If a fighter had his career today how would he be remembered?
Would we be able to put our hyper-critical nature aside and just judge on the skills?
Printable View
If a fighter had his career today how would he be remembered?
Would we be able to put our hyper-critical nature aside and just judge on the skills?
I’ve watched multiple of his fights and know somewhat about him, but what kinds of criticism would he receive? I haven’t dug into his career and background that much.
From what I’ve seen, he had beaten multiple HOF fighters and was still very young by the time he died. I don’t know enough about him to know who he avoided or which part of their prime all of his opponents were in.
What a fighter. Salvador Sánchez was the greatest Featherweight Champion in the boxing history. He was extremely talented with an amazing fighting IQ. He was skilled fighter. If he had not die in his young age, he would have become widely recognized as the greatest Featherweight champion of all time. I follow many websites in which there are many records mentioned.
There is nothing from his fights to criticize. But 80/81/82 is the only time he fought top guys. 2 HOFers. It’s a small sample size. That’s kind of my point though, it’s a lot of eye test because his career was cut short. Yet we see many say he “would” have been the best. We don’t see much “might” have been the best. I generally think the “would” have is right. But would we give him that or would we say it was too short?Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
I have to say that I hated Sanchez for many years because he beat my childhood hero Little Red Lopez. Now I just dislike and I never will forgive him.
That said, he was very good, but the idea that he was the best is too much. Ruben Castillo fought Arguello and Sanchez within 90 days and said that Arguello was much better and would ko Sanchez. He also said Chavez was much better than Sanchez.
But you can not be as good as Chavez and Arguello and still be very good.
Getting his career cut short could have been better for his legacy but maybe he could have become one of the best. I think that a lot of young fighters that achieve great feats end up having short careers. If he would have fought and lost to a few great fighters in his next few fights, then he would just be known as a good fighter who was just a step below great. However, we can never really know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron SwansonThere is nothing from his fights to criticize. But 80/81/82 is the only time he fought top guys. 2 HOFers. It’s a small sample size. That’s kind of my point though, it’s a lot of eye test because his career was cut short. Yet we see many say he “would” have been the best. We don’t see much “might” have been the best. I generally think the “would” have is right. But would we give him that or would we say it was too short?Quote:
Originally Posted by powerpuncher
It's amazing what he was actually able to accomplish in a short 2+ year span since the first win over the streaking and all time explosive hitter Lopez. It was his hitting the switch career turn and signing with King ensured the opportunities at the Championship level and more importantly mass exposure on networks that were highlighting a golden era in boxing. Caldwell, Gomez, LaPorte, Nelson and Castillo all had regional or major title runs after falling to Sanchez. He had some bumps in lesser fights and gangly Pat Ford gave him hell early on between all that and damn near got ko'd even before Lopez I but his skill was exceedingly apparent. Cutting sharp counter puncher, solid beard and an obvious engine. The Nelson thriller should have been another huge breakout introduction to the East coast of the States headlining MSG and you can only imagine the sure super fights to follow had tragedy not taken him away from fans and family. Goes up for Chavez maybe, or LaPorte and Nelson rematches, Pedroza unification..the future was blinding at 23 and he had already proven quite a bit by todays standards of to many groomed and gifted divas.