So i was perusing the excellent thread of sweetsci's and thought it a good opportunity to toss around a couple of head scratchers from the guts of my era given there are a few different strokes for different folks on the topic. A couple mentioned who the "top guy" is, who was considered champ retrospectively, having a legit claim to being the man to beat and others say lineal. My two examples are perplexing and even more so the second one as while researching i discovered it seems to have *******ized lineage and is probably worth a thread in itself!!!!!!! Example 1 Salvador Sanchez/Eusebio Pedroza So here we have the WBC and WBA champions at a time when it wasn't overly easy to make unifications happen particularly if it was not a massive money spinner. The lineage was broken in 77 when Arguello moved up and Danny Lopez was granted lineal status in 79 as he had made a few defences of the WBC title and Pedroza had just won the tile or was about to. So we know Salvador Sanchez was considered lineal after he beat Lopez. Now Pedroza had defended his WBA title 7 times by the time Sanchez won the WBC version and continued to successfully defend it parallel to Sanchez's reign and for a few years after his death as well. Now Sanchez was more fashionable but when push came to shove a couple of mags favored Pedroza H2H as do quite a few in here. There's really nothing between them for most. So if you aren't a lineal is the be all and end all type of guy who was king? If we ignore lineage Pedroza had all those defenses prior to Sal getting the strap tho Sal did beat noted guys like Gomez and also Nelson but that was his last fight and Nelson was unknown at the time. So how do you separate them, or are you unable to? A very difficult scenario that one. Example 2 Chandler/Pintor What a doozy we have here. Lineage seems to have been completely thrown out the window via a technicality. So what we have here is Alfonso Zamora winning lineage from Hong in 1975. We have Ring magazine accepting Zamora as their "Champion" after he beat Hong. Zarate in the meantime wins the WBC title in 76 and pops out a few defenses. He then belts out Zamora, the other title holder, in a 10 rounder as neither the WBC or WBA wanted to sanction the fight. Now the fascinating part is that a transfer of lineage did not happen. Now obviously there must be some sort of technical aspect here obviously involving the title but it staggers me. So Zamora actual loses lineage to Jorge Lujan next fight who in turn loses to Solis who then loses to Jeff Chandler in 1980 to make Chandler the lineal champion. In the meantime in mid 79 Pintor has beaten Zarate for his WBC title but isn't lineal because the transfer didn't happen when Zarate beat Zamora! The Ring recognizes Chandler. They basically cut a swathe through the division parallel to each other just like Sanchez/Pedroza for a few years. Just like Sanchez and Pedroza they both have their supporters and are virtually indistinguishable from each other. How the heck can you single one of these guys out?
I don't know that you can. I certainly don't have to historical knowledge to do so. At heavyweight I can argue for the "real champion" lineal-style through Lewis and maybe W. Klitschko. In those two cases, when I was a kid I just looked at Pedroza and Sanchez as co-champions. I favored Zarate over Zamora's line, but that was because of Zarate's win over Zamora, the fact that Zarate was on TV more so I was more familiar with him, and my general lack of knowledge. (I'd like to thank auto-correct for not changing "Zarate" into "Karate" this time.)
I think by virtue of beating Zarate, Pintor has to be installed as number one over Chandler. Sure, the lineage was a mess around that time, but Pintor also beat Lujan which is often forgotten. I think, in hindsight, we can safely say Pintor was better; and I probably would've said similar at the time, too. Chandler's win over Canizales looks better in hindsight and his rematch wins over Murata look better since Pintor never avenged his draw. Pintor also has the win over Davila, and overall was just a more impressive fighter, I reckon. Sal vs Pedroza is a much harder comparison. Can really see that one going either way.
I would favor Pintor over Chandler for sure, though it's no easy fight. Canizakes gave Chandler more problems than the scorecards reflected, and Pintor was more polished, industrious and more experienced, than the Texan. Pintor should pull away in the last third of the fight and take the close nod. Sanchez -Pedroza is tougher. Each has a style that would be problematic for the other. Everyone always says "Sanchez has never faced this kind of opponent, so Pedroza could win," but Pedroza never had to face someone like Sanchez either. They forget that it works both ways.
Pedroza/Sanchez is a tough one as far as whose title had the most credence behind it. This is what I remember. In '74, Eder Jofre refused to go to Venezuela to defend his WBC title against Alfredo Marcano (he just didn't want to leave Brazil) and the WBC stripped him and Bobby Chacon won the vacant title against Marcano in L.A. (they must have won the purse bids). Chacon lost his title in his 2nd defense to Ruben Olivares, who partied his way to a loss to David Kotey, who lost to Danny Lopez in his 3rd defense, who lost to Salvador Sanchez in his 9th defense. Meanwhile, Alexis Arguello vacates his WBA title to move up to 130 and 2 non-descript fighters named Rafael Ortega and Francisco Coronado fight for the vacant title, won by Ortega, who loses it in his second defense to the equally non-descript Cecilio Lastra. Now, the WBA had a very good rule in place that I really liked that called for the winner of a title to defend his title against the WBA's #1 contender if he was not the #1 when he won the title. I thought that was great if enacted correctly. Well, this is the WBA we're talking about. And they named Eusebio Pedroza as their #1 contender. Now before you think, "So?" One has to look at what was going on at the time. Pedroza had been knocked out in a bid for the bantamweight title, then he moved up to featherweight and was promptly knocked out again by Oscar Arnal. He then beats a kid just starting out and then beats two OK fighters named Reynaldo Hidalgo and Rodolfo Francis. Now Ring mag quite rightly didn't even rate Pedroza in their top 10. I would allow the WBA - knowing their sleeping arrangements with fighters from Panama, Venezuela, South Africa and South Korea - to probably rank him in their top 10, but never as #1 contender. Regardless, Pedroza wins the title from the hapless Lastra and goes on to make 20 defenses. I feel Sanchez' defenses were outstanding against Lopez, Castillo, Ford, Gomez, Cowdell, Laporte, Nelson. Pedroza too, fought some good ones in Lockridge (twice), McGuigan, Taylor, LaPorte and Ford. But there was also a lot of WBA slag he also defended against. Push comes to shove I feel Sanchez had the better claim to the title. But having said that, I also feel Pedroza might nick the decision if they ever fought. And that is down to the problems Sanchez had with boxers such as Ford, Castillo and Cowdell. Still, that's my take on it for what it's worth.
Love the topic. I really can’t say how I could choose either over the other in these instances, and I was around and super into boxing already so that’s how I felt at the time. I loved Sanchez but had a sneaking suspicion that Pedroza might be the better of the two.
I stayed neutral on both examples as well. I don't think one really overrode the other in either case. I still feel the same. I consider both bouts basically a tossup to be honest. Pintor's excellent performance against Gomez could see him mildly favored H2H but who is to say not making Bantam didn't free him up a touch. Top performance at any rate.
Just on this point Pintor beat Lujan at Junior Feather after he had already vacated his Bantamweight title never to return to the division so the victory obviously doesn't count in the true champ mess.
A champion need not be the best fighter in the division during his reign, though. Floyd Patterson certainly wasn't. Late period Sullivan wasn't, either. So if you have a clear line of succession and Ring recognition, that might be your answer to the first example. Sonny Liston's backers couldn't have simply founded a parallel belt for Sonny Liston and declared him champion, even though he was better than Floyd.
Good one. That would be the missing technical aspect. Fascinating - the two governing bodies don't sanction the fight so the boys come in 1 pound and 1 3/4 pounds over.
