My top 10 featherweights of all time

Does Marcel has too short a resume to be considered amongst the best. H2H I'd rate him very high if nothing else.

 

My top 5 (finding it hard to arrange my second tier) would be

1. Pep
2. Saldivar
3. Henry Armstrong
4. Sanchez
5. Saddler

Armstrong gets extra kudos for battering WW's whilst probably weighing in a FW :good

 

Well, Dawson's a good writer ,Ive seen about 8rds of the fight,take your pick!
Battalino was controlled by some unsavoury people and had a couple of "curious encounters" ,one of them with Freddie Miller.

 

I wouldn't say so. Though he beat a plethora of top fighters, he also lost to a lot of the same men, and then some. His inconsistency in comparison to guys like Attell and Miller are what kept him off my list, though I wouldn't argue with anyone putting him in the top 10. Not over Attell or Driscoll, though.

 

It all depends on your criteria. I've decided to do mine mainly based on accomplishments. Not my usual stance, but when dealing with so many fighters lacking in footage there's really no other way to go, IMO.

Based on ability, Marcel would be one of the toughest to consistently beat.

 

Dundee did manage to give Leonard an L or two, but as said previously, he took more than his share in return. Their record against each other is 4-2-2 in favor of Leonard. Still impressive, though. Again, I wouldn't object to anyone placing him in their 10. My list was off the top of the head.

As for my top Featherweights head to head, in no order:

Henry Armstrong
Sandy Saddler
Willie Pep
Salvador Sanchez
Eusebio Pedroza
Vicente Saldivar
Alexis Arguello
Ernesto Marcel

It was pointless trying to split up the last 4, so I went ahead and jotted down 8 fighters total.

 

I would put Driscoll in Saldivar's place ,and I will tell you why.
When Saldivar came to the UK to fight Winstone I watched their series.
Winstone had him beat for skill but hadn't the firepower to keep him off .
He had the tips of three fingers missing ,due to an industrial accident ,and allways lacked a damaging punch.
Saldivar kept coming in,either taking the jab, or, on occasion slipping it,once inside, he was the master.
Driscoll had a jab at least as good as Winstone's probably harder ,and better,but he had the one thing Winstone lacked ,a big punch ,Driscoll had knock down/out ,power in his right,I think he would have landed enough heavy stuff to make the little stubby Mexican wary of charging in with impunity,I don't say he would stop Saldivar ,but he would make him think twice about attacking imo.Peerless Jim beats Saldivar imo.
Add the monster win over a prime Attell , he deserves the ranking I think.

 

I don't think that highly of Pacquiao at Featherweight. Despite the fact that he's typically considered natural there, he has become a much better fighter over the past few years than he ever was at the lower weights. Take him with the ability he has now in his FW body and we've got a different story, but alas, that's not the way it is, regardless of what logic the *******s use.

I'd have picked Pedroza to beat Sanchez, actually. But that's for another day. Off for now.

 

You want to debate this?

Be my guest. Salsanchezfan and I had a ton of fun discussing this topic. And, the best known Chava fan on the site to this day has admittied that Pedroza gives Sanchez a LOT of trouble if they fight.

Yes, Sanchez beat Lopez and Gomez. But Pedroza defeated some awfully good fighters...fighters like Lockridge twice (I gave him the decision in both fights), Lujuan, a better version of Laporte than the one Sanchez fought, a faded but still kinda dangerous Olivares (who had just handed Ramirez his first loss), Patrick Ford, Royal Kobayashi, Hector Carrasquilla, Jose Caba, et al. So, it's flat out wrong of you to say that the only decent fighter Pedroza faced was Zamora. Simple as that.

And, as for the match-up, Sanchez was generally more comfortable playing the role of counter-puncher and liked to acclerate his attack in the later rounds. In this matchm he's faced with a fighter who-you guessed it- liked to counter-punch and tended to come on in the later rounds. When faced with a fighter who could hold his own on with him on the outside (not quite as fast, but generally more elusive), and was quite possibly his superior on the inside, he's going to have trouble...

And, in my opinion, he's going to suffer a defeat.