Irrational. Unfair. Not much of a difference in this context. That still doesn't address my other posts because you keep going back to the same basic point we've already discussed. The argument has went around in circles because you kept the wheel spinning. But your (stubborn) opinion is your opinion, so I'll leave it alone.
the reason's why I keep making that point is because you keep saying that Pep beat all these other guys that beat Saddler your just as guilty of keeping the wheel spinning, and my point is that he could'nt get the better of a serie's with Saddler, you can't simply brush that away by saying that Pep was shot it, because he was on a unbelieveable winning streak going in the first Saddler fight and was completely destroyed. he was't at his peak but far from shot.
I never said Pep was shot (now who's putting words in other people's mouths?), I merely questioned your reasoning for irrevocably ranking Saddler higher. Just chalk it up to your own opinion if your reasoning isn't sound, or else concede the point, whichever you prefer.
A prime Whitaker, and the man in my avatar in his prime.... were probably the two closest fighters to being "unbeatable" in thier primes.
It would appear upon re-reading your post that you're confusing me with Suzie Q. Answer this, why is it unfair to rank Pep higher overall because Saddler bested him in their series, given the circumstances they fell under and every other advantage that Pep holds over him, as far as what he accomplished and the opponents he beat? Saddler holds the edge over him in their series, Pep holds multiple advantages over Saddler that even the unfolding of their series out, and then some. And when you throw in the nature of the fights and the stage of their careers they fought, I think it's more than fair to give Pep a clear edge in overall standings. This is regardless of whether or not you consider Saddler a stylistic foil to any version of Pep.
and I told you 20 time, because Saddler beat him 3 out of 4, nothing wrong with that reasoning when Pep was on a unbelieveable long winning streak and was destroyed in the first fight, won the rematch had more quality wins, then lost twice to Saddler again inside the distance. your reasoning isn't sound when you brush a side Pep's winning streak and beating everyone except Saddler.
I brushed that aside? No, I think I made it clear that was one of my main reasons behind ranking Pep higher, actually. His wins over and Saddler's subsequent losses to a set of fighters more or less just proves that Saddler simply had Pep's number stylistically, not that he was a better fighter and should be ranked higher overall because of the outcome of their series. You're the one putting words in other people's mouths to try to make your narrow-minded point.
how is that narrow minded, that makes perfect sense if Pep's whupping every mother****er except Saddler that means Saddler beating a good version Pep not some shot Pep. your the one thats been trying to make your narrow-minded point, I gave my reason for ranking Saddler higher, and you started trying to make my ranking sound unreasonable, I never tryed to make you change your opinion not once, I only defened my ranking,
Great post. I think you should end it right there. If he cannot comprehend this, then he is in over his head. :good
I edited my post, put a bit more into it. Read it and then respond. Make sure to actually respond to what I wrote this time instead of what Suzie Q wrote on the last page, which you've been using as the backbone of your entire argument in pretty much every post. I'll try to make this clear as day one last time. My argument is nothing to do with Pep being shot, past prime, not a good fighter, etc. My argument is that Pep could, and likely should, be ranked higher on a list like this, and overall, based on what else he achieved in his career and how he stands up to the rest of the field in comparison to Saddler. That would remain somewhat valid (admittedly less so) even if they had fought in Pep's prime with similar results.
Regardless, he's been using what you said as his basis behind every point he makes toward me, even when I never bring it up or base my argument on something else entirely. He's becoming a one-trick pony.
1. I said Pep was as past it as the Robinson who fought Fullmer. The Robinson who fought Fullmer was 35-39 years old, but was still capable of defeating the world's top fighters. Robinson was past his prime due to age, pep was past his prime due to injuries. Both lost series to great champions, and both scored one great win out of the 4 meetings while past their best. I think the comparison is a good one. Now I think regarless of the saddler-pep fights, Pep rates the higher of the two. Pep holds the edge in -Resume - Consistency -longevity - Common Opponents - Dominance All of these factors point to pep being rated higher than sandy all time. True or False? 2. Your logic for rating Saddler above Pep is horrible, and you continuing to hide under the bed and avoid El Builja's rebuttal is as shameful as your performance in this thread.