henry armstrong vs salvidor sanchez

Armstrong was a whole above Sanchez, to start of with, he had a full career, we can only measure Sanchez (at this level) on potential...

I just did not see enough from Sanchez to think he could beat Armstrong.

Hank WU15

 

Armstrong at his 126 best was no 13 fight novice unlike the Nelson who fought and gave Sanchez one big scare.

I think people are too bias towards Sanchez's career because of his tragic and early death...

 

:huh

I do not rate Greb as high as you, because he died young and did not have a full career. I do not think you can use potential to rate an all time great thus Greb and Sanchez are punished because of that.

 

Greb did not have a full career, he must have a bias against him for that. Thus he is my all-time #18.

I rate people on accomplishments not dying young. His death was tragic but 80 years or so after the event it goes against him as all his peers on my list had a full career, it is unfair on them to not bias him IMO.

 

Sometimes, as fans, we tend to overrate a young a fighter only to be knocked back at the realization he has a poor chin, or a lack of heart, or subpar stamina. Some will say that this is the reason we shouldn't hype Sanchez up and blow him out of proportion, but I disagree - we saw in his brief career that he could carry on and adapt in the face of adversity, could take a hellish punch and could fight hard until the final bell. And unlike many young prospects, Sanchez showed this against top class opposition and accomplished a fair bit before his premature death.

To say Armstrong would win by a significant margin would do Sanchez no justice, just as it would do Armstrong no justice if the sentence were reversed. It's almost a fact: the fight would be close. Very close, most likely, and punishing, one in which both fighters would never forget.

 

No he died in 1926 aged 32, he was robbed of a finale to his career that often helps clarify a fighters greatness. Greb was Great but his early death meant he was not truly defind as a fighter, thus he cannot be fairly rated against his peers, and because of this he is a little lower in my all time ratings than many others have him.

 

Absolutely crazy, and just because he died early. I'd say three hundred fights is quite a full career.

 

Greb may have died young, but by the time he died, the guy have near 300 fights. You would think that was a full career. Greb was pretty much done when he died though. He was already going blind in one eye by that time, and 32 was OLD for a swarmer of that style. He was also slowing done as the Flowers fight reports show.

 

Greb did not have a full career? Wow.

 

:good :good

 

I pick Henry Armstrong.

Harry Greb had a full career. Compared to most records he had two or three full careers.

 

Armstrong beats Sanchez by majority decision.Very close.

 

Wouldn't more rounds favour Sanchez?

Like a 20 round titlefight?
He was a very slow starter and had immense stamina.

Some fighters might be better to watch over more than 15 rounds.


But Armstrong fought mostly 10 rounders as a feather...

He only fought 5 12+ rounders as a lw or fw.
Until he became a welter you could say he was unproven if he could go 15 rounds as he had never done that... he did prove himself at welter though

But at low weights some fighters tend to have less stamina as they had to drain themselves down a bit.
His best weight was 135 lbs, he'd have to drain down 9 lbs which would hurt his stamina a bit (relatively to lw).

I think it's kind of fair to say Sanchez got a nice edge in stamina if we consider 15 rounds. (Simply more proven)


(It's like Lennox Lewis going to 200 lbs to face Marco Huck, Huck would murder Lewis. This example is a bit extreme but you can get the point.)

 

Sanchez would beat Armstrong with speed, range and angles.