Your Hottest Takes:

Well, if you had just followed the thread instead of reacting blindly to every mention of Whyte, you would know that the debate was originally a comparison of The Ring's ranking method to the various sanctioning bodies' methods. My point is that, while not perfect, The Ring does not have as many headscratchers as do the other organizations. I chose the current landscape, where Huni and Wardley are rated over Joshua, for instance, as the main thrust, with past examples like the WBC's mishandling of the Whyte situation to support my claim.

And yes, absolutely, Whyte was screwed. How can you be #1 contender for however many number of years, according to the WBC, without ever being given a chance at the title? It's true Whyte did complain about and declined to compete in WBC-ordered eliminators, and the same was true in reverse. Again, Breazeale and Fury bypassed Whyte for Wilder. However, only Whyte was ever left out of the loop.

https://www.skysports.com/boxing/news/12183/11723640/whyte-vs-rivas-dillian-whyte-questions-tyson-furys-comments-about-possible-fight#:~:text=Whyte vs Rivas: Dillian Whyte questions Tyson Fury's comments about possible fight,-Watch Dillian Whyte&text=Dillian Whyte says Tyson Fury,he would take the fight.&text=Fury initially played down the,should take these comments seriously.&text="He says one thing today,him out in six rounds'.&text="He's always contradicting whatever he,get a bit of traction."

Breazeale was declared a mandatory on the back of a win against the #12 contender. As I recall, he was never above #4 in the rankings.

Meanwhile, the WBC kept Dillian as #1 (their choice), never giving him a look in, even though he was fighting top ten guys in Parker and Chisora. They kept throwing hoop after hoop for Whyte to jump through, such that at one time he was simultaneously WBC silver, diamond, and interim champion, as well as their number one contender. But, wouldn't you know it, he just couldn't close on the coveted (and made-up) "number one mandatory". I guess Eric Molina was unavailable.

It's a joke. The spot to challenge for a world title no longer earned but instead negotiated.

Deontay Wilder, the champion at that time, made, what, two mandatory defenses in his five-year tenure? Is that fair?

The Pulev situation that you're so keen to bring up has been explained more than once. Whyte fought slightly inferior and markedly superior competition for 10x the money with the same stakes- the promise of mandatory. There probably wasn't much confidence in that encounter as a moneymaker, which is precisely the point.

 

I think you feel a lot more strongly about the impact the plane crash had on Pep than I do, Pat. I'm not certain if the plane crash caused Pep injuries from which he never fully recovered. What I do know is that prior to it Pep was 107-1-1 and after it he went 122-10.

What those numbers don't tell is the quality of the opposition Pep beat. The best FW Pep has a winning record against is Chalky Wright, who he went 4-0 with. All 4 x wins before the plane crash. The next best is Sal Bartolo who Pep beat 3 out of 3, again all before the plane crash. He also beat arguably the BW GOAT Manuel Ortiz, borderline ATG LW Willie Joyce & Phil Terranova, all before the plane crash.

Post the plane crash he was clearly still a brilliant fighter holding 1 win out of 4 over Saddler, Paddy DeMarco & Ray Famechon.

Again, I don't know if the plane crash had any impact on Pep's future career (my guess is, brilliant as he still was, he was never quite as good, but it's just a guess), I'm not against the idea that the Saddler from Pep 1 would have beaten any version of Pep (he may well have done, I don't know), but I do know that Pep's win/loss ratio was better pre the plane crash than it was after, against on the whole stronger opposition, Saddler aside. Pep has 122 x wins post the plane crash, but with a few notable exceptions, they're mostly over non world class & very modest opposition.

Sure, Saddler's wins over Pep were for the world title & Charles's over Moore's were non-title fights. I agree Saddler's wins were in more significant fights at the time. If that forms part of your criteria for determining the greatness of the wins, and it wouldn't be unreasonable if so, then fair enough. If your criteria is based on the standard of the vanquished opponent, again not unreasonable, then imo, Charles clearly has the upper hand. As mentioned 9-months after Saddler's 3rd victory over him, Pep was stopped in 6-rounds (3 quicker than Saddler managed) by Tommy Collins. The same Collins who was stopped in 10-rounds, whilst behind on points, vs the 53-49-5 Teddy Davis just 6-fights later. Pep just wasn't an elite fighter any longer. Tbf, Saddler himself was past prime by Pep 4. He went into that fight on a loss and went 15-7 for the remainder of his career, including losing his next 3. These two P4p ATGs, the greatest FWs of all time, just weren't elite fighters anymore by the time of their 4th fight.

Archie Moore was 32-years old for the first Charles fight & 34 for the third. Charles 1 was Moore's 97th professional bout & Charles 3 was his 110th. He wasn't green or pre his physical prime. Yet his 10-year reign lay ahead of him, so neither was he past prime. He was prime for all 3 contests. DQ's & his 3 x losses to Charles aside, Moore went 62-2-3 either side of his series with Charles, with both losses avenged. During that time he beat, in chronological order, Holman Williams, Jack Chase, Curtis Sheppard, Bert Lytell, Jimmy Bivins x 3, Oakland Billy Smith x 2, Bob Satterfield and Harold Johnson.

Yes, Charles only stopped Moore 1 out of 3 and 1 of the other 2 was close. The other was a possible 10-0 shut out. Most importantly of all, when it comes to my own criteria of appraising the historical greatness of wins using the benefit of hindsight, the Moore Charles beat 3 out of 3, wasn't just better than the Pep that Saddler beat for the second, and especially the third, time, he was on a completely different level. By their 4th contest, neither Saddler nor Pep were Saddler & Pep anymore.

To finish, again, my objection wasn't centred around Pep getting injured in the plane crash & never being the same again. My guess is this was the case, but I don't know & don't feel especially strongly about it, I wouldn't have quoted you to disagree on this point. Where I disagree strongly is that Saddler's 3 x wins over Pep were the best 3 wins any one fighter in history holds, assuming the quality of the vanquished opponent at the time of the wins is the determining factor. As referenced above, I don't even think they were the best 3 x wins over the same opponent in history, let alone the 3 x best wins any individual fighter has. Not if the state of the protagonists relative to their respective primes is material to assessing the greatness of the wins.

 

Although I don't always agree on your modern approach to boxing, this is a very good post.

 

This is a very good thread, I'll try get something into it later on.

 

Where we disagree, and where I think you’re misinterpreting something, is to take everything that happened late in Pep’s career — every fighter in history (including Marciano, even though he didn’t lose) faded some later in their careers— and apply it to say Pep was washed or diminished when he fought Saddler.

Before he lost to Collins, Pep beat a top-10 lightweight. I don’t think it stands to reason that Willie is damaged goods if he’s still fighting at that level, and still No. 1 at featherweight well beyond the fourth fight with Sandy.

He had one uncharacteristic KO loss (Collins) and one outright dive (Lulu) after the Saddler series, but where I disagree is you’re attaching those later losses (and ones that followed) and saying ‘well after the plane crash he wasn’t as good.’ But he only lost to Saddler in a span of nearly 60 fights after the plane crash.

You seem to be saying ‘he wasn’t as good when Sandy fought him because he lost to Sandy.’ Because apart from those three losses, he was 56-0 — which is better than his record up to the plane crash if you take out the Saddler fights. (My contention being Sandy and ONLY Sandy could beat him at that time — certainly no one else did.)

Counting later losses after the Saddler series against Pep to say ‘well he wasn’t as good when Sandy fought him because these other guys beat him’ is like saying Ezzard Charles just wasn’t as good when Joe Walcott beat him because Ezz lost to Marciano later.

I’m saying maybe Willie wasn’t quite the same after the fourth fight with Sandy because Saddler whipped the tar out of him and diminished him over the course of their four fights. There’s no evidence that Pep wasn’t still in his prime when he fought Saddler four times — the only evidence being that he lost to Saddler. Because all those guys you mentioned as Willie’s’ best wins pre-crash are also pre-Saddler, and they just weren’t as good as Saddler … or at least they weren’t made for Pep the way Sandy was.

I don’t think Archie Moore was quite at his best yet at the times of the Charles fights. As I noted, he had losses and draws with others around those time, then went on an otherworldly streak after Ezzard. And even if Moore was, he’s not as good of a scalp as Pep because Archie isn’t regarded as the best light heavyweight of all time apart from Charles, at least not by many — he’s behind Ezz and Greb and arguably Spinks and Tunney, maybe even Loughran. Archie was elite, but not as elite as Pep when regarded only in each’s best division.

I respect your opinion but have to disagree, although I’d probably say the three wins by Charles over Moore is the second best three wins over the same person (and among the best three wins period) by any fighter in history.

I appreciate the discussion on a topic about which I have strong feelings — that Saddler > Pep. That’s why it’s my hot take, haha.

Keep posting my friend. I regard your contributions highly and, as you know, often call on your research on guys’ records in and around a weight class often.

 

You are saying: Whyte got screwed even though it was of his own doing by not fighting the eliminators he was asked to fight, regardless of reason.

Dillian is that most special of snowflakes who doesn’t have to do what the sanctioning body requires to get a mandatory. Poor fella. Why should he have to jump through the same hoops other fighters have to jump through — not fair!

And he turned down a title shot vs. AJ, right? So unless he had some ridiculous hard-on for a green belt as opposed to wanting to be a world champion regardless of sanctioning body, there’s another he-did-it-to-himself opportunity to become a world champion lost.

Here’s who screwed Whyte (besides himself) — Hearn. His own promoter was AJ’s promoter, and that promoter clearly did anything and everything to enhance and support AJ come hell or high water, including keeping Whyte as a gatekeeper and failing to take action to get his guy the eliminators needed to get those shots. Fast Car Eddie clearly had a conflict of interest in handling both, and made no bones about which of his heavyweights he was putting first.

 

Thanks. It also says he’s recovered.

I’d like to see if there are any reports talking about how Pep is a shell of his former self and just doesn’t have his fastball anymore due to the crash. If he was looking severely diminished from his previous form, surely some accounts would have noted it.

I think his one win in the Saddler series showed he could be every bit as brilliant as before.

 

My argument isn't Pep was past prime when he fought Saddler, because he lost to Saddler. In fact, I don't consider Pep past prime by Saddler 1 and I'm not certain he was no longer at his absolute peak. I don't know if the Saddler from their first fight would have beaten any version of Pep. I just don't know.

My argument is both Saddler, and particularly Pep, were past prime by their 4th contest. It was the great Saddler’s only win in 5, a streak ended by KO'ing the decidedly average Tommy Collins.
The same Tommy Collins who stopped Pep just 9 months after Saddler 4. I can't accept a Pep 9 months away from losing to Tommy Collins was the same fighter who won 9 out 9 vs Chalky Wright, Sal Bartolo, Willie Joyce and Manuel Ortiz.

Neither can I accept a 34-year old Archie Moore, with 109 fights against amongst the highest quality of opposition in all of boxing history, was pre his physical prime or green. Look at the fighters Moore fought around the Charles series vs those Pep fought around the Saddler series. The difference in quality is stark. Moore won the vast majority of fights aside from those vs Charles around this time, but you can't keep mixing it in that kind of company that frequently, without the odd loss.

My contention is that the Charles from the 3 x Moore fights was greater than the Saddler from the 4 x Pep fights. Charles both ranks higher on all time p4p lists and was prime for all 3 x fights whereas Saddler was clearly past prime by the end of the Pep series. It is also that the Moore that Charles beat was better than the Pep from Saddler 3 and especially Saddler 4, for the reasons I've given.

Yes, your views on this subject are a good example of the thread topic and I appreciate your kind words. You've made your living in professional boxing and I haven't, so im always respectful of your views Pat, even if I debate my own in a robust way - that's just me being me.

 

Wait really? I think he took enough punishment as it was.

 

Maybe trolling,no sane man would recommend that.

 

It is my hottest take. He put up a good effort against Berbick. I even scored it for him. There was still tread on those tires.

 

On a fight-by-fight basis, James Toney wasn't much better than Marlon Starling. Both of them counterpunchers, both of them hard to hit cleanly even though they were always right there in front of you, both of them occasionally guilty of low punch output, both of them capable of beating excellent fighters, both of them capable of shockingly poor performances against beatable opponents.

Toney ballooned up in weight and beat a 40-year-old Holyfield and a cruiser whose name gets mentioned only within the context of Toney's career. Other than that they're basically the same guy.

 

Toney has way better wins

 

He has better names on his resume. Most of the best fighters he beat were in stark decline when they fought Toney.

Best prime fighters he beat were Nunn (and even Nunn had fallen off from his 1987 self) and Johnson, not really much different from Honeyghan and undefeated Breland. And plenty of people think Toney should have lost against Johnson. That's another thing. Toney had a LOT of close fights in his career, won some lost some, whereas Starling never once got the benefit of the doubt in a fight that could have gone either way.