Salvador Sanchez KO2 Harry Greb

Alright just let me go down to my local library and I'll read some books to make sure I know what I'm doing before I try it. Just like I'm sure Roy Jones, Floyd Mayweather, James Toney and other modern greats did.

 

No need to "lead" me to the correct answer. I see what you're saying.

But technical reasons are not the main determinants here. Gatti simply wasn't that talented a fighter, and no amount of technical work would fix that. Greb, on the other hand, was amazingly talented.

To use an extreme example, when fighters get old their technique remains pretty much the same as in their prime, but they start losing because their physical and mental abilities are in decline. Like I said, technique is only one variable here.

 

Fair enough. And if you end up clobbering them all with ease (1890's with limited grappling rules, 1920's with essentially modern rules), I will be glad to concede your point. :good

 

Amazing. atsch

No amount of my technical anaylsis will fix your opinion. Have a nice day!

 

You too. I suppose my opinion will remain broken, then. :good

 

Add me to MSN though(I think I read that you speak to AMsterdam on there). I wouldn't mind discussing other boxing subjects with you. I sent you my address in an e-mail.

 

Shall we wait untill he wins 45 fights in a year before we say that he cannot be surpased in these regards?

Even the most brutal fights today are relatively tame afairs compared to those in Greb's era.

 

You seem to have picked the wrong battle ground here mate.

Why don't you go to the thread on Dempsey and Tunney where their critics such as your self have been directly challenged to provide specifics on how their style was primitive.

Then we will see how strong your case really is.

 

Tbooze's stance is incorrect in my thinking, as it pertains to Sanchez and "what might have been."


It's my opinion that we did indeed probably see the best Sanchez had to offer, and that to claim "I have to deduct points because I can't assume anything on potential" or some such rather overlooks some key points.


First, let's debunk the idea that because he was 23 when he died, he was cut short of his prime years........

Anyone following this game for enough time knows it isn't physical age that is the deal breaker, it's boxing years. Can we all agree on that? Good. Sanchez was already an eight year veteran when he passed, had over forty pro fights and nine title defenses, almost all of which were extended into the championship rounds (i.e., extended, taxing efforts). Had a thirty-year old fighter died or retired after compiling such a resume, would anyone balk at his stance historically?

Also, let's look at the physical considerations.........

Sanchez was a natural 126 pounder; at 23, he was fast, mobile, sharp and strong in the late rounds. What exactly would anyone say could improve with age here? Would anyone have the balls to say he'd "gain experience?" I sure hope not.

It's not like he was Alexis Arguello, in that he was emaciated-looking at 126, practically demanding a weight jump, nor did he have the equalizing power to get him out of tight spots at the higher weights; Sanchez was never terribly powerful at 126, and we all know fighters typically (well, almost never) gain power with a weight jump.

I guess I'll pose the question to those who think he died to soon to show us his best.......what was it you expected to see later on?

 

Greb would bury Sanchez.

Harry Greb beat Tunney to a pulp and was a natural middleweight.

This is an absurd thread.

 

This without a doubt one of the funniest threads I've ever read in my life.