Boxing  

Forum Home Boxing Forum European British Classic Aussie MMA Training
Go Back   Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum


Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-07-2011, 02:51 AM   #16
albinored
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: World Citizen
Posts: 406
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Willie Pep

...when tony janiro met harry truman tony's manager introduced tony to vice president truman janiro was thrilled. after their meeting he said to his manager..."geez.....imagine that....me shaking hands with the vice president of madison square garden!"

tony was a great prospect but he was too handsome to be human. a real pretty boy, as lamotta called him. his manager said "it's not the ***ual activity that hurts a fighter in training, it's the chasing after it. " with tony there were so many willing to be caught that training was an interference with his "social life."
albinored is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old 05-07-2011, 07:40 AM   #17
quarry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: Willie Pep

a guy known as JAB who is moderator on the other website likes to claim Willie Pep was nothing special and Pep's prime record of 132-1-1 is nowhere near as good as Sam Langfords record
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2011, 08:01 AM   #18
burt bienstock
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,635
vCash: 500
Default Re: Willie Pep

Quote:
Originally Posted by albinored View Post
...when tony janiro met harry truman tony's manager introduced tony to vice president truman janiro was thrilled. after their meeting he said to his manager..."geez.....imagine that....me shaking hands with the vice president of madison square garden!"

tony was a great prospect but he was too handsome to be human. a real pretty boy, as lamotta called him. his manager said "it's not the ***ual activity that hurts a fighter in training, it's the chasing after it. " with tony there were so many willing to be caught that training was an interference with his "social life."
Al, Janiro was the best young looking prospect I ever saw boxing.
Aside : One early morning I went to Stillmans gym,and before walking up the steps to the gym i was looking at a boxing poster. A young cherub-faced kid with blond curley hair walked in and asked me ,"who won last nights fight between Red D'Amato and someone else", I told him D'Amato did and he smiled,and walked up the steps of the gym. Later on I saw this young blond kid box and Lou Stillman announced his name ,"Tony Janiro". I,later saw him
at MSG,stopping someone the night VP Truman shook his hand. He never
fulfilled his great promise, screwing around with willing women undid Janiro.
burt bienstock is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2011, 08:21 AM   #19
burt bienstock
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,635
vCash: 500
Default Re: Willie Pep

Quote:
Originally Posted by burt bienstock View Post
Al, Janiro was the best young looking prospect I ever saw boxing.
Aside : One early morning I went to Stillmans gym,and before walking up the steps to the gym i was looking at a boxing poster. A young cherub-faced kid with blond curley hair walked in and asked me ,"who won last nights fight between Red D'Amato and someone else", I told him D'Amato did and he smiled,and walked up the steps of the gym. Later on I saw this young blond kid box and Lou Stillman announced his name ,"Tony Janiro". I,later saw him
at MSG,stopping someone the night VP Truman shook his hand. He never
fulfilled his great promise, screwing around with willing women undid Janiro.
Addendum- I just recalled that the night Harry Truman shook Tony Janiro's hand after his prelim win was headlined by Rocky Graziano an 8-1 underdog,flattened the "young Joe Louis", Billy Arnold at MSG. What an exciting night for me,a youngster to see at ringside.! Graziano then became the new boxing SENSATION, and Harry Truman later on became President.
All this for $ 1.50 admission ! Not bad....Bring back the old days....
burt bienstock is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2011, 04:09 PM   #20
JAB5239
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,191
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Willie Pep

Quote:
Originally Posted by quarry View Post
a guy known as JAB who is moderator on the other website likes to claim Willie Pep was nothing special and Pep's prime record of 132-1-1 is nowhere near as good as Sam Langfords record
Honestly, you're totally pathetic. I never said anything close to that. We were debating who had the better overall resume and I said it was Langford and backed that position up.
JAB5239 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 10:58 PM   #21
itliangladiator
Gatekeeper
ESB Full Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 453
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Willie Pep

Speaking of Janiro...wasn't he the guy that fought LaMotta in "Raging Bull"? I remember that in the movie Jake got pissed because his wife said that he was a good looking guy. As already mentioned, I've heard he was quite the playboy in his day.
itliangladiator is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 09:50 AM   #22
quarry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: Willie Pep

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAB5239 View Post
Honestly, you're totally pathetic. I never said anything close to that. We were debating who had the better overall resume and I said it was Langford and backed that position up.
you aint never backed anything up with any kind of proof or statistics your only back-up was your 2 cronies and whenever stats and proof are put right under your nose you trash them as rubbish.. you even claimed Tommy Morrison would be an all time great if he had a better chin. But getting back to this topic you argued that Willie Pep's record of 132-1-1 was pathetic as it was built by fighting nobodies and Langfords record was the greatest in history. yet looking at Langfords record it is nowhere near comparable to Willie Pep's. Langford lost most of the time he fought anyone of worth. you hold Langford in such high regard yet ignore what Langford himself said about Jack Dempsey in that he "thought Dempsey was the greatest fighter he had ever seen"... just last week you trashed Dempsey and claimed he was over rated and not a Top 10 Heavyweight just like you trashed Willie Pep and his record.
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 10:12 AM   #23
burt bienstock
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 7,635
vCash: 500
Default Re: Willie Pep

Quote:
Originally Posted by quarry View Post
you aint never backed anything up with any kind of proof or statistics your only back-up was your 2 cronies and whenever stats and proof are put right under your nose you trash them as rubbish.. you even claimed Tommy Morrison would be an all time great if he had a better chin. But getting back to this topic you argued that Willie Pep's record of 132-1-1 was pathetic as it was built by fighting nobodies and Langfords record was the greatest in history. yet looking at Langfords record it is nowhere near comparable to Willie Pep's. Langford lost most of the time he fought anyone of worth. you hold Langford in such high regard yet ignore what Langford himself said about Jack Dempsey in that he "thought Dempsey was the greatest fighter he had ever seen"... just last week you trashed Dempsey and claimed he was over rated and not a Top 10 Heavyweight just like you trashed Willie Pep and his record.
Well stated, and welcome to the forum .
burt bienstock is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 06:08 PM   #24
JAB5239
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,191
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Willie Pep

Quote:
Originally Posted by quarry View Post
you aint never backed anything up with any kind of proof or statistics your only back-up was your 2 cronies and whenever stats and proof are put right under your nose you trash them as rubbish.. you even claimed Tommy Morrison would be an all time great if he had a better chin. But getting back to this topic you argued that Willie Pep's record of 132-1-1 was pathetic as it was built by fighting nobodies and Langfords record was the greatest in history. yet looking at Langfords record it is nowhere near comparable to Willie Pep's. Langford lost most of the time he fought anyone of worth. you hold Langford in such high regard yet ignore what Langford himself said about Jack Dempsey in that he "thought Dempsey was the greatest fighter he had ever seen"... just last week you trashed Dempsey and claimed he was over rated and not a Top 10 Heavyweight just like you trashed Willie Pep and his record.
As usual you're lying. I never claimed Pep's record was "pathetic" or "built on nobodies". I stated Langford has the better resume of the two and when judging a fighters career you look first and foremost at who he has fought and beat. You insisted that Pep's peak record of 132-1-1 trumps all of this even though the fighters he fought do not hold up to the ones Sam fought on accomplishment or on the lists of others. I asked you this before and I'll ask you again now. Besides Saddler, where are the top 20 fighters all time for any division? Sam has Gans, Blackburn, Walcott, Johnson, Ketchel. O'Brien, Wills, Norfolk and Flowers. Need more proof of their historical rankings? Here's a couple of links.

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Now in to your lie about me "trashing" Dempsey and saying he isn't a top 10 all time heavyweight.

I have him at 11 and have said I have no problem with him being in the bottom half of anyones top 10. But it is a fact that he never fought (outside of Tunney) the two best fighters of his time, Greb and Wills, even though both pursued him vigorously. Can you tell me this ISN'T a fact? Can you tell me he didn't fight several of Grebs left over's and not Greb?

Should I even point out the fact you claimed Langford didn't deserve a shot at Johnson because he had already lost to him and there would be no money in it?
JAB5239 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 08:01 PM   #25
El Bujia
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The dirty dirty.
Posts: 5,371
vCash: 500
Default Re: Willie Pep

Quote:
Originally Posted by quarry View Post
you aint never backed anything up with any kind of proof or statistics your only back-up was your 2 cronies and whenever stats and proof are put right under your nose you trash them as rubbish.. you even claimed Tommy Morrison would be an all time great if he had a better chin. But getting back to this topic you argued that Willie Pep's record of 132-1-1 was pathetic as it was built by fighting nobodies and Langfords record was the greatest in history. yet looking at Langfords record it is nowhere near comparable to Willie Pep's. Langford lost most of the time he fought anyone of worth. you hold Langford in such high regard yet ignore what Langford himself said about Jack Dempsey in that he "thought Dempsey was the greatest fighter he had ever seen"... just last week you trashed Dempsey and claimed he was over rated and not a Top 10 Heavyweight just like you trashed Willie Pep and his record.
Langford's resume is far superior to Pep's. That's pretty much common knowledge. Doesn't detract from Pep in anyway, but Langford beat great fighters in every weight class from Lightweight to Heavyweight.
El Bujia is offline  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-09-2011, 08:04 PM   #26
JAB5239
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,191
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Willie Pep

Quote:
Originally Posted by El Bujia View Post
Langford's resume is far superior to Pep's. That's pretty much common knowledge. Doesn't detract from Pep in anyway, but Langford beat great fighters in every weight class from Lightweight to Heavyweight.
Thank you, that was my point entirely.
JAB5239 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 02:51 AM   #27
quarry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: Willie Pep

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAB5239 View Post
As usual you're lying. I never claimed Pep's record was "pathetic" or "built on nobodies". I stated Langford has the better resume of the two and when judging a fighters career you look first and foremost at who he has fought and beat. You insisted that Pep's peak record of 132-1-1 trumps all of this even though the fighters he fought do not hold up to the ones Sam fought on accomplishment or on the lists of others. I asked you this before and I'll ask you again now. Besides Saddler, where are the top 20 fighters all time for any division? Sam has Gans, Blackburn, Walcott, Johnson, Ketchel. O'Brien, Wills, Norfolk and Flowers. Need more proof of their historical rankings? Here's a couple of links... The link you have put up from Cox corner surprises me as you rubbish every link from the same website which tells of Jack Dempsey being the supreme fighter of the last century as well as any article on Tunney, Holmes or Lewis. you have even been known to claim the historians who wrote those articles are "fools who know nothing"..

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

Now in to your lie about me "trashing" Dempsey and saying he isn't a top 10 all time heavyweight.

I have him at 11 and have said I have no problem with him being in the bottom half of anyones top 10. But it is a fact that he never fought (outside of Tunney) the two best fighters of his time, Greb and Wills, even though both pursued him vigorously. Can you tell me this ISN'T a fact? Can you tell me he didn't fight several of Grebs left over's and not Greb?

Should I even point out the fact you claimed Langford didn't deserve a shot at Johnson because he had already lost to him and there would be no money in it?
your completely ignoring the 12 world champions whom Willie Pep beat when compiling his record of 132-1-1 as well as all the top contenders he also defeated, Langford lost to most of the fighters you listed and lost several times. his wins over Blackburn & Ketchel are very debatable as is the case of why Langford never fought Greb so it works both ways.. you are claiming those 12 world champions Pep beat are nothing but cannon-fodder even tho they was world champions and go on to glorify fighters like Harry Wills who was never a world champion and never would have been a world champion in the opinion of Sam Langford.. the bottom line is you really don't know much if anything about the career of Willie Pep so you would be better served to abstain from talking about a fighter you clearly know nothing about.
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 03:05 AM   #28
JAB5239
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,191
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Willie Pep

Quote:
Originally Posted by quarry View Post
your completely ignoring the 12 world champions whom Willie Pep beat when compiling his record of 132-1-1 as well as all the top contenders he also defeated, Langford lost to most of the fighters you listed and lost several times. his wins over Blackburn & Ketchel are very debatable as is the case of why Langford never fought Greb so it works both ways.. you are claiming those 12 world champions Pep beat are nothing but cannon-fodder even tho they was world champions and go on to glorify fighters like Harry Wills who was never a world champion and never would have been a world champion in the opinion of Sam Langford.. the bottom line is you really don't know much if anything about the career of Willie Pep so you would be better served to abstain from talking about a fighter you clearly know nothing about.
Again you keep lying. I have never called the fighters Pep beat "cannon fodder", but it is a fact that most of Langfords comp rates higher on all time lists than Pep's.

Besides Wills, when Langford was all but totally blind, Langford beat the fighters I listed more often than not.

What was controversial about the Ketchel fight accept Langford carrying him so he could secure a world title shot. And no matter what you say both Ketchel and Blackburn are better than most on Peps resume.

And while we're on the subject, why was Wills never a champion? Oh thats right, Dempsey refused to fight him for nearly his entire reign as champion as well as ducking Greb. You've got some good sound logic there Sonny.

The bottom line that you CANNOT refute is Langford fought and beat better competition. If you would, kindly explain what makes the fighters on Pep's resume over all better than Langfords. I've supplied facts and links, you've shown nothing!
JAB5239 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 08:38 AM   #29
quarry
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
vCash:
Default Re: Willie Pep

Quote:
Originally Posted by JAB5239 View Post
Again you keep lying. I have never called the fighters Pep beat "cannon fodder", but it is a fact that most of Langfords comp rates higher on all time lists than Pep's.

Besides Wills, when Langford was all but totally blind, Langford beat the fighters I listed more often than not.

What was controversial about the Ketchel fight accept Langford carrying him so he could secure a world title shot. And no matter what you say both Ketchel and Blackburn are better than most on Peps resume.

And while we're on the subject, why was Wills never a champion? Oh thats right, Dempsey refused to fight him for nearly his entire reign as champion as well as ducking Greb. You've got some good sound logic there Sonny.

The bottom line that you CANNOT refute is Langford fought and beat better competition. If you would, kindly explain what makes the fighters on Pep's resume over all better than Langfords. I've supplied facts and links, you've shown nothing!
Langford in his prime was losing to fighters with a record of 7-1-0 Langford was defeated on a regular basis throughout his entire career by unknown fighters who had more loses than wins, he managed to fight a draw in 7 of his first 15 fights against fighters who had terrible records, he then could barely string more than 4 or 5 wins together in a row against unknown fighters over the next few years before losing almost every time he fought a name opponent. Sam Langford was a very good fighter but we are talking resume here and Willie Pep holds the record for the greatest ever PRIME record of 132-1-1 which included beating 14 world champions and that incredible record is by far superior to a fighter who repeatedly lost or was KOd by unknown fighters who had more defeats on their resume than wins.. Those two links you posted including the one from Cox Corner surprise me because you are the first to always dismiss any article from that same website written by historians about Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney or any other great fighter from yesteryear but because you have read a book on Sam Langford you set out to trash the achievements and greatness of all other legendary boxers pre1950 and it hurts you to admit that fact that Willie Pep holds the honor of having the greatest prime fight record in boxing history of 132-1-1 which includes defeating 14 world champions.
 Top
Reply With Quote
Old 05-10-2011, 01:32 PM   #30
JAB5239
Champion
East Side Guru
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,191
vCash: 1000
Default Re: Willie Pep

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by quarry View Post
Langford in his prime was losing to fighters with a record of 7-1-0 Langford was defeated on a regular basis throughout his entire career by unknown fighters who had more loses than wins, he managed to fight a draw in 7 of his first 15 fights against fighters who had terrible records, he then could barely string more than 4 or 5 wins together in a row against unknown fighters over the next few years before losing almost every time he fought a name opponent.
Thank you for proving you're no more than a boxrec warrior who doesn't comprehend the meaning of incomplete records and the fact that in 1907 Langford was not a prime fighter who had reached his optimum weight.

Quote:
Sam Langford was a very good fighter but we are talking resume here and Willie Pep holds the record for the greatest ever PRIME record of 132-1-1 which included beating 14 world champions and that incredible record is by far superior to a fighter who repeatedly lost or was KOd by unknown fighters who had more defeats on their resume than wins..
Another boxrec analysis? You haven't provided anything on what makes the fighters Pep fought better than the ones I have named for Gans. You're avoiding that question.
Quote:
Those two links you posted including the one from Cox Corner surprise me because you are the first to always dismiss any article from that same website written by historians about Jack Dempsey, Gene Tunney or any other great fighter from yesteryear but because you have read a book on Sam Langford you set out to trash the achievements and greatness of all other legendary boxers pre1950 and it hurts you to admit that fact that Willie Pep holds the honor of having the greatest prime fight record in boxing history of 132-1-1 which includes defeating 14 world champions.
I've never trashed Tunney or Dempsey. Yunney is one of the 3 greatest light heavyweights in history and Dempsey is an icon. But it is a fact that Tunney fought limited heavyweight comp and that Dempsey avoided Greb and Wills. You can't avoid that any more than you can avoid the fact that Langford fought better comp than Pep. Its why you have steered clear of the thread I started about it.
JAB5239 is online now  Top
Reply With Quote
Reply

Boxing News 24 Forum > Boxing > Classic Boxing Forum

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump





All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:34 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Boxing News 24 Forum 2013