View Full Version : sanchez death
06-16-2005, 01:48 PM
i was only months old when this happened but this mustīve been a shock to boxing and boxing fans at the time.
guys what it was like when you heard the news of his death and how did the boxing world react.
06-16-2005, 05:39 PM
Everybody in the boxing world was stunned. Sanchez was a true star who was in the beginning of his prime as a fighter. It was a terrible loss for boxing in the same way James Dean's death under the same circumstances was for the film world.
06-17-2005, 09:23 AM
No disrespect to Dean, but could that guy act????..I'm not too convinced. Sure he was an Icon, but what did he do in the film world that was of any real merit.....I'm not saying I disliked him, I just thought that he was vastly overrated in his lifetime. He along with Monroe and presley and JFK, were the 3 biggest Icons of that time. Monroe and Presley and JFK I can understand, but James Dean????...anyway Sanchez really was a talene. It's such a shame he died so young. I'm sure he would have went on to become of of the true legends of the ring
06-17-2005, 11:05 AM
Why the screed about Dean? I just used him as an example of the surface similarities between his & Sanchez's lives. i.e. Both were young, rizing stars, in their particular fields who died in high speed car crashes on lonely, deserted, stretches of the road.
I wasn't tring to quantify Dean's skills as an actor with Sanchez's as a fighter.
06-28-2005, 08:24 AM
I know that Gor, I just thought I'd touch on it as I never knew what all the hype was about he gut. Sorry if it seemed I was going off the point......Though maybe another discussion on Dean would maybe kick off....
06-28-2005, 10:44 AM
Sal was a Great fighter; but I never liked him.
I couldn't stand his style.
But; I have him at number 3 on my featherweight list behind Saddler and Pep.
06-28-2005, 01:35 PM
Sanchez was already a legend when he died. I believe he was scheduled to meet Arguello for the 130 title or at least that fight was being put together.
Yes, his death was very Dean like with a young star wreaking needlessly in his sports car in early AM hours. I don't claim to speak for the boxing community but of course it was a major tragedy. He died at age 23 with 10 consecutive title victories. To put it in perspective Ray Leonard didn't win his 1st title until age 23.
Not sure where he places in the Mexican heart these days with JCC giving multi retirement tours, but he was a big deal in his day. He also had that crazy kinky/curly big hair that made him an unlikely looking fighter. I had also heard his fists were huge for a feather, a good fighter to remember for sure.
06-28-2005, 02:51 PM
Salvador was in training for a rematch with Juan LaPorte when he sneaked out of camp for an all-night session of drinking and whoring and then smacked head-long into a truck while trying to get back before he could be discovered missing. He was a solid fighter, no argument there, but aside from his victories over the much smaller, soft-chinned Gomez and the neophyte Azumah Nelson (only about a dozen fights' experience when they met), Sanchez was largely unimpressive against his other, mediocre competition. I think he has become a bit overrated these days and was probably on the downside of his career when he died. Still, it's a shame we never got to see what he might have done against Arguello and others. PeteLeo.
Sanchez is just a solid fighter??? Watch the fights with Danny Lopez. Not only does Sanchez give Lopez a pounding but his ring movement is beautiful and his counter-punching brillant. No less a fighter than Roy Jones Jr. has spoke glowingly of Sanchez's abilities. Sanchez also had remarkable poise and conditioning. Did you ever see him breathe heavy? When you see that kind of talent and poise, the only questions remaining are whether the fighter has the heart and chin to become a great champion. Sanchez had passed every test up to the time of his death. Unfortunately, his death robbed us of knowing how great he could be.
06-28-2005, 08:35 PM
A split decision over Pat Cowdell? A majority decision over fifteen fight novice Pat Ford? Danny Lopez was hardly a tough guy to outbox -- you just had to be sure he didn't knock your block off at some point, which Sanchez was adept at doing. I have the Rocky Garcia bout (his next to last fight, I think) on tape, and Salvador doesn't exactly set the ring on fire with his rather pedestrian effort. Take away the Nelson fight (which was extremely close going into the last round, by the way) and the Gomez slaughter and you would have a decent but hardly Hall of Fame type of career.
I'm not saying he wasn't a good fighter, I just don't think he did anything that should elevate him toward the upper tiers of the all-time featherweight rankings. But, like Hagler, Sanchez' fans are avidly sold on the man and to whisper a mildly contrary opinion is to take your life in your hands.
Still, a lot of other people fall into the "Great Sanchez" classification, while I'm pretty much on my own here (though "Flash" Gordon called him a decent yet hardly outstanding performer in his recap of Sanchez' career following the tragedy), so there's a good chance I'm the one who's wrong.
It's a big world with a lot of room. PeteLeo.
06-28-2005, 08:46 PM
I agree with you , an he only got a draw with Juan Escobar, a fight that i seen at the Olympic Aud. in L.A
06-28-2005, 09:01 PM
do you guys think he deserved the decision in his fight with ruben castillo?
06-28-2005, 09:05 PM
Sorry Ricardo i did't see that fight
06-28-2005, 09:56 PM
Gordon is the epitome of the little wimp/nerd, ok? You can just slap him and he'll be begging for his life.
The man knows nothing about boxing-and that is an insult to one of the best fighters of the 80's and one of the best featherweights ever.
06-28-2005, 09:57 PM
Wow Karl, now Flash was a know nothing. Broke the ABC/USBoxing tournament; kept an awesome record book; changed boxing reporting and introduced JO KO among others. Pete's right; there is a solid case against Sal Sanchez, especially because he died young.
06-28-2005, 11:41 PM
You are treading on hallowed ground here as far as one of the Best Fighters Ever is concerned, ok?
Sal was certainly that; and if anyone says he wasn't-they are full of shit and know nothing about boxing.
Personally; I did not care for him or his style.
I like lead fighters for the most part-and he trounced my boy Little Red twice.
I could never forgive Sal for that as Lopez was Champion and the most exciting fighter in the World when I first started boxing.
But; he was a Genius in the ring-a Wizard that could do it all.
An absolutley brilliant technician up there with the best ever.
06-28-2005, 11:42 PM
I didn't say otherwise but there are solid arguments against Sanchez (Pete laid them out well; I don't buy thempersonally; I think Nelson showed later why he was able to do what he did for instance). However, there are always knowledgeable folks who have disagreements. To make a statement that someone like Flash Gordon (or Kellerman or whoever else has raised your ire) knows 'nothing' about Boxing perpetuates a certain type of belligerence that you seem to specialize in. As far as your hallowed ground... (I didn't but) so what if I HAD treaded on it. Sometimes hallowed ground needs treading for greater understanding. Ask the descendants of the slave Thomas Jefferson had an affair with.
For the record though, I agree that Sanchez was IT!
06-29-2005, 01:55 AM
Maybe Karl was thinking of Randy Gordon, rather than Malcolm "Flash" G.? PeteLeo.
06-29-2005, 07:55 AM
I liked Randy Gordon for the record as he was a former fighter and knew his sport.
Bucket asked me to cool it with you, Cliff so I am going to respect his wishes.
But; sure like to meet you some day:D
06-29-2005, 08:44 AM
I'd say all of this to you in person. I don't bully.
06-29-2005, 07:48 PM
I know I'm probably taking my life into my own hands here, but that's never stopped me from doing anything before...
I was "raised" a Salvador Sanchez believer from the moment I picked up the Ring Magazine in March 1987...
That being said, it's so difficult to put someone on a pedestal without seeing an entire career, start to finish, one not interrupted by tragedy... What if Mike Tyson or Donald Curry or any other potential all-time great died before we got to see the full bloom of their careers and characters? Curry seemed so awesome -- unbeatable perhaps -- until September 27, 1986; same for Tyson pre-Douglas... now we know differently... you wonder what flaws were waiting to be exposed in Salvador Sanchez' make-up -- shite, a few of them were alluded to here...
Now... what's my point? Well, if we can examine (and even question) the Rock's perfect 49-0 record, and some have done so on this message board, why the hell can't we look into Sanchez' abbreviated career? My opinion? Hall-of-famer, but I would have liked to see a lot more before I say with any certainty he's a better feather than George Dixon, Abe Attell, Jim Driscoll, Kid Chocolate, Henry Armstrong, Vicente Saldivar, and Alexis Arguello...
06-29-2005, 08:10 PM
And Willie Pep and Sandy Saddler and Sugar Ramos,etc,etc
06-29-2005, 08:18 PM
Of course Mr. B!
I left out Sandy and Willie as those are the two feathers Karl ranked ahead of Salvador Sanchez... but Sugar Ramos -- how could I forget one of my beloved Cuban fighters!
06-29-2005, 08:39 PM
We will never know how good Sanchez was because his career was cut short, i would rate him in the top 12
06-29-2005, 10:32 PM
Henry Armstrong barely spent any time at feather and doesn't deserve a top 10 rating there. How much significant time did Arguello spend there? Answer: Not as much as Sanchez.
These types of fighters are remembered for moving up sucessfully rather than confined to a single weight class like Hopkins or Hagler or Monzon or Sanchez. Robinson is a greater fighter than the above mentioned 3 middles, but not a better middleweight than they were if you catch my drift.
Sanchez accomplished more than 99.9% of all champs in any division ever accomplished at age 23 when he died. I understand he probably had about 5 more years at the top at best and like any fighter would likely decline, but really, look at the names on his resume and understand not that many feathers ever had more title defenses. The man finished with a better overall record than Ray Leonard, DLH, or Aaron Pryor. Think about it.
06-30-2005, 12:21 AM
Sanchez was exceptionally good. However, we never saw him fight an extremely fast fighter with top world class skills. His best opponent was Nelson but Azumah was about two years away from his prime at least.
06-30-2005, 12:51 AM
I feel that Salvador Sanchez died too soon to be
rated among the best featherweights ever. Yes,
Sanchez looked terrific against both Danny "Little
Red" Lopez and Wilfredo Gomez. But Sanchez looked
less than impressive when he fought fighters who
were looking to box him.
In his bouts with Lopez, Sanchez was able to land
right leads repeatedly. As I recall, both bouts
between Sanchez and Lopez were shown on
television nationally. Since some people cite
Sanchez's bouts with Lopez as proof of the
Mexican's greatness, it is important to note
that Southern California boxing fans knew
that it was easy to hit Lopez with a right
lead. After all, Bobby Chacon took apart
Lopez with repeated right leads in a earlier
I think that the best performance of Sanchez's
career was against Wilfredo Gomez. In my
opinion, Sanchez surprised Gomez by being
very aggressive rather than boxing him.
It would have been interesting to see how
Sanchez would have been evaluated if he
had a full career.
- Chuck Johnston
06-30-2005, 01:55 AM
Armstrong I believe started his career at featherweight around 1931, then moved up shortly after winning the undisputed world title from Petey Sarron in 1937... Won a "version" of the title in 1936... He beat HOFers Baby Arizmendi (and lost to him as well), Midget Wolgast and Benny Bass... Just because Hank wasn't champ for ages doesn't discount him as a top feather... he fought often at featherweight leading up to that undisputed title...
Arguello... I'm available to be corrected here, but I think he started as a feather or thereabouts in 1968... won the title in 1974 against legend and HOFer Olivares after losing in his first try vs. Marcel... defended against some warm bodies (4X) and moved up to win the SFW title in 1978...
So here it is by the numbers... Armstrong 6 years at feather, won undisputed title, and left the division almost immediately thereafter at 25... Arguello, 10 years in the division, world "titlist" 3 or so years and moved up at 26... Sanchez... 7 years in division, world "titlist" for 2 1/2 years... Hardly insignifigant time at FW for Hank and Alexis...
I understand what you're saying about Sanchez' career and accomplishments at 23 Roberto, and the point is taken... There's nothing I can or want to say to put Salvador Sanchez down... it's damn impressive... but
my problems are the unanswered questions... he never fought the man I consider the best FW at the time, Eusebio Pedroza... He never was the undisputed world champ, he had some good wins and some close wins against good but not great comp, and for those reasons, I respectfully disagree he did more at 23 than 99.9% of other champs at that age... Now if he was the undisputed champ and made 9 title defences by 23... well, that's a horse of a different colour...
06-30-2005, 07:58 AM
Is it Sanchez's fault he fell into a crack in boxing politics? Look at Larry Holmes. He was never the undisputed champ and there's a half dozen top heavies he failed to match with during his title days.
Here's a trivia question for you: How many champs in ANY division racked up 10 title defenses by age 23? Plenty of outstanding fighters to select from.
Sanchez HOF fighters he beat in title matches: Lopez 2x, Gomez, Nelson. Armstrong was beating some good fighters coming up, but he also was losing to quite a few not so good fighters before he went on his famous tear at welter. Sanchez was several notches better than Armstrong at feather.
I really don't want to hear that we don't know what Sanchez could have done. We do know what he did do and his career matches well with all but a few top select all time feathers.
Of course, we would have all liked to see Sanchez's career last another ten years. Over time we would have found out answers to how good Sanchez really was. But for anyone to say Sanchez was a "solid fighter" is just crock. Gatti is a solid fighter. Sanchez was a gifted talent.
Last night I rewatched the Cowdell fight. I don't think Cowdell won more than three or four rounds. Two of the judges had the fight 148-137 and 146-140 for Sanchez. The third judge had it 145-144 for Cowdell but I can see how any reasonable person could come up with that score. The fight also illustrates the incredible coordination between Sanchez's lower and upper body which allowed him both ring mobility with good power.
I'll admit that Sanchez sometimes looked less than scintillating against certain opponents. He looked best against aggressive fighters like Lopez and Gomez. Under these circumstances, Sanchez could employ his counter-punching, slick upper body movement and clever back peddling. Against cautious fighters Sanchez didn't come on until the later half of the fight when it seemed like he had to do something to win the fight. But never did Sanchez look bad in these fights. He was never outclassed.
06-30-2005, 02:29 PM
Now that was an interesting trivia question Roberto... I had to look up a few of course, but the champs with 10 title defences or more up to and including age 23, last 30 years only, are:
Ratanapol Sor Vorapin (IBF Minimumweight), 20
Jung Koo Chang (WBC Light Fly), 11
Pipino Cuevas (WBA Welter), 11
Felix Trinidad (IBF Welter), 10
Honourable mention (equalling Sanchez' 9 defences), to age 23, last 30 years:
Mike Tyson (WBC Heavy)
Erik Morales (WBC Super Bantam)
Naseem Hamed (WBO Feather)
Other notables in recent history tearing up the place with lots of defences at young ages but varying degrees of talent and/or greatness:
J. C. Chavez
Myung Woo Yuh
It's not Sanchez' fault politics impeded his greatness, but it left questions unanswered... I don't even know if he was the best feather during his title reign, yet I am supposed to rank him above the fighters I listed earlier, many of whom were the best feather for years and years and proved it in the ring against their fiercest rivals?
06-30-2005, 03:26 PM
I have a different view from Roberto....Gomez moved up in weight to fight Sanchez. He was not a natural feather. Danny Lopez was an exceptional puncher with tremendous heart. He provided us with some great fights to remember him by...however, he was not an all time great featherweight by any stretch of the imagination. He was too slow and got hit way too much. If anything , he was a Gatti of his day. Nelson was at the very beginning of his career. He had I think about 15 fights at the time of the match up. Nelson was a great feather but was not close to his best when he fought Sanchez.
06-30-2005, 03:51 PM
Armstrong actually had a pretty extensive stay in the feather division from 1931 to '38. He was hardly there for a cup of coffe. That would more accurately describe his tenure as a lightweight.
Below is his career at feather:
"Hammerin' Hank" "Perpetual Motion" "Hurricane Henry" Born: December 12, 1912 Columbus, MS
Died: October 23, 1988 Los Angeles, CA Career Record: 150-21-9 (100 kayos)
Jul 28 Al Iovino Braddock, PA KO by 3
Aug 7 Sammy Burns Millvale, PA W 6
Aug 30 Eddie Trujillo Los Angeles L 4
Sep 27 Al Greenfield Los Angeles L 4
Oct 1 Max Tarley Los Angeles W 4
Nov 1 Young Bud Taylor Los Angeles W 4
Dec 1 Vince Trujillo Los Angeles KO 2
Dec 13 Gene Espinosa Los Angeles W 4
Dec 31 Young Corpus Los Angeles W 4
Feb 3 Johnny "Mickey" Ryan Los Angeles W 6
Feb 17 George Dundee Los Angeles W 6
Mar 21 Paul Wangley Los Angeles KO 4
Apr 28 Perfecto Lopez Los Angeles W 6
May 31 Max Tarley Los Angeles KO 3
Jun 7 Ricky Hall Los Angeles KO 3
Jul 11 Baby Manuel Los Angeles L 6
Aug 8 Bobby Calmes Los Angeles KO 5
Aug 30 Hoyt Jones Los Angeles D 4
Sep 5 Perfecto Lopez Los Angeles D 4
Sep 7 Joe Sanchez Los Angeles KO 4
Sep 28 Perfecto Lopez Los Angeles W 8
Oct 11 Perfecto Lopez Los Angeles D 4
Oct 19 Johnny Granone Sacramento, CA KO 5
Nov 3 Kid Moro Pismo Beach, CA W 10
Nov 23 Kid Moro Stockton, CA D 10
Dec 14 Gene Espinosa Sacramento, CA KO 7
Jan 26 Baby Manuel Sacramento, CA W 10
Feb 13 Benny Pelz Los Angeles W 6
Mar 8 Perfecto Lopez Los Angeles W 8
Mar 17 Young Danny Los Angeles KO 1
May 4 Kid Moro Watsonville, CA D 10
May 10 Mark Diaz Los Angeles W 8
May 22 Johnny DeFoe Los Angeles KO 5
Jun 5 Vicente Torres Los Angeles W 4
Jun 14 Davey Abad Sacramento, Ca W 10
Jul 17 Perfecto Lopez Los Angeles W 6
Aug 28 Perfecto Lopez Los Angeles KO 5
Sep 13 Max Tarley Los Angeles KO 3
Nov 3 Baby Arizmendi Mexico City L 12
Dec 2 Joe Conde Mexico City KO 7
Dec 15 Ventura Arana Mexico City KO 5
Jan 2 Baby Arizmendi Mexico City L 12
(For Vacant California-Mexico World Featherweight Title)
Feb 15 Baby Casanova Mexico City LDQ 5
Mar 19 Sal Hernandez Los Angeles KO 2
Mar 31 Davey Abad Mexico City L 10
Apr 6 Tully Corvo Los Angeles KO 5
Apr 16 Frankie Covelli Los Angeles W 8
May 28 Davey Abad Los Angeles W 10
Jun 25 Varias Milling Los Angeles W 10
Sep 8 Perfecto Lopez San Francisco D 8
Oct 21 Lestor Marston Oakland KO 7
Nov 12 Leo Lomeli Oakland KO 6
Nov 27 Midget Wolgast Oakland W 10
Dec 6 Alton Black Reno KO 8
Jan 1 Joe Conde Mexico City L 10
Feb 26 Ritchie Fontaine Oakland L 10
Mar 31 Ritchie Fontaine Los Angelees W 10
Apr 17 Alton Black Reno KO 8
May 19 Bobby Leyvas Los Angeles KO 4
Jun 22 Johnny DeFoe Butte, MT W 10
Aug 4 Baby Arizmendi Los Angeles W 10
(Wins California-Mexico World Featherweight Title)
Aug 18 Juan Zurita Los Angeles KO 4
Sep 3 Buzz Brown Portland, OR W 10
Sep 8 Dommy Ganzon Sacramento, CA KO 1
Oct 27 Mike Belloise Los Angeles W 10
Nov 2 Gene Espinosa Los Angeles KO 1
Nov 17 Joey Alcanter St. Louis KO 6
Dec 3 Tony Chavez St. Louis LDQ 8
Jan 1 Baby Casanova Mexico City KO 3
Jan 19 Tony Chavez Los Angeles KO 10
Feb 2 Moon Mullins Los Angeles KO 2
Feb 19 Varias Milling Hollywood, CA KO 4
Mar 2 Joe Rivers Los Angeles KO 4
Mar 12 Mike Belloise New York KO 4
Mar 19 Aldo Spoldi New York W 10
Apr 6 Pete DeGrasse Los Angeles KO 10
May 4 Frankie Klick Los Angeles KO 4
May 28 Wally Hally Los Angeles KO 4
Jun 9 Mark Diaz Pasadena, CA KO 4
Jun 15 Jackie Carter Los Angeles KO 4
Jul 8 Alf Blatch New York KO 3
Jul 19 Lew Massey New York KO 4
Jul 27 Benny Bass Philadelphia KO 4
Aug 13 Eddie Brink New York KO 3
Aug 16 Johnny Cabello Washington DC KO 2
Aug 31 Orville Drouillard Detroit KO 5
Sep 9 Charley Burns Pittsburgh KO 4
Sep 16 Johnny DeFoe New York KO 4
Sep 21 Bobby Dean Youngstown, PA KO 1
Oct 18 Joe Marciente Philadelphia KO 3
Oct 29 Petey Sarron New York KO 6
(Unifies World Featherweight Title)
Nov 19 Billy Beauhold New York KO 5
Nov 23 Joey Brown Buffalo KO 2
Dec 6 Tony Chavez Cleveland KO 1
Dec 12 Johnny Jones New Orleans KO 2
Jan 12 Enrico Venturi New York KO 6
Jan 21 Frankie Castillo Phoenix KO 3
Jan 22 Tommy Brown Tucson, AZ KO 2
Feb 1 Chalky Wright Los Angeles KO 3
Feb 9 Al Citrino San Francisco KO 4
Feb 25 Everett Rightmire Chicago KO 4
Feb 28 Charley Burns Minneapolis KO 2
Mar 15 Baby Arizmendi Los Angeles W 10
Mar 25 Eddie Zivic Detroit KO 4
06-30-2005, 05:09 PM
It should be pointed out that Henry Armstrong
had bouts that aren't on the record posted by
Bucket. I should know because I found some
of his unrecorded bouts.
Yes, Armstrong did lose a number of bouts
before Eddie Mead came into the picture.
Regardless of what some people feel, he
lost to some capable fighters up to the
begining of 1937. They include Baby
Arizmendi, Baby Casanova, Davey Abad,
Ritchie Fontaine, and Tony Chavez.
One should also remember that Armstrong
was highly regarded professional fighter
within a year or two after he had his
first professional bout in Los Angeles
in 1932. Think of this...the annual
Ring Magazine ratings listed Armstrong
in the no. 6 slot in the featherweight
division for 1934 and in the no. 2 slot in
the featherweight division for 1935.
Looking again at Armstrong's record, it
shows that he was very active during his
early years. But during that period, his
purses during that period were terrible
most of the time. For example, Armstrong
fought in Ventura, California at least six
times, at least two of the bouts being
main events. Yet it was reported that
his biggest purse for any of the Ventura
bouts was $80. In other words, I think
that it is doubtful that Armstrong was
getting the best in terms of training and
food before 1936.
- Chuck Johnston
06-30-2005, 07:10 PM
That's some good information Chuck -- especially about the Ring rankings -- I think it would be a great resource to have all the Ring ratings from day 1 to present located somewhere... if it isn't already...
06-30-2005, 10:35 PM
In theory those Ring ratings would be valuable except they were bought & paid for first by Tex Rickard & later Mike Jacobs. Ring's offices were on the same floor as those promoters & Fleischer was totally on the pad.
If your fighter wasn't connected to either Rickard or Jacobs you had a tough row to hoe to get ahead. Why do you think there was such a bias against Left Coast fighters in those days? Because Ring was an east coast - more specifically a New York operation where first Rickard & then Jacobs held sway.
After they had their day it was Jim Norris & the IBC.
The Bible Of Boxing??? Gimme a break.
07-01-2005, 01:29 AM
Well then, an annotated Ring ratings, with commentary provided by Gordoom! Of course it's an "historical" record, subjective to varying degrees and subject to criticism... still be of great interest to me... It's context... man cannot live by boxrec alone...
07-01-2005, 01:49 PM
Sanchez was a great fighter even if some people didn't like him.He beat Castillo,Gomez,Lopez 2 times,Nelson and a few others.He's up there with the best of them.Sanchez would have beat the slow Arguello too.His carrer was short but people who know boxing should give the kid his dues.I think he had 5 strong years ahead of him.He would have captured the 130 title and would have retired being a champion.
07-01-2005, 04:46 PM
i have a little different opinion of sanchez.
he looked great against my alltime favorite danny lopez. but has chuck pointed out danny was easy pickins to a straight right. rick farris once told me that in sparring you could land a right on danny with your eyes closed. what sal displayed in the lopez fights was his ability to take a good shot.
i was at the olympic the night sal fought nico perez to a lack luster 10 rnd. decision. after the fight ,which was a build up to the gomez fight, gomez came into the ring and sal went after him. gomez lost their fight right their 3k miles from where the fight actually took place. sal scared the crap out of gomez.
where my opinion differs as to his greatness is the fact that i think sanchez lost a lot of his desire after trouncing gomez. the partying became more frequent as was evidenced by his tragic end. with his penchant for fast cars, booze and broads, sal even at such an early age may have already acheived his highest level of performance. we will never know for sure but the way he was living at the end was not conducive to a long career or even a good nite against an alexis arguello.
for sure he had the tools but how finely honed they would have been at 30 is purely conjecture.
i think james dean was a good anology. both he and sal died in car crashes after abriviated careers...thats the point.
07-01-2005, 09:59 PM
I think Arguello had the size, speed and power to defeat Sanchez. Anyone saying he was slow is joking himself. In his prime he had very decent hand speed.
07-01-2005, 11:55 PM
Ernesto Marcel beat him,Jose Luis Ramirez was robbed even after he put Arguello down,Villomar Fernandez also beat him.Oh did I forget Olivares the bantamweight was beating him.No way would he have beat Sanchez.Not with that straight up robot style of his.Sanchez was to slick for him.
07-02-2005, 10:19 AM
You can make any fighter look worse than he actually was by focusing on the negatives.It doesn't make it true though.
Sanchez may have been slick but he was also easy to hit for a supposed master technician.Even extremely limited fighters Castanon and Garcia had little problem hitting him repeatedly.
Getting hit repeatedly by Arguello usually results in being destroyed.
07-03-2005, 12:34 AM
You said it getting hit repeatedly.Arguello was not going to hit Sanchez repeatedly.Gomez had Power in those fists,so did Danny Lopez we both know that.Yet they both failed to even hurt Sanchez.Sanchez would have danced circles around Arguello.Arguello power to me was not like Danny Lopez or W.Gomez.Yeah he was knocking out smaller guys all the time what happened when he fought guys in his weight?I don't see how Arguello beats Sanchez.I do rate rate Arguello as a good fighter,but not great.
07-04-2005, 02:19 AM
Yea I know , almost any decent fighter can dominate three weight divisions and destroy Olivares, Escalera, Chacon, Boza-Edwards, Mancini, Navarrette ... anyone could have defeated Jim Watt , fighting in their third weight division...anyone could have fought an absolute prime Aaron Pryoy while they were clearly past theirs and give one of the all time guttiest performances fighting in their fourth weight class...taking bombs from one of the 140 pound divisions hardest all time punchers...
Personally I think your out of your mind saying Sanchez, whose three biggest wins came over an out of his division, on the downward side Gomez, a courageous but shopworn and never great Lopez and a near novice Nelson...to say that he defeats one of the all time greats at that greats best weight is ridiculous if you ask me. I say this with no disrespect to Sanchez who I thought was a hell of a fighter but whose death at an early age leaves an incomplete when measuring him against one of the best fighters of the past thirty years...
By the way, you left out how he clearly dominated Fernandez in the rematch.
A prime featherweight Arguello would have been very tough for Sanchez, who would be giving up size, power, reach and strength...He could not hurt Alexis. Sanchez was not a big puncher..he pounded Little Red for 27 rounds and could never floor him...He would have to box and pitch a no hitter because no one at that weight could take Arguello's power and I don't think he proved in his shortened career he was capable of it..
07-05-2005, 03:51 PM
Interesting list of Hall of Famers you said Arguello beat up.On the downside Gomez had just finished knocking out his last 32 opponents Grant.Watt a fighter at the end of his career,which started in the 60's,and your proud that Arguello beat him?Besides O'Grady and Davis who did Watt fight?Mancini with only 20 fight compared to overrated Arguello's 77 fights.I wonder whi was favorite in that fight Grant.Chacon was ahead when the fight was stopped you know that.Another example of Arguello winning over smaller fighters.He couldnt even ko Chacon the featherweight.Mr.Bantamweight Olivares was whooping his ass ,13 rds it took for Arguello to finally put him away.You forgot to mention years later at the end of Villomar Fernandez career your boy Arguello beat him.Navarrete man his record is real impressive Grant.If he was as bad as you say he would have destroyed J.L.Ramirez,Marcel,and Pryor.4 weight classes huh you know he was at least a natural lightweight.How was he going to beat Sanchez?He wasn't going to beat him by boxing.Sanchez would hit him all night long whenever he pleased and use his movement to avoid getting hit.
07-05-2005, 06:38 PM
So basically you are saying Arguello had the ability to come from behind to win by KO against exceptionally tough competition. That , from Teddy Atlas to Larry Holmes, is the true defination of a great fighter...
I repeat, Gomez, reguardless of his record, was showing wear and tear and did move up in weight to fight Sanchez. Gomez was not a featherweight. You might consider knocking out smaller men a mark of greatness , I do not.
Mancini did have 20 fights or if you can count, 7 more than Nelson did when he fought Sanchez.
Jim Watt was the number one rated lightweight in the world when Arguello fought him. As you wrote he defeated top contenders Davis and O'Grady...what else is there to say ?
As far as Chacon and Olivares goes, they were not smaller fighters ...they were all in the same weight division and battle tested at that weight. Arguello simply had many of the advantages over them that he would have had over Sanchez, height, reach, strength, chin and power ...
It's nice of you to say Arguello was a natural lightweight even though he fought the first 12 years of his career as a feather and jr. lightweight...keep rewriting history...maybe you even believe it.
How would Alexis beat him ? With his ramrod jab, superior reach, superior battle tested stamina and crunching power. I'm not saying Sanchez was not a hell of a fighter. He could fight a defensive fight and maybe go the distance. However, he would be kept outside with Alexis' jab, he be hammered to the body ruthlessly all night, a strategy the 13 fight Nelson managed to do very well vs Sanchez and always have to be wary of the right cross and hook that could flatten him. Remember, Alexis was 5'11", way taller than Sanchez. Sanchez would have to get close to hit him and that would open him up to all kinds of hell.
07-05-2005, 09:50 PM
Who the hell told Gomez to move up to featherweight,don't blame Sanchez.Who the hell told Nelson to take a fight with only 13 pro fights himself.You said it knocking out smaller guys is not a mark of greatness.Youre starting to finally come around Grant.Olivares was not a bantamweight?Come on Grant you sound like a rookie.Gomez was favorite to beat Sanchez .Gomez was really showing wear and tear,ask that last 32 ko victims leading to the Sanchez fight.Arguello lost 4 times ,Twice being knocked out,before he KO'D a Bantamweight Olivares.Just think if that fight would tooken place 5 years before.Olivares would have destroyed him.Chacon and Olivares were both 5'5 and a half.Yet they both had no trouble getting in on Arguello did they Grant?Im supposed to beleive Sanchez at 5'7 was going to have problems?You talk about guts Arguello showed some guts when he chose not to get up in the 2nd Pryor fight.Even Gomez rose after being down and showed balls he wanted to continue against Sanchez but the ref stopped it.Thats Guts.Arguello must have told himself dam this 140 pounder hits harder than those little guys Im used to fighting.Marcel before retiring had enough to beat your boy.
I think Sanchez managed to convince Gomez he wasn't ready for featherweight. At the time they fought, Gomez was considered pound-for-pound the best fighter in the world. I haven't seen any evidence of wear and tear on Gomez (maybe someone can enlighten me). After the Sanchez fight in 1981, he continued to fight on the championship level for another four years winning the Superfeather weight championship in 1985.
07-06-2005, 12:03 PM
I disagree wholeheartedly with anyone who thinks that Arguello wouldn't be connecting on Sal. Sanchez had an all-time chin, there's no question, but how do we know that? Because he got hit, and he got hit hard. So he would be in with the best fighter he ever faced, a guy who had crushing power, and a guy who demonstrated throughout his career that he was one of boxing's ultimate snipers. He wasn't speedy, but when he threw, he connected.
As far as Evan and Olympic dragging out the worst of both guys, it seems pretty self-defeating. There is no question Arguello fought the stronger comp, and performed at the top level consistently for a longer time. There's also no question that this isn't Sanchez's fault, being dead and all. But IMO if you put a guy that got repeatedly nailed on the button by so many of his opponents in with an Arguello at Featherweight.... no matter how tough Sanchez was, he's going to absorb only so much punishment before being finished off. If an Arguello lands the kind of punch that Nicky Perez landed on Sal in the 9th in their fight (and I have no reason to believe he wouldn't, since Perez was even slower, far less power and had absorbed everything Sal could dish out to that point), Sal's head comes off.
07-06-2005, 01:14 PM
You said it if Arguello lands a punch .Sanchez was not going to be at the receiving end of his punches.Look how he slipped punches ,bobbed and weaved,lateral movement.Absorbed punches,I dont think Sanchez absorbed punches like you say tko.Stop looking at the Olivares fight,and look at the Jose Luis Ramirez fight.Real bombs he was connecting right.Ramirez was in his face all night long.Robbery if you ask me.Arguello was a hell of a fighter,but looking at the records ,the facts,the loses,styles and opposition,I just don't see him beating Sanchez.With his conditioning I see him wearing down Arguello and stopping him in 14rds.
07-06-2005, 01:50 PM
O.A. has some logic to his thoughts...there is no question about it ... I simply believe the same, that Sanchez did get hit at times...no one took Arguello's punches at featherweight or jr. lightweight for that matter...another point that O.A. leaves out was that unlike Chacon and Olivares, Sanchez was no big hitter. He lacked the firepower to drive his way in vs. an Arguello, to demand his pound of flesh in a punch out. Those other guys were tremendous punchers ...
All and all, I was a fan of Sanchez. I watched every one of his fights from his title winning victory over Lopez through Azumah. I am not denying he was a special fighter. However, I stand by my point that he did not accomplish enough in the ring or defeat the type of opposition necessary to say he beats one of the all time great pound for pound fighters in history, especially when that fighter is the bigger, stronger, harder hitting guy.
Maybe Sanchez fights a cutesy fight , moves around, frustrates Arguello and lasts the distance for a decision loss like a Viruet to Duran. However, to say he punishes Arguello like he was a Little Red clone ... I just don't see it.
07-06-2005, 02:42 PM
Sanchez vs. Arguello
Now that's a hell of a match and if only we could really have seen it......2 greats, excellent styles, conditioning, etc.....all the elements you could ever ask for...
I go with Arguello inside 12 rounds...he just had so much in terms of accuracy and power...always finding the angles to deliver the big damaging shots (and in combinations no less). Sanchez showed potential for greatness....Arguello was flat out great in his day....he fought so many good fighters...watching Escalara trying everything to hold his title to no avail stands out in my mind as a typical Arguello performance...he always rose to the occasion.
07-06-2005, 04:57 PM
Great fight it would have been.When some boxing fans think of Arguello they picture him helpless up against the ropes knocked out on his feet,when he fought Pryor.I don't I recall when he was a featherweight,coming up.Real good fighter that he was.I liked his style ,I have a lot of his fights on film.Sanchez was not a big hitter,but he had some kind of punch.Azumah was bouncing off the ropes in the last round.Gomez almost went through the ropes,Lopez was knocked out 2 times.He could hurt as we all know.He would counter Arguello,pick his shots,and box like a master all night.Sanchez would mix it up a little not to much.arguello would be coming forward running into right hands.We could go on but I won't.You guys go with Alexis,I go with Sanchez.We both stick to our guns.Great fight and great discussion guys.
07-08-2005, 06:07 PM
of course when matching guys in these fantasy forums we take them at their very peaks. alexis arguello had a great peak period. i remember first hearing of him as a tall 126 lb'er who ko'd tough art hafey. that impressed me without ever seeing him. for twelve rounds of seeing him against oliveras i thought, here goes another flash in the pan. he took everything ruben threw at him, and it was a lot, and still ko'ed ruben. then he went on to become one of the most over bearing fighters i have ever seen.
sal sanchez had the kind of start that potential greats usualy have. we never saw what he might have become and it is hard for me to give him a shot at a proven great like alexis.
from a purely physical aspect i think sal lacked the power to keep arguello off of him for 15 rounds. it is true that sal scored two ko's over danny lopez but he never put danny down, something that many lesser fighters who landed a lot less punches did do.
giving alexis full credit for what he did do wins out for me over what sal may have done.
but then again...its a fantasy.
07-09-2005, 12:17 AM
I would pick Arguello in the fantasy matchup. That has no bearing on the greatness of Sanchez which had already been established. It would have been a great fight at 130 like was being planned.
An Arguello-Sanchez match could have been a boring fight. Both fighters were excellent counter-punchers and did best against aggressive fighters who came forward. I could see each fighter over-thinking.
If I had to choose who would win I would pick Arguello. In some of Sanchez's fights he seemed to get impatient and rush things. It's that kind of mistake that Arguello could exploit. Arguello at his height was a very intelligent and cool fighter. He had to patience to wait until the other guy made a mistake and then made him pay for it.
07-09-2005, 09:40 PM
I think that Salvador Sanchez would have had
a very good chance of beating Alexis Arguello.
But I don't base fighters' abilities only on how
well they do fighting each other. For instance,
Ken Norton matched up very well with Muhammad
Ali, but I consider Ali the much better fighter
because of his performances against other
top heavyweights. An example is that Ali won
in bouts with both George Foreman and Earnie
Shavers, two fighters who scored quick stoppages
in bouts with Norton.
In my opinion, Alexis Arguello was better than
Salvador Sanchez. After all, I don't see Sanchez
being able to do well in a bout with Aaron Pryor.
- Chuck Johnston
- Chuck Johnston
07-10-2005, 02:16 AM
Sanchez started out as a bantamweight.I see him ending his career at junior lightweight.Lightweight and jr welter was to much weight for him,he was only 5'7,not 5'11 like Arguello which was real close to 6ft.
07-30-2005, 04:42 PM
Randy Gordon, a former fighter? As far as I remember, he turned pro as a journalistic stunt and got flattened by a handpicked opponent.
07-30-2005, 06:53 PM
...and I mean handpicked:
08-03-2005, 08:51 PM
This is a fabulous topic. I've only seen three of Sal's bouts. Gomez, Lopez I, and Nelson. In each of the those bout he fought great fights. He beat Gomez and Lopez with ease, Nelson gave him problems but, Nelson was down early and Ko'ed late.
Sal rose to the occassions when called for. He had plenty of heart and skill to match. Would he have beaten Arguello? Would Duran at 135 have beaten Arguello? My point is that Alexis was one of the greatest fighters of all time at both weights and nobody gets a easy night with him.
Sal's lack of time to prove himself against fighters like Arguello, yet still be consider great enough to have competed with Alexis should let everyone just how great Sal was.
08-15-2005, 01:25 AM
Arguello was practically a flawless boxer-puncher. He threw every punch perfectly. He had explosive power and could break down any opponent's style. Look what he did to the very good Escalera in 2 fights at 130, which was his best weight. Even an old and past his prime Arguello had began to solve the nerve wracking, aggressive swarming Pryor in their first fight before getting caught in the 14th.
Castillo fight was at lightweight.
Sanchez was a feather and a sharp but not devastating hitter.
Gomez was small, 5'5 and moving up in weight.
Arguello was 5'10" with a 76" reach.
I think both Arguello and Sanchez were great fighters and I watched them both fight many times. I dont think anyone can make a sure bet pick in this fight. But overall I think Arguello was the superior fighter and the more proven commodity.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.8 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.