henry armstrong vs salvidor sanchez

[good right hand]

this would have been a incredibly even fight at feather weight.

i can see armstrong using his strength and sheer volume of punches against possibly the greatest ring genius of all time in salvidor sanchez.

i would pick sanchez by decision but i can easily see armstrong taking a 12 or 15 rd decision.

[TBooze]

Armstrong was a whole above Sanchez, to start of with, he had a full career, we can only measure Sanchez (at this level) on potential...

I just did not see enough from Sanchez to think he could beat Armstrong.

Hank WU15

[TBooze]

I'd say Armstrong takes the decision in a great fight, similar to the Sanchez/Nelson fight but without the KD's and the finish. So Armstrong takes a close UD by outworking him.

Armstrong at his 126 best was no 13 fight novice unlike the Nelson who fought and gave Sanchez one big scare.

I think people are too bias towards Sanchez's career because of his tragic and early death...

[TBooze]

Says the guy who only thinks we can measure Greb on potential. :lol: We can measure Sanchez on what we saw, not what he could've become, because he was already special, but I agree Armstrong likely wins a decision.

:huh

I do not rate Greb as high as you, because he died young and did not have a full career. I do not think you can use potential to rate an all time great thus Greb and Sanchez are punished because of that.

[TBooze]

What do you mean!?!?!?! NOBODY except you rates Greb because of potential, just as nobody rates Armstrong because of potential(they stopped fighting around the same time in their careers in case you didn't know). They rate them based on accomplishments. Greb has arguably the best resume of all time, fought for 13 years and had over 300 fights. How is that basing his career on potential? He was past his prime when he died anyway, just like Armstrong was, because of all the wars. Saying we base what Greb did on potential is one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard from someone on this section.

Have you ever researched Greb? Do you know his resume, what he accomplished? How are we basing it on what he could've done? We're basing it on what he DID, not was capable of. I suggest you research him more thoroughly.

Greb did not have a full career, he must have a bias against him for that. Thus he is my all-time #18.

I rate people on accomplishments not dying young. His death was tragic but 80 years or so after the event it goes against him as all his peers on my list had a full career, it is unfair on them to not bias him IMO.

[Manassa]

Sometimes, as fans, we tend to overrate a young a fighter only to be knocked back at the realization he has a poor chin, or a lack of heart, or subpar stamina. Some will say that this is the reason we shouldn't hype Sanchez up and blow him out of proportion, but I disagree - we saw in his brief career that he could carry on and adapt in the face of adversity, could take a hellish punch and could fight hard until the final bell. And unlike many young prospects, Sanchez showed this against top class opposition and accomplished a fair bit before his premature death.

To say Armstrong would win by a significant margin would do Sanchez no justice, just as it would do Armstrong no justice if the sentence were reversed. It's almost a fact: the fight would be close. Very close, most likely, and punishing, one in which both fighters would never forget.

[TBooze]

:patsch Ok then you should have Greb #1.

Are you not listening? You seem very stubborn. He did have a FULL career, we do base what he did on accomplishments. Try listening to what I said and disputing my points please, instead of rehashing the same old WRONG points.

No he died in 1926 aged 32, he was robbed of a finale to his career that often helps clarify a fighters greatness. Greb was Great but his early death meant he was not truly defind as a fighter, thus he cannot be fairly rated against his peers, and because of this he is a little lower in my all time ratings than many others have him.;)

[Manassa]

Greb did not have a full career, he must have a bias against him for that. Thus he is my all-time #18.

Absolutely crazy, and just because he died early. I'd say three hundred fights is quite a full career.

[Dempsey1238]

Greb may have died young, but by the time he died, the guy have near 300 fights. You would think that was a full career. Greb was pretty much done when he died though. He was already going blind in one eye by that time, and 32 was OLD for a swarmer of that style. He was also slowing done as the Flowers fight reports show.

[hdog]

Greb did not have a full career? Wow.

[robert ungurean]

What do you mean!?!?!?! NOBODY except you rates Greb because of potential, just as nobody rates Armstrong because of potential(they stopped fighting around the same time in their careers in case you didn't know). They rate them based on accomplishments. Greb has arguably the best resume of all time, fought for 13 years and had over 300 fights. How is that basing his career on potential? He was past his prime when he died anyway, just like Armstrong was, because of all the wars. Saying we base what Greb did on potential is one of the most ludicrous things I've ever heard from someone on this section.

Have you ever researched Greb? Do you know his resume, what he accomplished? How are we basing it on what he could've done? We're basing it on what he DID, not was capable of. I suggest you research him more thoroughly.:good :good

[Street Lethal]

I pick Henry Armstrong.

Harry Greb had a full career. Compared to most records he had two or three full careers.