But thats just the thing. Even if Sanchez didnt get you with one punch, he would get you through attrition. Azumah Nelson was arguebably a better featherweight than Pedroza. Compared to swifty Azumah, Pedroza would be like a sitting punching bag. Sanchez was a great all around attrition puncher....and when he poured on the pressure in the late rounds most did not survive. Pedroza never faced a man who poured on pressure but had punching skills and accuracy like Sanchez. Lockridge poured on the pressure and gave Pedroza a near even fight, but lockridge lacked the all around punching skills and accuracy Sanchez had to get the job done. Pedroza could be knocked out, and would be Sanchez. Sanchez was the sharper faster more powerful hitting machine than Pedroza...and Sanchez would not be dettered by any of pedroza's cheap shots.....Sanchez is going to use angles, he is going to beat pedroza to the punch, he is going to outspeed and outclass pedroza, pedroza is going to be broken down late. Pedroza did not prove himself capable against a prime all time great fighter IMO.
For one thing, Nelson wasn't nearly as polished when he fought Sanchez as he became in later years. And while he showed a lot of heart, he didn't have nearly the options at his disposal at that point in his career than Pedroza had in his prime. If you want to use Lockridge, then I get to use Patrick Ford and Pat Cowdell in return. They were two slick, awkward fighters who fought Sanchez pretty much to a standstill , and neither of them had the skill-set, or the versatilty that Pedroza had at his best. Pedroza would have been working the angles non-stop both on the inside and outside. His timing and accuracy was pretty impressive unto itself, and again, he's not getting broken down at any point in this fight. Neither is Sancheez. This has distance fight written all over it, and I think Pedroza wins it if they fight at or near their respective primes
I really don't think you've seen much of Pedroza. What limitations on the inside would Sanchez be exposing, if you wouldn't mind sharing?
You're probably right. Sanchez was always at his best against taller fighters with longer reach and a negating style. Just ask Pat Ford and Pat Cowdell. Now those are some all timers.
Ted Spoon would put Driscoll at the top - his talent and performances were unique to him. Dundee and Attell are very difficult to split, both harbouring long and successful careers. Dundee fought much of his career at the super featherweight poundage and mixed with many lightweights, so he somewhat wavers from the strictly great 122/6 pounders.
Listen. In my opinion Pedroza was a very good fighter. Good Boxing skills, Very elegent left jab, Good inside work for a tall fighter, and a Dirty fighter. But I dont think he compares to an all around ATG fighter like Salvador Sanchez. Pedroza never fought an ATG puncher with terrific skills like Sanchez. Whenever Pedroza did STEP UP IN COMPETITION during his career...he did not bode to well. Alfonzo Zamora knocked him out(I mean his chin literally failed him BIG TIME against perez and arnel which makes me question him vs punchers)...Even when he stepped up to face real featherweight contenders he struggled tremendously...Lockridge took him to the brink of death twice, laporte nearly beat him, he couldn't beat Bernard friggin Taylor, and though he was past his prime he lost badly to barry Mcguien. These were the best fighters he faced and he struggled tremendously in all of these fights....Pedroza simply never had that dominating win over a good fighter like sanchez did and never beat a great fighter like sanchez did. I personally think Azumah Nelson was a better featherweight than pedroza. Azumah was young when he fought Sanchez, but I happen to think like witherspoon against holmes, Azumah made a near peak performance in that sanchez fight combining all of his youthful prime tools with a solid brain. Pedroza is going to be iced when he faces an ATG puncher with ATG skills like Sanchez. Pedroza got dominated early on by Lockridge, and rocked badly in the 5th round. Laporte also dominated the early rounds and twice badly staggered pedroza. Pedroza was like a sitting duck early for those right leads and hooks. Pedroza could be hurt badly. sanchez will take an early lead on pedroza and when pedroza tries to make a late comeback he will be met by an ATG force. Sanchez is going to turn the heat on late, and trash him. Pedroza's antics may work against 2nd teir fighters, but against a fighter calbre of sanchez it wont work. Sanchez wicked combinations and precision shots are going to pick pedroza apart. Sanchez wont be befuddled by pedrozas dirty antics either which he blantatly used in the laporte fight. Sanchez is just going to outclass pedroza. It seems to me some of you guys take "styles" way to seriousely. sometimes you have to look at it as simple as "This fight is in another class than this fighter, and styles do not matter. he is simply going to overwhelm him because he is the much better all around fighter, and much more proven fighter against great opposition."
I think a interesting fight would have been had Pedroza tried to unify his title vs Danny Lopez. heres a fight where lopez has a strong chance to take pedroza out early IMO
Patrick Ford was a tall guy ,around 5 10in, but Cowdell was the same size as Sanchez 5 7in, plus he fought in a semi crouch
This post proves that you are simply content to base your opinions on his worst performances while not taking into account Sanchez's worst performaces, either. A talented, but still green Nelson who was in the embroyonic stages of his career gave Sanchez a lot of trouble, and a just-as-green LaPorte had his moments, too. And that's not taking into consideration the close calls that he had against Ford and Cowdell. So it's not like Chava dominated every single challenger he ever faced. He was a technician and an excellent one, but not a wrecking ball. In this match-up, he's faced with a different, but in many ways equally effective technician in Pedroza who by virtue of not only style, but also intelligence and abilty is going to give him fits inside the ring. Yes, Lockridge gave Pedroza fits and made it close. Didn't beat him. The same holds true for LaPorte. But there were an awful lot of very good contenders who simply got schooled by a fighter who certainly wasn't far off Sanchez in terms of the quality that he displayed inside the ring as a featherweight. Again, we're dealing with featherweights here. Zamora was a quality, hard-hitting bantamweight, but Pedroza certainly wasn't at or near his prime and certainly wasn't the fighter he was to become when he moved up and became champion. If you want proof of that, then check out the way he outboxes and outpunches challengers like Sa-Wang Kim, Patrick Ford, et al. There are some good featherweights on Pedroza's ledger, and the Panamanian didn't struggle against all of them. It's not so simple as saying Sanchez is in a different class, Q. And, it's kind of disappointing to me that you'd adopt such a simplistic view to a fascinating match-up.
It was the jab that really bothered Sanchez.At times you would be lucky if he could slip 2 or 3 out of every ten thrown by those guys. Anyway, what i want to know if since when did Sanchez become an all-time great puncher?.IF anything his KO percentage flatters him.
Wow never seen so many Pedroza fans in my life. On other forums like Cyberboxing, boxingsscene, Boxrec....Sanchez is considered the overwhelming better man than pedroza. Then again, we got people here saying Luis Rodriguez was the better welterweight than Emile Griffith. Perhaps people need to take a look at Rodriguez getting picked apart by Curtis Cokes and knocked out for the Vacant title, to realize rodriguez was defintley not the better welter than Griffith. I scored the rodriguez-Griffith series 2-2, and besides griffith was much more dominating and beat better opposition than rodriguez on the whole.
When the **** was Griffith "dominating" against top opposition? He's pretty much the poster child for squeaking out decisions.