Did Willie Pep lack heart?

Good post I agree.

Solid post also. Pretty much agree completely.

I get where you are coming from.

But my thinking is this. Pep at his best form in the series won fairly widely, Saddler at his best won very decisively but Pep was able to follow up most of the form, Saddler was not. which leads me to believe that Pep was surprised first time around and after the 'shock factor' he was able to beat Saddler.

What we have on film shows that Pep has the ability to win and Saddler has the power and brutishness to punish him. But we have to remember Pep was past prime and still winning both fights we have on film.

This leads me to believe if the two met earlier in Pep's reign (but the same Sandy) Pep would have won at least 2-1 in a series, perhaps dropping the first fight but that ain't a dead certainty.

 

Saddler was disqualified in Canada for his usual tactics and he did slam Pep on the canvas (Pep did the same to Saddler as well).

Tyson was nearly DQ'd for an armlock against Francois Botha. Had he actually managed to injure Botha with it, it would have been a clear DQ. Not entirely comparable as Saddler's was less obvious and perhaps unintentional, but still a fight stopping injury caused by a foul.

I don't quite agree with this example. Holyfield's use of the head is less obvious, as Tyson came in with his head as well. It was difficult to say who was responsible for the head clashes for the most part. Perhaps Pedroza-LaPorte is more comparable, as Pedroza was constantly fouling yet went unpunished. However Pedroza may have won the fight regardless, I'm not sure if I can say the same about Saddler.

I'd say it's very misleading. You could say that Saddler dominated Pep in the first fight. You could not say that he dominated him over the series, as the three other bouts were far from domination from either fighter.

Let's say that Ali and Frazier have an unnecessary fourth fight in the 1980's which Ali wins, does that mean he dominated the series? Or Leonard beats Duran a third time in the 90's.

 

Newspaper reports from the time:

"Throw out the bad cuts on Pep's face in their second meeting and the fight is nothing but a one-sided shellacking of Saddler by Pep." It was scored 10-5, 9-6 by most observers.

I believe the third fight was stopped by the ring doctor, not Pep himself, so there's nothing he could do about that. It was a legitimate, fight-ending injury. I see it being more a freak incident than anything. Pep can hardly be blamed for being "fragile" as it can happen to anybody. Up to that point he had been winning nearly every round.

The fourth fight is a more legitimate win for Saddler in my view, even if it was perhaps the ugliest fight captured on film for which the referee received criticism as he let the bout go out of hand. Both fighters were suspended afterwards.

Saddler was heavily criticized for his tactics even if the officials allowed him to get away with them.

"World's dirtiest fighter?"

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...EFAAAAIBAJ&dq=pep saddler butt&pg=1631,779945

 

It was likely caused by Saddler's rough-housing yes, but it doesn't make it any less of a freak incident. I'm sure it was not Saddler's intention to win by breaking his opponent's arm, and if it was, well that'd be quite disgraceful of him. We're talking about boxing here, not an alley brawl or a mixed martial arts fights. Fights are not to be won on armlocks or chokes.

In my opinion, if a fighter suffers an injury and is not allowed to continue by the doctors, the issue remains unclear and should be solved in a rematch as it was. The fourth fight was more so a continuation of the third fight.

There is more information to be taken from the first and fourth fights about Saddler's chances than the third fight, unless you're banking on Saddler injuring a prime Pep after losing nearly every round.

I see the Saddler-Pep series somewhat comparable to the Nelson-Gans, Zivic-Armstrong, Robinson-Fullmer series. The rough and tough fighter may have won the series overall, but this doesn't mean he necessarily rates over the fighter he beat and the performances that the losing fighter put on show that he could have beaten his conqueror.

He was criticized also for not being impossibly tough to beat, especially without the dirty fighting. Pep could win fights regardless of the officiating, but Saddler struggled greatly under strict officiating. He was not the most adaptable fighter, this surely has to be taken into account when measuring his greatness.

 

Willie didn't lack heart, as his career in the big picture showed..he just wanted to be able to fight another day...I read that he once told that other great Willie...Pastrano that is, "to hell with the crowd...they don't pay your hospital bills"...

 

Peps boxing in the third go was, to me, incredible boxing. I practiced the moves I saw him make for months, never could replicate them of course, he was a true boxing master. His bouts with Sandy were textbooks on how a shorter armed fighter can out jab a taller longer armed opponent. The scribes always said the fourth go was ended due to a bad cut.

 

Kostya Tszyu didn't catch much flak for retiring on his stool against Hatton, a much lesser fighter than Sadler, in their first fight. Pep fought the extremely dirty and hard-punching Sadler 4 times, after a plane crash with injuries that were supposed to be career-ending. Unless you want the guy to literally die in the ring, it's hard to accuse him of lacking heart.

 

Prime Pep wins the series. He won't be forced to retire, nor compelled to quit. He'll be better, fresher, and younger.

 

Willie Pep was so good for so long at not getting hit and boxing rings around his opponents, his quit jobs against that monster Saddler in the 3rd and 4th fights are not that surprising.
Saddler was a rough fighter.