Arguello vs Saddler

We’re on the same page here. More or less it took a Willie Pep performance of the ages to beat Sandy at 126 (the one time out of four Pep didn’t lose inside the distance) and Saddler was fairly close ot unbeatable at featherweight otherwise in his prime. (Nobody is unbeatable, but he’s at the very least a nightmare matchup for anyone at feather.)

At 130, Saddler was good but not nearly as good. And Arguello hadn’t matured at 126 imo — formidable but nowhere near ATG level (which Saddler clearly is at feather). At 130, I think we get the best AA … power, stamina, chin, smooth boxing ability — total package.

I see Alexis by decision at 130 over 15 very hard-fought rounds and Sandy walking away with a competitive but clear verdict over the distance at 126.

 

I'd lean Arguello, he was slow as molasses but very accurate and powerful. But it's probably a 50-50 fight.

 

Saddler @126
Arguello @130

 

Hi Buddy.
Interesting your take on Arguello, I see a methodical, patience, cerebral technician, a fighter that takes stock of his opponent, that probs for a weakness, whilst gradually formulating a strategy to put himself in a position to eventually render the other fighter either KO,d or beaten into submission, to my eyes that is very rewarding, I like that type of approach and fighter.
stay safe SS, chat soon.
Mike.

 

Mike I can't think of a fighter I like more at the present than Arguello. I believe I may have watched him on TV more than any other champion from the end of the 70's going into the mid 80s. A real pro who understood it was a sport. Its the norm these days to make it personal and act foolish. Not a fan of that. Never was. Such a great technician measured fighter. Great form and positioning. I could keep going lol

 

Agreed, he' one of my all time favs. Very accurate and hard puncher.

 

Hi Robert.
Thanks for your neatly wordered reply, and in full agreement, as you would expect in your assessment of fighter who, in my eyes doesn't get the accolades and standing his career warrants, if you were asked by a novice boxer who to watch and learn from, along with Napoles, he would be the fighter you would put up, as you say, no unnecessary flash/ trash talk, nothing but respect for his opponents, to wit ,he would help the beaten foe to his feet on occasions, no faux hatred, no profanities, fighters like Alexis come along once in a lifetime, he was, and will remain one of my all time favourites, in fact he should be everyone's favourite, I was glad to to share his journey, and he rewarded me with unforgettable fights, and a manner which is rarely see these days, I find most of the pre fight shaningins, boring, child like, and at worst disgusting, todays whole boxing scene has little or no interest to me sadly, and just to compound the issue, we will soon have the foul mouthed, boorish, dire tribe of the " Furys " beam me up scotty.
As an aside, would like to compliment you on your deportment, you have posted some fine articles over my time here, all done with grace, politeness, and an awareness of boxing that is to be envied, bravo.
stay safe buddy, chat soon.
Mike.

 

Arguello would be one of the very few boxers in history from featherweight to lightweight
Saddler would be at a height and reach disadvantage against.
Saddler wasn't exceptionally quick of hand and foot either.

Saddler was a great puncher, with a rugged, physical boxing
style, he had no problem with bending the rules to get a win.
Personally I like Arguello at either weight.
In a match that probably could be fought in a phone booth,
I like Arguello's over all better boxing ability, and physical
advantages to eventually wear down Saddler, his power
at those weight limits that would keep Saddler honest,
to win a UD In a 12 or 15 rd fight.
For the 1st 10 rds though, the fight would be a barn
burner.....

 

Thanku my pal. Much appreciated and I can definitely say the same about you. Always a pleasure!