B. Leonard or Willie Pep?

Yep

 

As posted before I saw Pep in his prime,in 1943. Not for nothing was Willie Pep called "The Will Of The Wisp"..The greatest defensive featherweight since Young Griffo..I recall the older boxing writers of the 1940s,placed pep never in number one spot in the featherweights division...Most of them had in no order McGovern,Dixon, Attell,Dundee ahead of Pep, great as Pep was...
To compare Pep against Benny Leonard is not fair to Pep as Willie was a 126 pounder and Benny Leonard was 8 pounds heavier than Pep..
Someone posted that Pep had as good contenders as Benny Leonard had in the lightweight division...Silly statement...Look at these great rivals that Benny Leonard ruled over...
Lew Tendler
Johnny Kilbane
Johnny Dundee
Freddie Welsh
Rocky Kansas easily the equal of Sammy Angott
Charley White
Joe Welling
Soldier Bartfield
Willie Ritchie
Richie Mitchell etc.
Leonard dominated the richest lightweight diuvision in history for SEVEN years...By most boxing experts Leonard was considered as good an all around lightweight, as Ray Robinson was to the welkterweight division years later
Pep vs Leonard,same weight ?I pick Benny Leonard..He could box beautifuly,but ALWAYS in position to throw his deadly combinations...He never was off balance, and was in position to throw powerful and precise shots he was famous for...He kod the tough Rocky Kansas with one punch in their second fight...Leonard was reputed to avoid koing some of his opponents, so he would get a rematch...
I see Leonard boxing with less foot movement then Pep,but JUST as effective, with much much more punching power...
Result, Leonard by late stoppage...

 

I agree with SuzieQ49 on this one. Not necessarily as far as ratings go, but as to who was the more talented boxer.

 

I'm a huge Pep fan, dont think I could find him that high though.

This :good - minus the clearly though.

Nice summary of Pep's style. But I do think you are selling Leonard abit short here, he was a classical ring general. He could controll the ring behind his jab and using lateral movement, when he wanted too he could open up with hard punches and had a superb offence, because of his generalship he was hard to hit.

I agree from a purely boxing standpoint Pep is the better boxer, but when looking at the overall picture, factoring power (only real main attribute Leonard has an advantage.) I think it makes Leonard the more effective fighter.

Excellant again. Pep really did dominate a brilliant era, and whats more is the division was fragmented and Pep unified the division and established himself as the top man.

But Leonard did exactly the same in terms of dominating a division and you could argue he was more dominant (I would not). He also had more sucess at higher weights IMO, Willie did do excellant against Lightweights, just not as much as Leonard IMO.

Lightweight is a deeper division IMO, and Duran, Gans and Williams were all very dominant and superbly great fighters, 'once in a generation' sort of fighters.

At Featherweight I do not think there is as many 'once in a generation' fighters as there was a Lightweight.

From a purely boxing standpoint, or from an effectiveness standpoint?

 

No, That is A FACT. Tell me how many wins over ATG HOFers Pep has above his natural weight, or how many times he earned tries at a heavier title.

THIS is An Opinion. Try either learning the difference, or quitting the bull**** double standards.

This is also an Opinion, and just plain Hyperbole.

No, he isn't "clearly." You can easily find at least 10 other fighters equally if not more accomplished and proven.

Which means you've ignored the superior claims that several other fighters have to that spot.

 

Why not? When did Pep ever prove he could outfight an ATG HOFer at a higher weight, as Leonard did in his first two fights with Jack Britton?

Yes it can, and regularly is.

As does Saddler at 126.

 

I don't see how you can make a case that any single win Pep had is as big as Leonard's over Britton. Pep's biggest win was over an ATG in his own weight class (Saddler), but Leonard beat an ATG in a higher one. Not only that, but Leonard is actually credited with winning his series with Britton.

 

You could argue that Pep beat him arguably way past his prime and at a stylistic disadvantage.

 

But how does that make the quality of opponent any different?

 

Good points but I think My2Sense is right. Britton should give Leonard the edge.

It doesn´t but it makes the quality of the win better.

 

It dosent but it makes the quality of the win better.

I'm playing devils advocate here, I think Britton is the better win, but you could argue that the Sadller win is about equal.

Personally, I think the Saddler having a bad style for Pep is overused, I think it quite clearly shows on film that Pep was able to get the better of them, just got hit with good shots whenhis punch resistance had faded abit, or hurt himself in a clinch.

The first fight was just a great performance by Saddler on an overconfident champion IMO.

:good

 

pep

 

Like most on here, I think highly of both! I would rate Leonard slightly higher...and as a side note I rate Henry Armstrong as the #1 FW, not Pep!

1. SRR
2. Greb
3. Armstrong
4. Langford
5. Charles
6. Louis
7. B. Leonard
8. Ali
9. Pep

Pretty close for me, and certainly don't see how there could be a major controversy depending on your placement??? I do however want to know why Pep rates ahead of Armstrong???

 

Leonard lost to Britton when it mattered.