SANCHEZ AND SADDLER AND SPINKS OH MY!

So it is a foregone conclusion that Ring.com's winner for the letter R will be Ray Robinson.

S is a little tougher to figure. I think Salvador Sanchez and Ninja Immortals Sandy Saddler and Michael Spinks are the top three choices.

Here is some comparative data:

LINEAL CHAMPIONSHIPS
Saddler-Featherweight with four defenses across two reigns. Retired as champion.
Sanchez-Featherweight with nine defenses. Died as champion.
Spinks-Light heavyweight champion with four defenses, never beaten and heavyweight champion with three defenses.

WINS OVER HOFERS
Saddler-5 (Pep x3, Elorde, Joe Brown)
Sanchez-4 (Little Red x2, Azuma, Bazooka Gomez)
Spinks-3 (Holmes x2, Qawi)

WINS OVER RANKED FIGHTERS
Saddler-20
Sanchez-10
Spinks-13

FINAL RECORDS
Saddler-144-16-2 (103KO's)
Sanchez-44-1-1 (32KO's)
Spinks-31-2 (21KO's)

OTHER THINGS OF NOTE
Saddler-As dirty as they come, frequently fought ranked lightweights, retired at 30 after a cab wreck ruined an eye.
Sanchez-Counterpuncher extraordinaire. Killed at 23.
Spinks-Huge LHW, retired at 31 after only loss.

What does all this show? Well for starters these are three incredibly accomplished men all of whom had somewhat abbreviated careers.

So who should be the pick? Well Saddler has the most wins, most wins over ranked guys, the most wins over HOFers and his three wins over Pep are probably the most prestigious wins.

Is that the right criteria? Hell I don't know.

Of these guys the one who made me most say WOW when I watched him was Sal Sanchez. Spinks ended up being the best of a golden era at LHW and became the first reigning LHW to become heavyweight champion. They ALL are deserving.

What say you?

Sadler. Most wins most wins over ranked opponents. Three wins over Pep in dominant fashion trumps anyone elses victories.

I gotta go with Sanchez because it's my guy instinct.

My knock on Saddler is that he wasn't the best in his own time. Regardless of how good he was, it's hard for me to overlook that. He'll always have that Pippen sidekick role in my head.

I have no idea why I don't like Spinks, but I'm trusting my gut.

Gumby wrote:

I gotta go with Sanchez because it's my guy instinct.

My knock on Saddler is that he wasn't the best in his own time. Regardless of how good he was, it's hard for me to overlook that. He'll always have that Pippen sidekick role in my head.

I have no idea why I don't like Spinks, but I'm trusting my gut.

What do you mean about Sadler not being the best in his own time? Are you saying that because Pep was superior or for some other reason?

Not trying to talk you out of Chava. He is deserving as well, just asking.

it will be sanchez but it should be Saddler just my opinion

My head votes for Saddler

My heart votes for Sanchez

Saddler but had Sanchez lived longer he'd probably have it locked up.

captainanddew wrote:

My head votes for Saddler

My heart votes for Sanchez

My eyes thought they really saw somethjing special in Chava. Uncommonly fit, uncommonly smart, loved to fight, loved to train and din't have any obvious exploitable deficiencies. What adds to the tragedy of his death is he had names in and around his division then and over the next 3 years like McGuigan and Azuman (again) and LaPorte (again) and Bazooka (again) and Pedroza and Lockridge and Serrano and Limon and Boza and Navarette and Chacon and Rosario and Pintor and Camcho and Julio Cesar Chavez. That's only through 1984.

That is 15 fights that if he only loses 3-4 put him in the absolute boxing stratosphere and he is only 27 or so.

If one wants to be bold enough to assume he stays motivated and uninjured, then in the later 1980's guys like Zaragoza and Calvin Grove and Jeff Fenech and Tony Lopez and Antonio Esperragoza come along.

Heck by 1989 Sal is 30ish and now guys like Paez and Brian Mitchell and Genaro Hernandez and Molina are around.

Ah crap, what might have been. I mean let's say he fights those 25 guys and goes 22-3 to end up 66-4 with a total of say ten wins over HOFers.

Isn't he nose to nose with Chavez for mexcio's greatest and maybe one of the top 20 or so guys ever?

One counterpoint is that the elimination of 15 round fights would have hurt Sanchez. He would have seen diminished one of his great advanatages, an otherworldy level of cardiovascualr fitness.

saddler...

captainanddew wrote:

My head votes for Saddler

My heart votes for Sanchez

Ditto. I was able to watch Sanchez in his prime. I know Saddler was one of the most vicious and hardedst punchers the FW division has ever seen, but I can't bring myself to go against Salvador. However, if Saddler wins the "S,s", I think only the insane will have a problem with it.

4445Frank wrote:

captainanddew wrote:

My head votes for Saddler

My heart votes for Sanchez

Ditto. I was able to watch Sanchez in his prime. I know Saddler was one of the most vicious and hardedst punchers the FW division has ever seen, but I can't bring myself to go against Salvador. However, if Saddler wins the "S,s", I think only the insane will have a problem with it.

...yes my heart sanchez loved watching him fight my head saddler and franks statement is correct also..

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Gumby wrote:

I gotta go with Sanchez because it's my guy instinct.

My knock on Saddler is that he wasn't the best in his own time. Regardless of how good he was, it's hard for me to overlook that. He'll always have that Pippen sidekick role in my head.

I have no idea why I don't like Spinks, but I'm trusting my gut.

What do you mean about Sadler not being the best in his own time? Are you saying that because Pep was superior or for some other reason?

Not trying to talk you out of Chava. He is deserving as well, just asking.

The Pep thing. It's just hard to shine as much when you're in the shadow of a guy like that. It's more that's the way I feel than something I can explain.

many eras had great fighters.its no shame for saddler to be in peps era like it was no shame for gavilln being in robinsons era nor frazier in alis or walker and greb in the same era etc etc..greatness should be recognized even if theres someone in your weight class in your era was better..it should not be looked down upon since there all realy ATGreats.

dmar5143 wrote:

many eras had great fighters.its no shame for saddler to be in peps era like it was no shame for gavilln being in robinsons era nor frazier in alis or walker and greb in the same era etc etc..greatness should be recognized even if theres someone in your weight class in your era was better..it should not be looked down upon since there all realy ATGreats.

I know. I'm not saying I don't recognize his greatness because I like Saddler a lot, it's just something that's there when I'm comparing him specifically to Sanchez.

Gumby wrote:

marbleheadmaui wrote:

Gumby wrote:

I gotta go with Sanchez because it's my guy instinct.

My knock on Saddler is that he wasn't the best in his own time. Regardless of how good he was, it's hard for me to overlook that. He'll always have that Pippen sidekick role in my head.

I have no idea why I don't like Spinks, but I'm trusting my gut.

What do you mean about Sadler not being the best in his own time? Are you saying that because Pep was superior or for some other reason?

Not trying to talk you out of Chava. He is deserving as well, just asking.

The Pep thing. It's just hard to shine as much when you're in the shadow of a guy like that. It's more that's the way I feel than something I can explain.

I hear ya. I think that's a little mitigated in this case by Saddler's three wins over Pep. But I do hear ya.

144 winS

end f discussion

Birdofthad wrote:

144 winS

end f discussion

ahh the famous Flomo saying 41-0. A lot of these old dudes did pray on the weak for most of those bouts.

Diego408 wrote:

Birdofthad wrote:

144 winS


end f discussion

ahh the famous Flomo saying 41-0. A lot of these old dudes did pray on the weak for most of those bouts.

Twice as many fighters jammed into half as many divisions...

i dont give a shit when you go 144-16

that outdoes 44-0

love how im a flomo cause i dont bash one of the best fighters of the era

lets see of course if a fighter has 144-175 231 wins amoung them there are fighters of far lesser competion..thoses wins are pep robinson saddler..take into account that fighters of course when they start out and develope do fight others that are not amoung the top fighters in the world unless your name is pete radamacher..greb also as well as gavilyn had plenty of wins and several fights against far lesser activity...to critize that is shear foolishness for its called activity..also for example amoung greb robinson gavilin etc etc there are fights against high quality fighters...the best of fighters..40-50 60-70 such fights..thoses fights are more fights then a pacquio mayweather a sanchez a jones jr etc etc have had in there ENTIRE career..
marble likes to use the rated fighter system..thats a good guideline yes but even that to me does not tell the whole picture..example he uses ring mag rankings..hes right over the years its the most reliable and the best...but we are talking ranked fighters at the time they fought..today in almost every division 17 of them you struggle to find 10 deserving ranked fighters..some names are ranked cause you have to fill in the blanks..the debth of divisions ends a lot of times at 7 fighters or so .some less..years ago with 8 divisions two to two and a half more fighters the debth of many divisions were 20-25 deep.that means many a very good fighter is unranked cause of the high competion where today they would easly be ranked in the top 5 or so..those fighters should not be viewd as also rans..

having good knowledge of how good they were is a plus..this makes the records of the fighters that lol are critized for all thoses wins much more impressive...ill give a example or several..all these fighters did crack the top ten at one time but doo to the huge deep divisions mostly were unranked...henry hank boby boyd edwardo lausee langlois holly mims tiger jones yama bahama rory calhoun gasper ortega i can go on and on showing the middle division in the 50s or the welters or the lightweights like johnny busso larry boardman....if you dont know who they are or the type of fighter they were then how can you say a guy with 144 wins fought mostly also rans..every one of thoses guys would rank high today..a few would be number 1...
ill take a fighter who fights 12 times a year every year that fights 6 also rans 3 top fighters that are unranked due to high competion and 3 top ranked fighters over a guy that fights twice a year or 3 times every two years..anyday plus twice on a sunday...
now you tell me who needs to be crtisized..a saddler or a bo hop or a floyd...geez.