Saldivar just wasn't as well known on Fightbeat until recent years, which is why this matchup was never done before. It's close in terms of greatness. Both peaked at 21-23, though obviously Sal for a different reason... Both have an excellent case as the #2 greatest Mexican behind Chavez. Both amassed incredibly deep resumes in their short runs. Saldivar's run had more depth, but Sanchez had the bigger wins. Which do you value? In terms of who was "better"... again, very, very close. Saldivar was better at handling boxers than Sanchez, but Sanchez was better at taking apart guys who came at him. Both had endless stamina, both were versatile, both had off-the-charts ring IQ... however, Sanchez had a much better chin, and that one advantage might be enough to shade it for Sal in the "better" category. So I say... greatness is a wash. Sanchez was EVER so slightly better because he was more durable.
Better is razor thin. I'm not sure Sanchez was actually better than Saldivar. What he was was more aesthetically pleasing to watch - so relaxed, so seemingly effortless and such an obvious natural talent. Compared with him, not many come away looking good. The thing is, I really like Saldivar's style but his was a little stiffer, not as slick (this is obviously relative) but he had great poise regardless. Greater? I'm going Saldivar, although not by much. The two had almost identical careers up to the point that Sanchez died. Both won the title at 21, put defenses together quickly and were done in the space of two and half years. Saldivar came back and regained the title, though, something Sanchez could not do through no fault of his own, of course. But even without Saldivar's comeback, I might have given Saldivar the edge. With it, it tips things in his favour.
Greatness is just unbearably close. You have one guy who, like X said, had better wins but less of them, and another who's got plenty of top wins but none quite as good as the other's best. For me, I tend to prefer Saldivar's depth. If you look at his run to the title, it's very impressive and definitely an underrated collection of wins. Baby Luis, Dwight Hawkins, Eduardo Guerrero, and obviously, Ismael Laguna make for a good run. I actually think the version of Laguna who fought Saldivar would beat everyone who Sanchez fought at the time he fought them, and potentially Sanchez himself. I can't say it's a better win, because it is, after all, a close, controversial decision over ten rounds in a non-title fight. It just wasn't in a situation that would make an all-time great win, even if it is a win over an all-time great. Sanchez's run to the title didn't have anything I'm impressed by, just a few fringe contenders. I'd take Ramos over Lopez, especially at that point. Sanchez's wins over Castillo, Ford and Laporte are all on par (or so) with Saldivar's over Winstone IMO. Cowdell was no better than Seki, I'd say, and definitely not better than Robertson. I think the Gomez win should be held in higher regard, but Laguna was a better fighter than both Gomez at feather, and that version of Nelson (or any, IMO). Saldivar has Legra and Fammo, too. You also have the factor of Saldivar coming back and taking the title again, after a short retirement. Sure, Sanchez didn't have the opportunity to, but still, he didn't do it. It's a slippery slope if you start giving credit for things he could've done, or start ignoring other's achievement because Sal didn't get the chance. I go Saldivar, but only by a midgie's dick.
