I don't know about that, because the Norton V Ali third fight was very tentative and not conclusive, as Saddlers were, inside the distance win's, you know what I mean
Head to Head? Saddler got beaten by Humberto Sierra, Phil Terranova in his prime...both were top contenders at 126lb but far from great champions. Pep dismantled both of these fighters. This shows Saddler could be exposed by fighters of magnitudes far below that of Pep's. I think Saddler was a great great fighter, top 5 for sure, but the notion of saddler over a Prime Willie Pep in a h2h sense is ludicrous imo. Willie outboxed Saddler in 3 out of the 4 meetings, despite not having the speed he used too. Saddler stopped him twice in those meetings on corner retirements, but these were controversial foul infested affairs that should have DQ'd one or both fighters. I think pre plane crash, Pep boxes circles around Saddler for a wide decision.
come on man, Robinson was nearly forty far more from his peak than Pep was to his Peak ands that my point he beat all the guys and not Saddler, so he was still to good for everyone except Saddler, thats why I give Saddler his due.
That makes Saddler a foil to Pep's particular brand of boxing (at that stage of his career, anyway), it doesn't make him an overall better fighter.
How was saddler's 3rd win conclusive? He got badly outboxed the first 8 rounds(scored 1 flash kd), was behind on all 3 cards, so he illegally fouled his way and managed to injure pep by gouging his eye with his thumb...so pep quit. in the 4th fight, once again pep clearly outboxed saddler and was well ahead on all 3 cards. Saddler once again threw out the rule book and became extremely dirty, dislocating pep's shoulder with an illegal slam. Pep quit again. Controversial, foul infested affairs, how are these "clean" victories?
but I never said he the overall better fighter, but he still beat Pep 3 time's thats my point, thats just the fact's, you guys are taking it the wrong way, I'm just giving Saddler his due's rather than taking anything away from Pep.
1. So you base it upon age? for one, robinson was 35. not 40 like you claim. Did Sugar Ray Robinson ever suffer a broken back and broken leg in a plane crash, then live to fight again? Pep suffered permanant physical injuries in a life threatening altercation that caused him to lose a good chunk of his speed and reflexes..components that were the nucleus of his whole style. This equates to being clearly past his prime. I think it's fair to say the Pep who fought Saddler was comparable to the Robinson who fought Fullmer. Both still terrific great fighters, but both clearly past there prime.
1. What your doing is your rating Sandy Saddler above Willie Pep. A Ranking which is very controverial, and imo borderline nonsense. 2. Your basing your whole premise on one fighter suffering defeats while clearly past his prime, while not applying that same logic to other fighters.
You said it was irrational to rate Pep higher, would that not go hand in hand with claiming Saddler the better fighter?
So Robinson's old age and Pep's injuries cancel eachother out. Both were past there primes in their OWN way, but both still were capable of beating anyone else in the world. The Robinson of the 40s and the Pep of pre plane crash were a different brand of fighters.
No Robinson lost twice to Paul Pender before the third fight with Fullmer. Thats true but Robinson was light years past his peak whereas Pep was'nt peak but he was still beating everyone at the weight.
So your admitting Pep was past his prime when he fought Saddler, yet still hold these losses against Pep when you rank him all time? How does that work?
No he was'nt at his peak but he was'nt shot, he was showing great form, and as I keep saying beating everyone except Saddler, we're going around in circle's here.
I missed this post sorry, I never said it was irrational to rate Pep higher( stop putting words in my mouth again ) what I said was since Saddler won 3 out of the 4 fights, it's unfair in my opinion to rate Pep ahead Saddler.