Is there a sane argument that Pep > Saddler?

I imagine if a giant, pink elephant were sitting on your head, you might wonder aloud whatever could be obstructing your view, as it's clearly not the giant, pink elephant's arse. It must be fog or summat.

 

As was already said, post plane crash Pep was not the same and past prime. It was Pep's greatness and determination that allowed him to overcome the severe injuries and win many many more fights. It took a fellow ATG like Saddler to truly beat Pep when Pep was still in good form (still not prime) and it should also be noted that their fights were really foul fested which would only favor Saddler.

This content is protected

 

I like your consistent use of 'summat.' Too many guys don't stick to the basics.

Shows character.

 

I think so.

 

Plenty rate Cerdan over LaMotta. Nothing wrong with it either.

 

Picture says a thousand words.

 

saddler usually won in his big fights, but pep was more consistent through his career

saddler had more power and stopped people all ways, but had moderate handspeed and fouled a lot

plane crash, its cool two greats fought 4 times but everyone from the time says pep wasn't the same.

saddler was more durable, but got hit more

i think saddler was a great fighter, but pep was a bit greater

 

I hope I'm wrong here but is the ts holding pep's post crash success against him?

he did so well not because he was still just as good but because he was just that good. Someone who relies on body, head and foot movement as much as he did would never be the same after breaking their back. He was just too good for all but the most physically imposing of opponents.