pedroza so I don't think there should be much daylight between them on any lists. It's very hard to evaluate the oldtimers even into the 20's and 30's .For example if anyone named Battling Battalino in his top 10,he would get some serious grief here, but around that weight he beat; Taylor Routis Labarba Graham Chocolate Brown Mastro Miller Is that resume any worse than several others confidently put forward here?
At Featherweight, I find LaBarba and Brown to be Red Herrings - but, sure, Battalino could be in the conversation. Although, I think he'd would be in my Top-20.
[url]1932-12-09[/url] 124 [url]Kid Chocolate[/url] 125½ 86 5 1 Madison Square Garden, New York L MD 15/15 [url]event[/url] [url]bout[/url] [url]wiki [/url][url]scores[/url] referee: [url]Willie Lewis[/url] [url]NYSAC World Feather Title[/url] World Junior Lightweight Title "In 15 rounds of boxing packed with scintillating ringwork, both defensive and offensive, and carrying the added thrill of a champion almost toppled off his throne, Chocolate emerged with the decision over little LaBarba.... The majority of the 14, 000 who witnessed the battle however disagreed." Two judges gave it to Chocolate while the referee made it a draw. The New York Times. (LaBarba severely injured an eye while training for this bout, resulting in its eventual removal.)
It’s different in the old timers when you’re fighting top 10 contenders every MONTH for years. Losses, burnout after bound to happen in modern times when you finally fight a few times per year with extended training programs tailor made for certain opponents, losses are more impactful MAB put on quite the dominant run at 126 himself to the point where he has a strong case for top 15 all time. So pacquiao literally dominating him holds a lot of weight pacquiao then (imo) beat JMM, another prime hall of Famer at 126 if not for the in incompetence of a judge who didn’t know he could score a round 10-6. And Marquez was lucky Joe Cortez didn’t stop the fight after 3rd knockdown no one would have blamed him 2 great performances vs hall of fame featherweights in their primes pacquiao displayed power handspeed and combination punching from all angles we had never seen before at that weight. Again from a head to head sense this must be taken into consideration. Did he improve after? Maybe a little bit to the cotto version, but he still was absolutely incredible and the hbo commentators were blown away with his ability
Beating Saddler is way better than beating Barrera. He has seven fights at the weight, going 6-1 did not make my top fifteen. I think there are dozens of better wins in the division - the idea that beating Barrera at featherweight makes you an ATG featherweight is crazy. JMM definitely wasn't in his prime. He lost to Pacquiao between defeats to John and Norwood. Pacquiao, like JMM, improved dramatically outside of his featherweight career. The much hyped, directly promoted "Manilla Ice" didn't materialise in the first Morales fight which Pacquiao lost so clearly a year after his razor-close fight with JMM, but it did appear in time for the third. It really surprises me to hear you say he improved "a little bit", i'd say he went from really good fighter to one of the best that's ever done it. A huge improvement.
Okay, may I presume to pose a question to all those posting on this thread? Which Feather weight has the best resume of names on his win column?