Discussion on Willie Pep

Discussion in 'Boxing News and Discussion' started by Rebel, Oct 15, 2003.

  1. Rabid Kimba

    Rabid Kimba Member

    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:
  2. Valentino

    Valentino Member

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

    Robinson? I said "practically".
  3. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    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 ]
  4. Michael Matos

    Michael Matos Member

    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.
  5. TIP

    TIP Member

    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
  6. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    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 ]
  7. TIP

    TIP Member

    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
  8. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    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 ]
  9. Crocodillo

    Crocodillo Guest

    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 ]
  10. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    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 ]
  11. Crocodillo

    Crocodillo Guest

    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
  12. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    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 ]
  13. Crocodillo

    Crocodillo Guest

    your in the minority...and thats fine by me [​IMG]
  14. BJ*

    BJ* Member

    did you just call rebel a minority? :eek: [​IMG]
    that's f*cked up.
  15. Crocodillo

    Crocodillo Guest


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

    and i responded by saying "your in the minority"
  16. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

  17. Valentino

    Valentino Member

    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).
  18. Rebel

    Rebel Admin

    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 ]
  19. dazbag

    dazbag Manos Daz Piedra

    Saddler deserves to be higher purely on Pep's ability to score a fight... :D

Share This Page