Discussion on Willie Pep [Archive] - Boxing Fanatics Forum

Rebel

10-17-2003, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by TIP:

It should be noted that Pep had very serious injuries incurred from a plane crash in late 1947. Doctors never expected him to fight again. Although still a high quality fighter Pep wasn't the same after the crash. TIP I've always believed that Pep aficionados overstate the severity of the injuries to build up his legend. After the crash, he was in the ring 3-4 months later and from what I've read, he looked pretty darn good for the next 20 something fights before he ran into his conqueror, the great Sandy Saddler.

If you're going to cling on to the theory that he wasn't the same after the crash, then you must rate him based on what he did prior to the crash. Give it a try. After looking his record over, you'll see a lot of good wins but nothing spectacular. He had several wins over Chalky Wright, a fellow HOFer, but so did Baby Arizmendi, a tough journeyman who held his own during that era.

On the same token, Pep fans use his lone victory over Saddler as a measure of Pep's greatness. How can you not count his losses to Saddler yet give him credit for the lone win? I think it's just a case of some people trying to immortalize him. I rate a fighter by what he did in the ring. Pep was a great fighter but his legend is extremely overrated. Saddler had his number.

[ October 17, 2003, 08:36 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

Rebel

10-18-2003, 01:42 AM

I moved this thread here since no one is visiting the other forums. *cough* *cough* :mad:

TIP

10-18-2003, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by Rebel:

I've always believed that Pep aficionados overstate the severity of the injuries to build up his legend. After the crash, he was in the ring 3-4 months later and from what I've read, he looked pretty darn good for the next 20 something fights before he ran into his conqueror, the great Sandy Saddler.

If you're going to cling on to the theory that he wasn't the same after the crash, then you must rate him based on what he did prior to the crash. Give it a try. After looking his record over, you'll see a lot of good wins but nothing spectacular. He had several wins over Chalky Wright, a fellow HOFer, but so did Baby Arizmendi, a tough journeyman who held his own during that era.

On the same token, Pep fans use his lone victory over Saddler as a measure of Pep's greatness. How can you not count his losses to Saddler yet give him credit for the lone win? I think it's just a case of some people trying to immortalize him. I rate a fighter by what he did in the ring. Pep was a great fighter but his legend is extremely overrated. Saddler had his number. Everything I've ever heard about Pep after the plane crash said he wasn't the same fighter. Several knowledgable old timers who saw Pep have told me that. Below is a piece written by John Garfield regarding Pep. Regards TIP

The Willie Pep that I knew BEFORE he broke his back in that plane crash is the best pure boxer I?ve ever seen.

After the crash, like a pitcher that?s throwing heat, and he?s overpowering everybody; he gets injured and loses 10 miles an hour on his fastball, and all of a sudden, people are starting to get to him.

He looks the same; his motion?s the same and he gets by against good, quality talent, but against the elite, it?s a toss up.

Pep was more than a step slower, and when you depend on guile, it?s fatal.

Just thinking of Willie Pep brings a smile to my face; he was a floorshow every place he went.

He wanted to laugh and would stop at nothing to break everybody else up. He always had all of us in the gym in stitches. He'd rib us and make us feel like he was just one of the boys. With his Graziano slouch and pork-pie hat, he was better able to carry that off goofing on a street corner but never in the ring.

When Pep was at Stillman's, you could count on practical jokes and a florid Lou Stillman. But, he could do all of that because he was a dream in the ring. It was almost a religious experience watching him.

But he took nothing serious. NOTHING. He came to the gym mostly, I think, to have a good time. It was like an extension of being at the track or playing cards.

Pep never learned anything; it was all God given. His feet didn't touch the ground and he was all but invisible.

And, that 's the Pep I'd always seen at the height of his career.

After he hung up the gloves, briefly, he tried his hand at training.

I was once was in the 5th St. Gym in Miami and Pep was in the corner of a big, beefy heavyweight.

Pep was screaming at the heavyweight from the ring apron, and getting red in the face. This wasn't stand-up comic Willie: this was more like Vince Lombardi or Mike Ditka.

When the round ended, Pep went berserk and attacked his own fighter. He was screaming at him, punching him, whipping him with his pork-pie hat, kicking him in shins; he had to be dragged off him.

Pep just couldn't get it in his head that what he did, as natural as breathing, nobody else could.

Rebel

10-18-2003, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by TIP:

Everything I've ever heard about Pep after the plane crash said he wasn't the same fighter. Several knowledgable old timers who saw Pep have told me that. Below is a piece written by John Garfield regarding Pep. Regards TIP

The Willie Pep that I knew BEFORE he broke his back in that plane crash is the best pure boxer I’ve ever seen.

After the crash, like a pitcher that’s throwing heat, and he’s overpowering everybody; he gets injured and loses 10 miles an hour on his fastball, and all of a sudden, people are starting to get to him.

He looks the same; his motion’s the same and he gets by against good, quality talent, but against the elite, it’s a toss up.

Pep was more than a step slower, and when you depend on guile, it’s fatal.

Just thinking of Willie Pep brings a smile to my face; he was a floorshow every place he went.

He wanted to laugh and would stop at nothing to break everybody else up. He always had all of us in the gym in stitches. He'd rib us and make us feel like he was just one of the boys. With his Graziano slouch and pork-pie hat, he was better able to carry that off goofing on a street corner but never in the ring.

When Pep was at Stillman's, you could count on practical jokes and a florid Lou Stillman. But, he could do all of that because he was a dream in the ring. It was almost a religious experience watching him.

But he took nothing serious. NOTHING. He came to the gym mostly, I think, to have a good time. It was like an extension of being at the track or playing cards.

Pep never learned anything; it was all God given. His feet didn't touch the ground and he was all but invisible.

And, that 's the Pep I'd always seen at the height of his career.

After he hung up the gloves, briefly, he tried his hand at training.

I was once was in the 5th St. Gym in Miami and Pep was in the corner of a big, beefy heavyweight.

Pep was screaming at the heavyweight from the ring apron, and getting red in the face. This wasn't stand-up comic Willie: this was more like Vince Lombardi or Mike Ditka.

When the round ended, Pep went berserk and attacked his own fighter. He was screaming at him, punching him, whipping him with his pork-pie hat, kicking him in shins; he had to be dragged off him.

Pep just couldn't get it in his head that what he did, as natural as breathing, nobody else could. Unfortunately, I cannot rank a fighter based on how great he might've been. A fighter must be ranked by how he faired in the ring while he competed in it, particularly during his prime. As I stated, Pep was still reeling off wins before and after he fought Saddler. Is it any coincidence that Saddler was the guy that finally beat him? Saddler wasn't a flash in the pan. He was a great little fighter himself and his dominance proved that.

I hate to see Saddler's wins over Pep dimished by people who aim to immortalize Pep. I wonder if people were saying he wasn't the same prior to him losing to Saddler. I wish I were there to confirm this.

It reminds of a story we've witnessed in the last fifteen years, the story of Mike Tyson. Some Tyson fans claim that he was the greatest heavyweight of all-time while his ring record displays a different tale. "Robbin Givens ruined him. Money ruined him. The death of his beloved trainer ruined him. Tyson 'could've' been the greatest of all-time." You can have all the potential in the world but if you don't show that potential on a consistent basis then this individual will merely judge you by what you did in your prime. Let twenty years pass and I guarantee you that many of the Tyson fans who cling to those theories, will immortalize him as if he were one of the greatest fighters of all-time. It wouldn't shock me to see some people rank him in the top five at heavyweight.

Tracy Callis from I.B.R.O. finely stated, "However, the large bulk of this coverage is about contemporary pugilists with the result being that fans tend to exaggerate the skills of the fighters in their time in relation to those of other eras." It is my goal to not fall into this fallacy.

[ October 19, 2003, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

BedtimeBear

10-18-2003, 01:01 PM

Is there existing film footage of Pep?

Ive never seen him before.

Crocodillo

10-19-2003, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Rebel:

Unfortunately, I cannot rank a fighter based on how great he might've been. A fighter must be ranked by how he faired in the ring while he competed in, particularly during his prime. As I stated, Pep was still reeling off wins before and after he fought Saddler. Is it any coincidence that Saddler was the guy that finally beat him? Saddler wasn't a flash in the pan. He was a great little fighter himself and his dominance proved that.

I hate to see Saddler's wins over Pep dimished by people who aim to immortalize Pep. I wonder if people were saying he wasn't the same prior to him losing to Saddler. I wish I were there to confirm this.

It reminds of a story we've witnessed in the last fifteen years, the story of Mike Tyson. Some Tyson fans claim that he was the greatest heavyweight of all-time while his ring record displays a different tale. "Robbin Givens ruined him. Money ruined him. The death of his beloved trainer ruined him. Tyson 'could've' been the greatest of all-time." You can have all the potential in the world but if you don't show that potential on a consistent basis then this individual will merely judge you by what you did in your prime. Let twenty years pass and I guarantee you that many of the Tyson fans who cling to those theories, will immortalize him as if he were one of the greatest fighters of all-time. It wouldn't shock me to see some people rank him in the top five at heavyweight.

Tracy Callis from I.B.R.O. finely stated, "However, the large bulk of this coverage is about contemporary pugilists with the result being that fans tend to exaggerate the skills of the fighters in their time in relation to those of other eras." It is my goal to not fall into this fallacy. you were just given an amazing peice of information and you just trashed it..you are truly biased rebs..i like you but truly biased

Valentino

10-19-2003, 09:02 AM

Originally posted by Crocodillo:

you were just given an amazing peice of information and you just trashed it..you are truly biased rebs..i like you but truly biased I think he's been OBJECTIVE. Nothing wrong with that.

Rebel

10-19-2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by Crocodillo:

you were just given an amazing peice of information and you just trashed it..you are truly biased rebs..i like you but truly biased Instead of insulting me how about explaining to me why we shouldn't judge Pep based on what he did prior to the crash only. Why should I have to immortalize him and and overrate him based on the theory that he fought Saddler at 80% and everything he did after the crash is simply a testament to how great he was. Let's judge him by how he did prior to the crash that zapped some of his Superman powers.

[ October 19, 2003, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

Rebel

10-19-2003, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by Valentino:

I think he's been OBJECTIVE. Nothing wrong with that. Thank you. I'd rather he debate than insult me. His comments show that he brings nothing to the table here in this thread.

john garfield

10-19-2003, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Rebel:

Thank you. I'd rather he debate than insult me. His comments show that he brings nothing to the table here in this thread. I don't have the time at the moment, but Iook forward to changing both your's and Valentino's estimation of Pep, with reasons that, I think, you'll buy.

Rebel

10-19-2003, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by (animal):
Is there existing film footage of Pep?

Ive never seen him before. ESPN Classics have showed a few of his bouts in the past.

Rebel

10-19-2003, 12:59 PM

Valentino

10-19-2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by john garfield:

I don't have the time at the moment, but Iook forward to changing both your's and Valentino's estimation of Pep, with reasons that, I think, you'll buy. I rank Pep #1 Featherweight of all time.

And number 4 all time great pound for pound (after Duran, Robinson, and Amstrong).

I was only saying that regardless if I agree or disagree with Rebelz...that I respect the fact that he is trying to be objective.

Michael Matos

10-19-2003, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Rebel:

Instead of insulting me how about explaining to me why we shouldn't judge Pep based on what he did prior to the crash only. Why should I have to immortalize him and and overrate him based on the theory that he fought Saddler at 80% and everything he did after the crash is simply a testament to how great he was. Let's judge him by how he did prior to the crash that zapped some of his Superman powers. How about we forget the crash altogether. He started off his career with 63 straight victories, lost a decision to Hall Of Famer Sammy Angott and then reeled another 73 consecutive victories before facing Saddler. Barely 26 years old and a record of 135-1-1 give or take a victory. The question becomes whats to overrate? Yes he did lose to Saddler 3 out of 4 but you begin to lose something once you get up around 140 fights don't you think? Ray Robinson started to lose a little here or there after 130 fights,

Rebel

10-19-2003, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Michael Matos:

How about we forget the crash altogether. He started off his career with 63 straight victories, lost a decision to Hall Of Famer Sammy Angott and then reeled another 73 consecutive victories before facing Saddler. Barely 26 years old and a record of 135-1-1 give or take a victory. The question becomes whats to overrate? Yes he did lose to Saddler 3 out of 4 but you begin to lose something once you get up around 140 fights don't you think? Ray Robinson started to lose a little here or there after 130 fights, Are you trying to tell me that Pep's level of opposition was comparable to Ray Robinson's after 140 fights?

Sure, let's take a look at his record when he was at 135-1-1. People like to say that Julio Cesar Chavez fought a lot of Mexican cab drivers during his first 40-50 fights but the same can be said about Pep. Many of those victories were over nobodies on the East Coast circuit.

I think you're way off on the Robinson comparison. Robinson's resume up to that point was incredible. I can't say the same for Pep. While the number of wins on his ledger are impressive, you must consider the quality of opposition that makes up those wins, in order to accurately assess his greatness and all-time ranking in the featherweight division.

[ October 19, 2003, 08:52 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

john garfield

10-19-2003, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Rebel:

Are you trying to tell me that Pep's level of opposition was comparable to Ray Robinson's after 140 fights?

Sure, let's take a look at his record when he was at 135-1-1. People like to say that Julio Cesar Chavez fought a lot of Mexican cab drivers during his first 40-50 fights but the same can be said about Pep. Many of those victories were over nobodies on the East Coast circuit.

I think you're way off on the Robinson comparison. Robinson's resume up to that point was incredible. I can't say the same for Pep. While the number of wins on his ledger are impressive, you must consider the quality of opposition that makes up those wins, in order to accurately assess his greatness and all-time ranking in the featherweight division. Michael Matos touched on much of the reason why Pep?s greatness can?t be exaggerated. Let me put a fine point to that: Pep had 230 wins in 240 fights, and for a guy who was a powder-puff puncher; he had 65 KO?s.

He was the youngest man in 40 years to win the title, and when he lost to Angott, for the first time, it was at lightweight. Against the best featherweights in the world?and the names dot his record?he went 136-0.

I just glanced at your latest post, and from the tone of it, you?re clearly digging your heels in refusing to accept any evidence, as if there?s a conspiracy of old schoolers to foist one of their own on you.

I assure you Sal Bartolo, Chalky Wright, Ray Famechon, Pappy Gault, Armand Savoie, Manuel Ortiz, Lu Lu Constantino--to name a few-- were world class fighters.

I couldn?t care less what era a fighter is from. If he?s good, he?s good. And, there?s been no better at feather than Saddler, Sanchez, Morales and Barrera. But, as a pure boxer, none of them can touch Pep.

You single out Mike Tyson?s many problems as unacceptable for his diminishing skills?as just another athlete?s lame excuse for a downward slide.

There was nothing lame about Pep?s broken back, leg an ankle. It was as real as his x-rays. And it affected him long term as surely as Gayle Sayer?s open-field running after his first knee surgery.

Rebel

10-20-2003, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by john garfield:

Michael Matos touched on much of the reason why Pep’s greatness can’t be exaggerated. Let me put a fine point to that: Pep had 230 wins in 240 fights, and for a guy who was a powder-puff puncher; he had 65 KO’s.

He was the youngest man in 40 years to win the title, and when he lost to Angott, for the first time, it was at lightweight. Against the best featherweights in the world—and the names dot his record—he went 136-0.

I just glanced at your latest post, and from the tone of it, you’re clearly digging your heels in refusing to accept any evidence, as if there’s a conspiracy of old schoolers to foist one of their own on you.

I assure you Sal Bartolo, Chalky Wright, Ray Famechon, Pappy Gault, Armand Savoie, Manuel Ortiz, Lu Lu Constantino--to name a few-- were world class fighters.

I couldn’t care less what era a fighter is from. If he’s good, he’s good. And, there’s been no better at feather than Saddler, Sanchez, Morales and Barrera. But, as a pure boxer, none of them can touch Pep.

You single out Mike Tyson’s many problems as unacceptable for his diminishing skills…as just another athlete’s lame excuse for a downward slide.

There was nothing lame about Pep’s broken back, leg an ankle. It was as real as his x-rays. And it affected him long term as surely as Gayle Sayer’s open-field running after his first knee surgery. Chalky Wright was defeated by Baby Arizmendi twice. It doesn't impress me that Pep defeated him.

Manuel Ortiz was a natural bantamweight. That's not very impressive either.

The others were world-class fighters but nothing special.

After 140 fights, Ray Robinson had defeated the likes of Sammy Angott, Kid Gavilan, Fritzie Zivic, Jake Lamotta, Henry Armstrong, Bobo Olson, and many others. As a matter of fact, he beat many of these guys more than once during this stretch.

Ray Robinson's record up to that point was a Who's Who of the HOF. He also later proved that he could move up in weight and take care of business unlike Pep who faltered when he tried it against Angott. The two resumes are not comparable up to that point nor are they comparable at any point in their careers.

Willie Pep was a great fighter but Sandy Saddler was an even greater fighter and he proved it by beating him 3 out of 4 times. But I will concede that a case could be made for Pep based on what you've said. As you know, many individuals rank those two differently. I'm not alone in my perspective.

[ October 20, 2003, 01:19 AM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

The Hitman

10-20-2003, 07:27 AM

did someone mention that pep was stopped on a cut in the first saddler fight? i have always wondered b/c if saddler ever cleanly KO'd Pep it would have to rank as one of the more impressive KOs in boxing history. did Saddler ever cleanly KO pep?

Hitman

Crocodillo

10-20-2003, 08:03 AM

Rebs...why are you bringin up Ray Robinson in to measure pep's greatness at featherweight? thats not very objective..i find it silly..no offense

Rebel

10-20-2003, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by Crocodillo:
Rebs...why are you bringin up Ray Robinson in to measure pep's greatness at featherweight? thats not very objective..i find it silly..no offense Someone else used him as an example to compare both fighter's at the 140 fight mark. I didn't do it. I thought the comparison was way off.

BJ*

10-20-2003, 09:53 AM

Originally posted by Rebel:

Someone else used him as an example to compare both fighter's at the 140 fight mark. I didn't do it. I thought the comparison was way off. Hmmm...I don't know rebel - you trivialze ALL of Pep's name opponents due to other losses, but use Kid Gavilan, Fritzie Zivic, Jake Lamotta, Bobo Olson, etc to prop up Ray in response...I have neither the time nor the inclination (what movie is that from) to get their records out, but someone could EASILY tear them apart as well if that was their desire. I won't tear them down because I don't think they should be torn down...but you see the point.

Hey croc, did you notice the timing of this whole thread? There was a post in the regular forum and peps name came up, I told diesel that Pep was Italian (he thought he was Mexican)...Then BOOM!...rebel has the "discredit willie pep" thread started graemlins/lol.gif

BJ*

10-20-2003, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Rebel:

Sure, let's take a look at his record when he was at 135-1-1. People like to say that Julio Cesar Chavez fought a lot of Mexican cab drivers during his first 40-50 fights but the same can be said about Pep. Many of those victories were over nobodies on the East Coast circuit.

You're arguing with yourself now. Your point should actually boost your opinion of Pep. Where do you rank JC all-time? Figure that out, and then you can go ahead and put Pep a few notches higher graemlins/thumb.gif

Rebel

10-20-2003, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by BJ*:

Hmmm...I don't know rebel - you trivialze ALL of Pep's name opponents due to other losses, but use Kid Gavilan, Fritzie Zivic, Jake Lamotta, Bobo Olson, etc to prop up Ray in response...I have neither the time nor the inclination (what movie is that from) to get their records out, but someone could EASILY tear them apart as well if that was their desire. I won't tear them down because I don't think they should be torn down...but you see the point.

Hey croc, did you notice the timing of this whole thread? There was a post in the regular forum and peps name came up, I told diesel that Pep was Italian (he thought he was Mexican)...Then BOOM!...rebel has the "discredit willie pep" thread started graemlins/lol.gif I know Ray Robinson's opponents were not undefeated greats when he fought them but many of them did do well enough for themselves that they later became future HOFers. My point is that Pep's resume up to that point was not comparable to Robinson's, whose resume boasts a bunch of HOFers. The one guy he owned the most during that time period was Chalky Wright, a fighter that Baby Arizmendi, a Mexican journeyman contender defeated a few times also. I think it's clear as day that the Robinson comparison was way off.

I'm not trying to discredit Pep. I feel he truly was a great fighter but not the best featherweight of all-time. That honor belongs to Mr. Saddler.

[ October 20, 2003, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

Rebel

10-20-2003, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by BJ*:

You're arguing with yourself now. Your point should actually boost your opinion of Pep. Where do you rank JC all-time? Figure that out, and then you can go ahead and put Pep a few notches higher graemlins/thumb.gif I do rank Pep highly. I have him at #2 all-time at featherweight.

Crocodillo

10-20-2003, 11:27 AM

BJ*

10-20-2003, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Crocodillo:

im just gonna let it go dude...rebs doesnt like "east coast italians"

he he :D tongue.gif I know. The funniest thing about that though is that Rebel thinks Pittsburgh is on the East coast graemlins/rotf.gif ;)

BJ*

10-20-2003, 12:23 PM

Rebel also fails to mention that Sandy Saddler HIMSELF has a loss to a nobody in EVERY single year that he was active Except for '51 when his 2 losses that year were to Paddy DeMarco who is not really a nobody, but not an all-timer either...and '49 when he only lost to Pep.
But somehow Pep BEATING Chalky Wright who in turn lost to Baby Arizmendi is counted AGAINST Pep :eek: graemlins/slap.gif This argument also from a guy (rebel, i'm talking about you :D )who in another topic states that he can forgive some periodic losses for the old-timers because of their activity level back then... graemlins/headscratch.gif

Rebel

10-20-2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by BJ*:
Rebel also fails to mention that Sandy Saddler HIMSELF has a loss to a nobody in EVERY single year that he was active Except for '51 when his 2 losses that year were to Paddy DeMarco who is not really a nobody, but not an all-timer either...and '49 when he only lost to Pep.
But somehow Pep BEATING Chalky Wright who in turn lost to Baby Arizmendi is counted AGAINST Pep :eek: graemlins/slap.gif This argument also from a guy (rebel, i'm talking about you :D )who in another topic states that he can forgive some periodic losses for the old-timers because of their activity level back then... graemlins/headscratch.gif I do forgive many of the old-timers for losing to nobodies here and there. Saddler dropped several decisions to those types of guys as you mentioned. That happens when you fight that often. I give Pep a lot of credit for maintaining such a great record for a long time. That's why I rate him highly. That's the backbone for his greatness. But I just can't bring myself to rank him above a guy he lost to 3 out of 4 times. Saddler's record wasn't as pretty but he clearly proved he was superior to Pep, one of the greatest fighters of all-time. That my friend is why I rate him higher.

[ October 20, 2003, 01:30 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

BJ*

10-20-2003, 12:44 PM

So is Ken Norton a greater heavyweight than Ali?
Ali never (in real life) beat Norton...Norton would be what you call Ali's daddy. Norton 3 outta 3. Obviously that isn't the case. Having one boogieman isn't a sin. Norton is not the better heavy over Ali. And it can be argued that Pep is ahead of Saddler.

Rebel

10-20-2003, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by BJ*:
So is Ken Norton a greater heavyweight than Ali?
Ali never (in real life) beat Norton...Norton would be what you call Ali's daddy. Norton 3 outta 3. Obviously that isn't the case. Having one boogieman isn't a sin. Norton is not the better heavy over Ali. And it can be argued that Pep is ahead of Saddler. Norton was a joke. Take away his fights with Ali, and you have nothing but an average contender.

Unlike Norton, Saddler proved to be consistent. He didn't just beat Pep 3 out of 4 times. He won the title at 130 also. Look at his record and you'll see that there was more to Saddler than just beating the great Willie Pep. However, I do agree that a case could be made for rating Pep as the #1 FW of all-time.

[ October 20, 2003, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

Rabid Kimba

10-20-2003, 03:51 PM

Unlike Rebel, who's trying to be diplomatic with all of yous...da Kimbster pulls NO punches.

Regardless of records or what not, on head-to-head competition, Pep would've gotten his ass ROYALLY kicked by Sanchez, Morales, and Barrera.

Of da featherweight old-timers, only Saddler could've been a GREAT modern fighter today.

So you can take that to da bank, and kiss my... graemlins/moon.gif

Thank you, and have a nice day. smile.gif

Valentino

10-20-2003, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by Rabid Kimba:
Unlike Rebel, who's trying to be diplomatic with all of yous...da Kimbster pulls NO punches.

Regardless of records or what not, on head-to-head competition, Pep would've gotten his ass ROYALLY kicked by Sanchez, Morales, and Barrera.

Of da featherweight old-timers, only Saddler could've been a GREAT modern fighter today.

So you can take that to da bank, and kiss my... graemlins/moon.gif

Thank you, and have a nice day. smile.gif Old timers are any fighter that fought PRIOR to the 1930s. A fighter that fought in the 1940s or 1950s looks practically like somebody today. That?s why they ALL are considered MODERN fighters.

Robinson and Pep are contemporaries. I pick Robinson over practically EVERYBODY at 147 lbs. And I do the same with Pep.

Valentino

10-20-2003, 04:53 PM

Rebel

10-20-2003, 04:59 PM

Originally posted by Valentino:

Old timers are any fighter that fought PRIOR to the 1930s. A fighter that fought in the 1940s or 1950s looks practically like somebody today. That?s why they ALL are considered MODERN fighters.

Robinson and Pep are contemporaries. I pick Robinson over practically EVERYBODY at 147 lbs. And I do the same with Pep. I think Napoles and Sugar Ray Leonard would've given Ray Robinson tough fights at 147.

I also feel that Sanchez, Morales, and Barrera could've defeated Pep at 126.

[ October 20, 2003, 06:01 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

Rebel

10-20-2003, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by Valentino:

Ali beat Norton twice.

Saddler gave Pep BEATINGs. Not even close. Many people feel Ali should've lost all 3.

Rabid Kimba

10-20-2003, 05:03 PM

...as well as Hearns.

Fuck Pep. tongue.gif tongue.gif tongue.gif

Rabid Kimba

10-20-2003, 05:08 PM

Originally posted by Rebel:

I think Napoles and Sugar Ray Leonard would've given Ray Robinson tough fights at 147.

I also feel that Sanchez, Morales, and Barrera could've defeated Pep at 126. I don't think Napoles would have, but certainly Leonard and Hearns.

Sanchez, Morales, and Barrera could've defeated Pep???

Are you outta your mind?

Not could've...WOULD HAVE...easy.

:cool: :cool: :cool:

Valentino

10-20-2003, 05:09 PM

Originally posted by Rebel:

I think Napoles and Sugar Ray Leonard would've given Ray Robinson tough fights at 147.

I also feel that Sanchez, Morales, and Barrera could've defeated Pep at 126. You might want to add Arguello to that list (he was awesome at 126 too).

Robinson? I said "practically".

Rebel

10-20-2003, 05:28 PM

Originally posted by Valentino:

You might want to add Arguello to that list (he was awesome at 126 too).

Robinson? I said "practically". Good point. I did leave him out. He should be included in that list.

Add Armstrong as well. Armstrong would've most likely taken him out via KO. He was more powerful than Saddler.

[ October 20, 2003, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

Michael Matos

10-20-2003, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Hitman:
did someone mention that pep was stopped on a cut in the first saddler fight? i have always wondered b/c if saddler ever cleanly KO'd Pep it would have to rank as one of the more impressive KOs in boxing history. did Saddler ever cleanly KO pep?

Hitman Pep was koed in the first fight, knocked him down twice in the third and koed him in the 4th. Pep one a decison in the second fight surviving a cut that required 11 stiches over his left eye. Pep was knocked down once in their third fight and the fourth fight was a foulfest that resulted in both fighters serving short suspensions.

TIP

10-20-2003, 09:44 PM

The thing about Pep's era that hasn't been mentioned is that fighters fought much more often and had world class experience at younger ages closer to their physical primes. Boxing and baseball were the main sports back then unlike today. We don't have have complete records of many fighters of the past either. Pep was often fighting guys in their twenties with plenty of experience. One guy who Pep fought a couple of times named Bill Speary has an incomplete record on the boxing rec site that lists at 30-21-2. But Speary was an experienced tough fighter. Speary had a tremendous amateur background with over 200 fights all in the open class and lost only 15 times. He won several national and international golden gloves titles. Fighting guys with 50 to 100 professional fights and or extensive amateur experience was fairly common back then. Fighters of this calaber fought one another frequently and losses occurred. So guys like Robinson and Pep with phenominal won/loss records had to be extremely good to avoid losing. I can understand how one might rate Saddler above Pep simply because Sandy was a great himself and is high on many folks lists. Pep's number one on my list because I strongly believe that Pep's severe injuries from the plane crash had an impact on his abilities. Broken legs and ankles let alone backs have consistently shown to lessen the skills of other athletes why wouldn't it do so to a boxer? That just makes sense to me and when its been totally supported by old timers that have actually saw Willie fight live, I just have to believe it. TIP

Rebel

11-03-2003, 10:27 PM

Originally posted by TIP:
The thing about Pep's era that hasn't been mentioned is that fighters fought much more often and had world class experience at younger ages closer to their physical primes. Boxing and baseball were the main sports back then unlike today. We don't have have complete records of many fighters of the past either. Pep was often fighting guys in their twenties with plenty of experience. One guy who Pep fought a couple of times named Bill Speary has an incomplete record on the boxing rec site that lists at 30-21-2. But Speary was an experienced tough fighter. Speary had a tremendous amateur background with over 200 fights all in the open class and lost only 15 times. He won several national and international golden gloves titles. Fighting guys with 50 to 100 professional fights and or extensive amateur experience was fairly common back then. Fighters of this calaber fought one another frequently and losses occurred. So guys like Robinson and Pep with phenominal won/loss records had to be extremely good to avoid losing. I can understand how one might rate Saddler above Pep simply because Sandy was a great himself and is high on many folks lists. Pep's number one on my list because I strongly believe that Pep's severe injuries from the plane crash had an impact on his abilities. Broken legs and ankles let alone backs have consistently shown to lessen the skills of other athletes why wouldn't it do so to a boxer? That just makes sense to me and when its been totally supported by old timers that have actually saw Willie fight live, I just have to believe it. TIP Are you saying that had he not gotten into the accident, he would've beaten Saddler every time? Saddler was better than anyone Pep ever faced and he happened to be stronger and a much harder puncher. Some rate him as one of the best punchers of all-time. I cannot rank Pep higher based on the hypothesis that he would've owned Saddler if he was at "100%" Had Pep gone on to win the series, I don't believe much emphasis would be put on his accident.

I think it's unfortunate that he suffered those injuries but a fighter must be judged based on what he did in the ring. Saddler was a great featherweight in his own right and he owned him. That sounds like the best featherweight of all-time to me.

[ November 04, 2003, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

TIP

11-04-2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by Rebel:

Are you saying that had he not gotten into the accident, he would've beaten Saddler every time? Saddler was better than anyone Pep ever faced and he happened to be stronger and a much harder puncher. Some rate him as one of the best punchers of all-time. I cannot rank Pep higher based on the hypothesis that he would've owned Saddler if he was at "100%" Had Pep gone on to win the series, I don't believe much emphasis would be put on his accident.

I think it's unfortunate that he suffered those injuries but a fighter must be judged based on what he did in the ring. Saddler was a great featherweight in his own right and he owned him. That sounds like the best featherweight of all-time to me. No problem with you thinking Sadler is the best, there is plenty of logic to think so. Personally I think Pep was a faster and stronger fighter prior to the injuries from the plane crash. Because I believe that and Pep outboxed Sandy in their second match, I think he could have beaten Sadler most of the time had the accident not happened. I don't think either would have owned the other though, assuming owned means dominates? Regards TIP

Rebel

11-04-2003, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by TIP:

No problem with you thinking Sadler is the best, there is plenty of logic to think so. Personally I think Pep was a faster and stronger fighter prior to the injuries from the plane crash. Because I believe that and Pep outboxed Sandy in their second match, I think he could have beaten Sadler most of the time had the accident not happened. I don't think either would have owned the other though, assuming owned means dominates? Regards TIP I'm glad you acknowledge that there is plenty of logic to believe Saddler could be rated #1 at featherweight. I've accepted that one could argue in favor of Pep but IMO the argument is stronger for Saddler.

TIP, I read that in the 2nd fight Pep barely scraped by in the roughest fight of his life. What did you read about it? Have you seen it?

To further reinforce my stance on this subject, I'll post what I posted on another forum.
_____________________________________________
Now if Pep would've kicked Saddler's ass prior to his accident then gone on to lose the remaining fights to him, that would've been a lot different. I'd have a gauge of how Pep would've faired pre-crash. The only gauge we have of a prime Pep is his loss to Angott, a couple of wins over an overrated Hall of Famer, and a mountain of wins against fighters that never went on to make a mark. None of those fighter's could hold Saddler's jock strap in a million years.

Do you see my side?

______________________________________________

I see your point. The Pep fights made Saddler to a degree. But consider these things:

-Saddler's high KO percentage which was excellent considering the times.

-Among Saddler's other victories was a 3rd round KO of future lightweight champion Joe Brown, a Hall of Famer.

-In his prime he also knocked out Demarco and Salas (a fighter who beat Manuel Ortiz a few times). And he defeated Flash Elorde when he was past his prime. Saddler beat a few future lightweight champions.

I favor the more physical, bigger, stronger, powerful fighter, when matching him up with Pep. Pep couldn't handle the bigger Angott and he couldn't handle the bigger Saddler.

[ November 04, 2003, 07:10 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

Crocodillo

11-04-2003, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Rebel:

I'm glad you acknowledge that there is plenty of logic to believe Saddler could be rated #1 at featherweight. I've accepted that one could argue in favor of Pep but IMO the argument is stronger for Saddler.

TIP, I read that in the 2nd fight Pep barely scraped by in the roughest fight of his life. What did you read about it? Have you seen it?

To further reinforce my stance on this subject, I'll post what I posted on another forum.
_____________________________________________
Now if Pep would've kicked Saddler's ass prior to his accident then gone on to lose the remaining fights to him, that would've been a lot different. I'd have a gauge of how Pep would've faired pre-crash. The only gauge we have of a prime Pep is his loss to Angott, a couple of wins over an overrated Hall of Famer, and a mountain of wins against fighters that never went on to make a mark. None of those fighter's could hold Saddler's jock strap in a million years.

Do you see my side?

______________________________________________

I see your point. The Pep fights made Saddler to a degree. But consider these things:

-Saddler's high KO percentage which was excellent considering the times.

-Among Saddler's other victories was a 3rd round KO of future lightweight champion Joe Brown, a Hall of Famer.

-In his prime he also knocked out Demarco and Salas (a fighter who beat Manuel Ortiz a few times). And he defeated Flash Elorde when he was past his prime. Saddler beat a few future lightweight champions.

I favor the more physical, bigger, stronger, powerful fighter, when matching him up with Pep. Pep couldn't handle the bigger Angott and he couldn't handle the bigger Saddler. pep beat ortiz when ortiz was in his prime..ortiz had defended the bantumweight title a couple of times and needed a new challenge...prime pep defeated him

pep also challenged angott and lost..this was because angott was bigger as you mentioned and angott was also a helluva fighter and in his prime as a lightweight

now rebs...the argument can be to further support TUG's claim that pep would have defeated saddler before the accident on a consistent basis is that in his prime Pep faced a fighter named Chalky Wright who is very comparable to saddler in fighting style, size and POWER...pep was very very easily able to outbox him...as a matter of fact...wright is in ring magazines top 100 best punchers

[ November 04, 2003, 07:43 PM: Message edited by: Crocodillo ]

Rebel

11-04-2003, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by Crocodillo:

pep beat ortiz when ortiz was in his prime..ortiz had defended the bantumweight title a couple of times and needed a new challenge...prime pep defeated him

pep also challenged angott and lost..this was because angott was bigger as you mentioned and angott was also a helluva fighter and in his prime as a lightweight

now rebs...the argument can be to further support TUG's claim that pep would have defeated saddler before the accident on a consistent basis is that in his prime Pep faced a fighter named Chalky Wright who is very comparable to saddler in fighting style, size and POWER...pep was very very easily able to outbox him...as a matter of fact...wright is in ring magazines top 100 best punchers Exactly. Read what you just typed. He beat a BANTAMWEIGHT, a smaller fighter. Saddler and Angott were much bigger fighters, the type of great fighters that troubled Pep.

Chalky Wright? He shouldn't even be in the Hall of Fame. I suggest that you glance over his record. Beating Chalky Wright means nothing. Baby Arizmendi beat him twice. He was 2-0 against Wright. Many lesser fighters defeated him as well.

Question 1: Was Chalky Wright greater than Saddler and Angott?

Question 2: Did you happen to notice where Saddler ranked on that list?

[ November 04, 2003, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

Crocodillo

11-05-2003, 06:37 AM

i mention ortiz because you mentioned him in a previos post and justified salas as a good fighter because he beat ortiz...but pep gets no credit?

its hard to argue with someone with double standards

Rebel

11-05-2003, 08:57 AM

Originally posted by Crocodillo:
i mention ortiz because you mentioned him in a previos post and justified salas as a good fighter because he beat ortiz...but pep gets no credit?

its hard to argue with someone with double standards I didn't say that Pep shouldn't get credit for that win. Stop making things up. I merely pointed out that Ortiz was a different type of fighter from those two. He was a smaller guy. You just can't accept that one can argue that Saddler was the greater featherweight. Don't kill yourself over my opinion. I'm not alone.

[ November 05, 2003, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: Rebel ]

Crocodillo

11-05-2003, 02:35 PM

Originally posted by Rebel:

I didn't say that Pep shouldn't get credit for that win. Stop making things up. I merely pointed out that Ortiz was a different type of fighter from those two. He was a smaller guy. You just can't accept that one can argue that Saddler was the greater featherweight. Don't kill yourself over my opinion. I'm not alone. your in the minority...and thats fine by me graemlins/devilfinger.gif

BJ*

11-05-2003, 02:50 PM

did you just call rebel a minority? :eek: graemlins/no.gif
that's f*cked up.

Crocodillo

11-05-2003, 03:03 PM

Originally posted by BJ*:
did you just call rebel a minority? :eek: graemlins/no.gif
that's f*cked up. lol...no

rebel said "dont kill yourself over my opinion...i'm not alone"

and i responded by saying "your in the minority"

Rebel

11-05-2003, 07:32 PM

graemlins/lol.gif

Valentino

11-06-2003, 07:48 PM

I rank Pep number 1 Featherweight of all time, NOT because he was a better fighter than Saddler (Saddler was CLEARLY the better fighter). But, because Pep was a GREATER fighter from a historical perspective.

My point: face to face, Saddler was better. But Pep did more in his career as a featherweight that puts him ahead of Saddler and certainly in the top 5 P4P Greats of ALL TIME.

I mean, look at his record: 230-11-1. In his first 136 fights, he only had ONE defeat (in a matter of 8-years).

In his first 155 fights, he only had 2 defeats (10 years span).

Rebel

11-06-2003, 10:32 PM

Originally posted by Valentino:
I rank Pep number 1 Featherweight of all time, NOT because he was a better fighter than Saddler (Saddler was CLEARLY the better fighter). But, because Pep was a GREATER fighter from a historical perspective.

My point: face to face, Saddler was better. But Pep did more in his career as a featherweight that puts him ahead of Saddler and certainly in the top 5 P4P Greats of ALL TIME.

I mean, look at his record: 230-11-1. In his first 136 fights, he only had ONE defeat (in a matter of 8-years).

In his first 155 fights, he only had 2 defeats (10 years span). I rank Saddler at #1 because he clearly won the series and had a better overall resume IMO. Look at Pep's resume pre-Saddler. I see a lot of nobodies and a few names. Saddler defeated men who went on to become lightweight champions and while past his prime he beat Flash Elorde. He's also recognized as one of the best punchers of all-time.

[ November 06, 2003, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Rebel ]