Better P4P: Willie Pep or Pernell Whitaker?

Were there any greater defensive masters? Pernell did his work mostly from the waist up, Willy the same but equally with his legs. As with Burt I saw Willy do things no other fighter has touched and that's on tape after his best days were past.

 

K, I don't want to shatter your illusions, but Willie Pep outclassed a marvelous boxer name Willie Joyce, a lightweight GOOD enough to decision the great Ike Williams TWICE in 1945...
Willie Joyce who I saw ringside was a great stylist who in over
100 bouts against the best lightweights in the teeming 1940s
was NEVER kod...As a featherweight Willie Pep was better than Pernell Whitaker was as a lightweight IMO...To have over 200
fights, boxing almost every 2 weeks against the best of the best, rarely losing is simply astounding...

 

Always great to see your postings Burt! I mentioned before they remind me of the old Ring's Sam Taub and Nat Loubet's columns.

 

Whitaker's better ability wise. Better in defence, speed, jab, strength, conditioning and toughness. Resume wise I prefer Whitaker's and you have to give Whitaker extra props for being unbeatable for so long.

 

I suggest you go back to whoever it was that told you p4p status has anything to do with climbing through the weight divisions and show him you know at least one thing about boxing, by punching him as hard as you can in the mouth. Because he was pulling you're pisser, taking you for a mug.

As for the thread, I think it is an insult to the GREAT Will O The Wisp to even mention someone who was merely very very good like Whitaker in the same book, never mind the same paragraph.

 

And Pep getting roughed up just once (against a lightweight) through 136 fights?

 

And this lightweight Sammy Angott who eked out a disputed decision over the smaller Willie Pep would have clung all over
Pernell like barnacles on a ship...They didn't call him Sammy
"the clutch" Angott for nothing....

 

Oh, dear.

 

Pep was a mover/runner and amazing counter puncher. His evasiveness was mainly due to his totally unique elusive footwork. Pea on the other hand mainly avoided shots from all angles due to his freak reflexes and upper/lower body movement. He also had good feet even though he crossed them a lot. Pea threw a lot of leather in the pocket while avoiding shots coming back. He had more to his defence than Pep but that's not saying his style was more effective for winning fights. I think Pep probably got hit less. Two very different styles of defensive mastery.

Pep is defo the better p4p.

 

Pernell was brilliant I could see an argument for him in this comparison. Two great fighters.

 

Ummm Okay.. So you're saying Pep is better p4p, not because he actually moved up and proved it, but because he probably could have? Nah. I'm not saying Pep wasn't good in a p4p sense, and he did beat men bigger than him.. and very good fighters at that. However, whitaker was just as untouchable at his best weight as Pep's and the clincher for me is Pea actually moved far past his best weight and beat good fighters and won titles. Moving up isn't the be all end all, but it can certainly be a good variable of it.

 

Moving up in weight can most certainly prove how good you are in a p4p sense. It can certainly be an indicator to beat men naturally bigger than you. To even say otherwise, is well, I'll be nice and say silly at best. It certainly can show p4p stature, and in that area Pea trumps Pep and easily.

 

You know Pea was weighing in as a junior middle as a welter right?

And that was sat on his arse by Roger Mayweather?

And that he was naturally bigger than Pep?

And that Pep beat the best fighter from the weight division below him as well as a brilliant lightweight/light welter?