I don't see a reason to really favour Esparragoza. Everything is going against him IMO. Pedroza is taller and quicker, with a better jab so I have no doubt he would win any sort of chess-match, and he's also flat out a better fighter, regardless of styles. And it's not like he often lost to guys worse than him. If I was around at the time and liked a bit of a gamble, Pedroza is one of those fighters who're reliable.
I think there's reason to at least question how well Pedroza handles someone with the firepower of Esparragoza. Across his career, from Zamora to LaPorte and Lockridge to McGuigan, I think it could be argued that there's a pattern of him being ruffled by strong punchers who carried the fight to him.
Valid point, but of the three, only the Laporte fight is relevant. In the Zamora fight, Pedroza was totally green and that fight was at 118 against arguably the biggest bantamweight puncher OAT. In the McGuigan fight, Pedroza was a shell of the fighter he was in the late 70s/early 80s. The counter to that would be that Esparragoza never faced anyone close to Pedroza's talent and skill. At least we have Pedroza opponents to guage by - with Esparragoza we have no way way of assessing how he would fare with a technician as good and complete as Pedroza.
