Great Juan Laporte interview ... Sanchez best by FAR !!!

I agree with you he's not top 3 Featherweight of all time, even fellow Mexican Saldivar i would rate higher than Sanchez at Featherweight, you have no argument from me there. But Sanchez still beat quality opposition, although we would of found out more had he fought Pedroza, Arguello.

As for Castanon whether or not what you thought of him ability wise, he was actually ranked number 3 Featherweight only below Castillo, Pedroza, i believe.

And as for Ayala well you aswell as i know Lopez was always a fighter, that hit and got hit alot that was ultimately what made him so fun to watch. He hit luck a truck but could also be a bit vulnerable, i don't really see any evidence of him slowing down prior to Sanchez fight. He was always a fighter getting involved in wars and sometimes struggling early getting dropped.

If i remember rightly Lopez actually had a really good go vs Sanchez in the rematch, it's just style wise it's bad match up for Lopez with Sanchez being a great counter puncher. Remember even Bobby Chacon outboxed Lopez earlier in his career also, Sanchez excelled at fighters who come towards him, but had issue vs fighters like Castillo, Ford, where he had to chase. Kind of Juan Manuel Marquez is better when he's the counter puncher rather than leading.

 

I rate sanchez incredibly high, mayber higher than most. He was almost the perfect fighter

 

He had a great resume- he fought everybody that was there to fight. But I don't think that "Young Foreman" was a great fighter and the evidence suggests that his people didn't either. He was strong, could punch, but a great fighter? By no means was Kenny Norton a great fighter. Joe Frazier was a tough guy, determined...
When you talk about Sanchez- you are a boxing guy and have been around for a long time. Look at Lopez going into the Sanchez fight. You know as well as I do how matches are made and he was being matched carefully because he was a money maker on his last legs. Look at Gomez, how he was moving at the very first bell of the Sanchez fight. You will see it. He was a guy that had drained himself so often that he had close to nothing beyond courage and a will to fight. Now, Sanchez fought these guys and beat them.
But this goes back to what I have been saying about how the whole "prime" discussion misses the point. Gomez, going into the Sanchez fight, was undefeated, knocked everybody out. But his fights leading up to that, his legs didn't look good, and he had dead legs against Sanchez. But he was "prime"? He won fights after that but he had no legs or his legs went as soon as he got hit. Was he still "prime" or was the level of his opposition not really all that? Was he fighting on nothing but heart?
God bless Salvador Sanchez, he was a guy that came from nothing but had a dream and worked his ass off to make it come true. I have nothing but respect for him- maybe a little hate because he beat my idol twice. He worked hard and did the best he could. One of the best ever? I won't cosign that because I just don't see it.

 

I dont think Sanchez is overrated. He seemed to be a complete fighter. He had some trouble with movers but his stamina was such that he caught up with them in the championship (13-15) rounds. He was basically in his absolute prime when he died. It would have been cool to see how his career could have played out. He had a very good chance of being a champion at 130 and 135.

Whether or not Danny Lopez was slightly passed it I highly doubt he could ever beat the countetpunching Sanchez seeing that his defense was poor and he cut easily.

 

I don’t think Lopez was at his peak but he was far from shot. There are probably a lot of contenders who, had they challenged him the day Sanchez did, would have ended up flat on their backs (knowing Danny they probably would have put him down early, too, but he had a pattern — he was never a defensive genius but his power was real and nothing up to the Sanchez fight said ‘this is it’).

Gomez, I didn’t see any of the ‘guy on his last legs looking like Bambi’ you see before the Sanchez fight. Or after, really — he continued a nice run at 122 and won a title at 126 after that — so, no, Sal wasn’t a vulture picking over the carcass of a dead or dying fighter.

Those are both high-quality wins. Nelson was an unknown but he was clearly a quality fighter, as he showed against Sanchez and in what he did after that fight.

If you want to question Sanchez’s greatness, to me I’d start with his struggles with boxers like Ford and Cowdell and his adaptability. Not on trying to tear down what most see as really top-notch wins. I respect your opinion but don’t agree on your observations.

One can make a good argument that Sanchez was kind of a James Dean — die young and leave a good-looking corpse. We didn’t see if Sanchez could maintain it, whether there was more ahead, whether he might have been a success at 130 and even 135. We saw a shooting star that faded out before it went across the sky.

But what we do see in that shooting star stands up IMO. I don’t know if he’s third all-time at featherweight (I’ve got Sandy Saddler at 1 and Pep at 2 and Armstrong at 3, but it’s debatable after that as those three are far and above the next tier as I see it) but what the film bears out is that he was consistently good against the top guys of his day, his chin holds up, he showed power when he wanted or needed to and his style is splendid. Lot of featherweights over history are going to be flummoxed by his height, range and boxing ability … and if they manage to engage him in a shootout they might find he was up to that challenge too.

 

I don't think that Lopez would ever beat Sanchez. Lopez was my absolute idol and I wanted to be just like him until I started boxing and got educated real quick.
Everybody has trouble with guys that know how to move.
Sanchez may well have proved himself to be one of the greats had he lived but rating him on potential isn't fair. As it stands, in my opinion, he did not establish himself as one of the best ever. I do not think that he would fare well against eighter Chavez or Arguello at 130. I would love to see him fight Chacon or Boza-Edwards at 130- they would make him fight and his performance would go a long way to defining his ability.

 

Top level post.
I like your James Dean comparison. Like anybody else he fought who was there.
I wasn't there at the time but, knowing what I know now, I would guess that it was pretty common knowledge that Gomez struggled with weight. In my study of him, some years back, I saw the signs in his legs. If you are Sanchez and the biggest money fight is Gomez, you take the fight, and especially if you have seen the signs. I don't mean to imply that they deliberately were picking at a corpse, but that is boxing and you know it. It is a money game and everybody willingly signed up for the best payday available.
The Ford, Cowdell and Nelson fights are better in retrospect than they were at the time. But that is part of the whole "exposed" nonsense. In reality those fights were part of the learning process for a young guy that had very few fights. If you look at it, none of those fights should make him "ATG" because they were only preparation for the important fights, like Boza, Chacon, Arguello and Chavez.

 

I will say this, many like Eusebio Pedroza, but the guy he beat for the WBA title Cecilio Lastra was by no means in the caliber of Danny Little Red Lopez, as many of his challengers with the exception of Juan La Porte, Patrick Ford, who challenged Salvador Sanchez for his more acclaimed WBC title. Pedroza was a more foul oriented fighter whereas Sanchez was a cool clam collected fighter who did not need to use foul tactics when the going got tough, mark of a great champion. Dirty fighting in my book constitutes a lack of ability, poor ring generalship. My take on Sanchez is a positive one, he lost one pro fight on points, Pedroza was kayoed by Alfonso Zamora in two rounds. As great as Alexis Arguello was, his biggest weakness was a fighter who had movement, as was evidenced in his non title loss to contender Vilomar Fernandez who was kayoed by WBA Lightweight Champion Roberto Duran in 13 rounds on Jan 29 1977. Salvador Sanchez had movement and was a good counterpuncher with an iron chin. Ramon Castillo in my opinion is just sour grapes. I saw the Arguello vs Castillo title bout live in my hometown on Jan 20 1980, Castillo was doing well with movement but got caught on the ropes in round 11 and was stopped by Alexis. But to each their own, I am just giving my opinion, not here to change anyone's mind or debate anyone like one of these crooked politicians you see on those corny television commercials.

 

You sound kind of bitter about Sanchez for some reason.

 

Gomez was 24yo when he fought Sanchez. He drew a 6 rounder in his pro debut and then stopped 32 guys in a row. He'd gone past 5 rounds about 8 times. during most of this he hadn't been serenaded by his great power and was boxing rings around guys and not taking much punishment. He'd barely had any difficult fights. He was well and truly still "prime" when he fought Sanchez.

I will grant you he had been having trouble making weight at 122 for a while. Very similar to Duran's troubles for quite some time at 135. Both were still carving the division up.

I will also grant you Gomez had great difficulty making weight against Sanchez despite moving up a division. Complacency due to moving up from memory. This is of course on Gomez and he did mount an extremely impressive effort trying to get back into the fight after his early drama's.

But again he was prime for Sanchez. He actually beat the living heck out of Zarate who claimed he was sick. I'm partial to the odd excuse and he did look odd that night. It's also very likely Gomez struggled that night against Sanchez but still........

Gomez still had multiple fights at 122 post Sanchez and was extremely impressive in beating the underrated Juan Meza. Lopez was also a reasonably tough hombre.

I'd agree in that Sal has become a mite overrated, maybe, but not to the degree you portray. Having said that we have indeed batted around opinions for many many years and it's always enjoyable.

 

With all respect to u and Salvador..who won in the Pat Cowdell fight?

 

Salvador Sanchez did, the knockdown was the difference but it was a close fight. This fight was right after Sanchez's destruction of previously unbeaten knockout artist Wilfredo Bazooka Gomez, TKO 8 on August 21 1981. The title defense against Cowdell was on Dec 12 1981, it was televised live on HBO. Cowdell is no slouch, Sanchez fought way better competition than his WBA counterpart Eusebio Pedroza, some of Pedroza's challengers, I never heard of them, he could have elected to fight stiffer competition, there was no lack of any at that time. But with all due respect to you as well Salvador retained, the decision was just, in my opinion.