Very simple question. Who fought and beat the better overall fighter in his respective career. Vote and discuss.
You haven't seen the half of it yet. He insists Pep's 132-1-1 peak record equates to career resume therefore giving the nod to Pep, while ignoring the fact that Langford beat the better overall fighters of the two. Pep was a great fighter and a great guy (I was lucky enough to meet him and talk to him for about 10 or 15 minutes at Foxwoods casino) but his resume just doesn't stack up.
What is your position on Peps peak record of 132-1-1 in comparison with Sam's overall resume, if you don't mind me asking?
my opinion is that Langford has a better resume, it explains itself really. Everytime I comment on Pep's resume I'm mistakenly informed by posters who are quick to jump to conclusions that I am underrating Pep's resume and that I mustn't know about it, which is silly. I know all about the contenders he beat. He is possibly better than Langford, that much would make for a fine debate, he is one of the best boxers of all time hands down, let's not misconstrue my opinion on Willie Pep the boxer. Compare their resumes and you should come to the same conclusion as me that Langford has a greater resume than Pep.
I think we should refrain from elevating Pep's resume to something higher than we really know it isn't. No disrespect to Willie Pep, maybe the best pure boxer of all time. He has a fine resume, Langford's is on another level.
You and I are on the exact same page concerning this topic. Unfortunately there will be a poster "Quarry" aka "Sonnyboy" who will try and claim different.
I'm used to it by now. It annoys me everytime I have to deal with backlash on my statements regarding Ali and Pep, as if I'm disrespecting Willie Pep or something, it's quite silly.
A resume isn't judged only by who beat the better fighters. It's also judged by longevity, dominance, avoiding losses to lesser opposition etc.