As much as I love Gomez, I don't think that he would have fared particularly well with Pedroza. Unlike the job Sanchez did on him, Pedroza would have won ugly,. in a gruelling, painful encounter with every known foul committed by both men. Gomez became human as soon as he entered the featherweight class, and would have had an uphill climb all the way...being dominated by the stronger, longer armed fighter with greater stamina for this kind of physically demanding, bruising war of attrition. The result would have either been a pretty onesided, convincing decision or a late round tko with as badly busted up, exhausted Gomez being saved by the referee in the 13th or 14th round. Also by attrition, Pedroza pretty much established himself as the heir apparent to Sanchez and the boss of the feathers...but I hesitate to say how well he would have done with Azumah.
One of the finest featherweights who ever lived. Good offensive and defensive skills plus speed and a solid chin. And who took a prime Barry McGuigan the distance long after his best fighting years were behind him.
His post wasn't even about Sanchez. He was one of several names mentioned that Pedroza supposedly avoided. Your eagerness to jump on one of those names, and then argue a point which wasn't up for debate, suggests you were spoiling for this particular fight, clearly because Sanchez revisionism annoys you. But arguing a point which wasn't even in question doesn't make you sound clued up, even if you are, it makes you sound like one of the dullards in the general board arguing over Mayweather and Pacquiao. His post was about Pedroza, why make it all about Sanchez? Defend Pedroza's record, then you've made a successful point.
I said I rated Pedroza highly enough to give him a 50/50 chance against Sanchez the obvious inference there ,[to any but a reta*d ,]is that I rate both Pedroza & Sanchez highly which I do. Here are your two contributions to this thread. "Complete straw man argument. He didn't say anything about their willingness to fight on enemy territory" "His post wasn't even about Sanchez. He was one of several names mentioned that Pedroza supposedly avoided. Your eagerness to jump on one of those names, and then argue a point which wasn't up for debate, suggests you were spoiling for this particular fight, clearly because Sanchez revisionism annoys you. But arguing a point which wasn't even in question doesn't make you sound clued up, even if you are, it makes you sound like one of the dullards in the general board arguing over Mayweather and Pacquiao. His post was about Pedroza, why make it all about Sanchez? Defend Pedroza's record, then you've made a successful point. " You haven't addressed anything or contributed anything, just another pri*k looking for a row. You have attacked my post twice now , if anyone is spoiling for a fight here it is you , well nothing doing, go have your argument with someone who gives a good f*ck about your opinion..
I just enjoy the fact that a thread about something other than fvcking heavyweights is gathering some attention. :good
I agree. It's also got me watching some Pedroza fights(watched the Zamora loss and LaPorte win yesterday)to try to make an informed evaluation.
Just watched the Olivares defence, excellent use of the uppercut against the shorter Mexican and with both hands!
Rocky had a fight 2 years ago,here it is. The result was pretty conclusive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNMJN7n6I_g
Still good enough to defeat one of Frankie's favored fighters, Jose Luis Ramirez, as well as Fukiyama going into that fight. So he may have been way past his best, but I don't think he was completely done by that point.
Holy ****. That was an excellent 1, 2 combo. Are we sure that was Lockridge though. I thought he was using a cane and had a mild stroke a few years ago. If it was him, I don't blame him as the guy had it coming.